Sonia Bianchetti wrote an article about Olympics. Interesting.
www.soniabianchetti.com/writings.html
www.soniabianchetti.com/writings.html
Sonia Bianchetti about Olympics
- Thread starter gio
- Start date
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2004
Thanks for the link - very informative article.
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2003
Withdrawals from GP events, Euros, 4C's, Nationals, Worlds, and Olympics for illness and injury are documented. Just among the top competitors, Slutskaya became ill in 2004, theoretically because of the pressures of the 2002 CoP-less Olympics and her mother's illness. Plushenko had knee trouble before CoP. Totmianina has had a chronic knee injury since at least 2002. Petrova has had chronic injuries for a number of years. Shen was injured in 2003. Lambiel has had knee problems since 2002 and missed most of the GP seasons where CoP was introduced. Suguri had ankle problems from at least 2002. Carolina Kostner has had back problems for to much of her short career, and she started doing 3/3's during the 6.0 era.
Again, the truism that there are so many more injuries under CoP than under 6.0. Bianchetti provided no statistics or empirical evidence whatsoever for her claim.
On the one hand, Bianchetti complains how jumps in Ladies' skating have been downgraded, but how everyone's getting injured because they "have" to do all of those crazy spins. In another thread I've shown mathematically how a skater could do all L1's and L2's by doing six or seven triples instead of five with all L4's. The skaters don't "have" to attach their blade to their head. (But they do, because they're following Slutskaya, once it became clear that the spins she'd been doing all along were finally getting credit.) But please explain to me how doing seven triples, crappy spirals, and perfunctory spins is somehow more "beautiful" than doing all things well.
Her claim that Zhang/Zhang could have won silver only under CoP, may be true, but not because only under CoP could their presentation scores have been inflated: under 6.0, falls were often, but not always, more costly. (For example, Lambiel fell in his SP in Dortmund, but his pre score kept him in the final six and in contention. Similarly Plushenko's performance in the SLC SP.) Falling on the throw quad did not disqualify Shen/Zhao from the bronze medal in SLC under 6.0, and if B/S and S/P hadn't been in another class altogether, it wouldn't necessarily have stopped them from getting a silver medal. The Russian judge gave T/M higher technical scores in SLC than S/Z, but gave S/Z the presentation score, when their presentation hadn't even made the breakthrough they showed in DC in 2003.
In her book Bianchetti argues that Oksana Bauil was the clear winner in 1994 based on her "passion" that was rewarded in the second mark. Michelle Kwan won the SP in SLC because of the second mark. Inflating the presentation scores to gain the correct placement is not new under CoP; it happened consistently under 6.0. But when the Zhangs are rewarded over her favorites, the "passionate" Shen/Zhao, then it is a problem of the scoring system.
The referee gave the Zhangs extra time in two ways: by not stopping the music and starting the two minutes right after the fall and by allowing the music to start from the beginning, giving them additional time to recover. If the music had started just before the passage where the fall had taken place, and the Zhangs took extra time to recover, the judges were responsible for deducting for seconds missed, and the referree would have been well within bounds to announce this to every judges, like Hoffmann did when Kwan went over the time limit in Dortmund. However, because of the rules they were prohibited from starting until after the fall music, and they had no choice but to wait until the appropriate place in their music.
Why are errors or discretionary calls by referees a CoP issue? The ISU has been loathe to address any errors at all publicly, except to use the SLC pairs fiasco to implement CoP, which they had developed secretly and had in their back pocket.
Under 6.0, there was no limitation on jumps, jump combinations, or jump combos in the free skate except for the Zayak rule. Repeat: there was no limitation on jumps, jump combinations, or jump combos in the free skate except for the Zayak rule. CoP sets a maximum number of jump elements and dictates that if the maximum is done, one must be an "axel-type jump." Under 6.0, there was no penalty for frontloading. Repeat, under 6.0, there was no penalty for front-loading. The difficult jumps and combinations were done at the beginning of the program, with one left for the end, then as now. At least CoP has a bonus incentive for jumps and throws landed in the second half of the program. Not quite a penalty, but an opportunity cost for front-loading.
Under 6.0 it was up to the judges' discretion to say whether a six-triple two double program was the same, more difficult, and less difficult as a seven triple program. For people who think that randomly throwing out three judges' scores is an issue, how about having each judge making ranking decisions secretly in his/her head, with no evidence that the same logic, difficulty assessment, and relative worth has been used for each skater?
Bianchetti described in her book what she considers a passionate performance: Shen/Zhao in Washington, Baiul, Sale/Pelletier. She may not have thought Buttle's performance passionate, which is fine, and her heart might be breaking having to watch him or the nervous, pain-ridden Lambiel skate. Slutskaya gave a breakout performance in Moscow last year; she succumbed to nerves and perhaps a mild relapse of her illness and couldn't reach the same heights in Torino, both under CoP. My heart didn't break from watching Rochette's fabulous free skate, Sarah Meier's 8th place performance, Liu's 11th place finish, despite being underrated, Takahashi's gallant try, Totmianina/Marin's beautiful free skate, Delobel/Schoenfelder's fabulous free dance, among many other performances that weren't marred by Olympic pressure, not the scoring system. It's too bad that her agenda prevented her from seeing all the things of beauty that were right there on the ice in Palavela.
Again, the truism that there are so many more injuries under CoP than under 6.0. Bianchetti provided no statistics or empirical evidence whatsoever for her claim.
On the one hand, Bianchetti complains how jumps in Ladies' skating have been downgraded, but how everyone's getting injured because they "have" to do all of those crazy spins. In another thread I've shown mathematically how a skater could do all L1's and L2's by doing six or seven triples instead of five with all L4's. The skaters don't "have" to attach their blade to their head. (But they do, because they're following Slutskaya, once it became clear that the spins she'd been doing all along were finally getting credit.) But please explain to me how doing seven triples, crappy spirals, and perfunctory spins is somehow more "beautiful" than doing all things well.
Her claim that Zhang/Zhang could have won silver only under CoP, may be true, but not because only under CoP could their presentation scores have been inflated: under 6.0, falls were often, but not always, more costly. (For example, Lambiel fell in his SP in Dortmund, but his pre score kept him in the final six and in contention. Similarly Plushenko's performance in the SLC SP.) Falling on the throw quad did not disqualify Shen/Zhao from the bronze medal in SLC under 6.0, and if B/S and S/P hadn't been in another class altogether, it wouldn't necessarily have stopped them from getting a silver medal. The Russian judge gave T/M higher technical scores in SLC than S/Z, but gave S/Z the presentation score, when their presentation hadn't even made the breakthrough they showed in DC in 2003.
In her book Bianchetti argues that Oksana Bauil was the clear winner in 1994 based on her "passion" that was rewarded in the second mark. Michelle Kwan won the SP in SLC because of the second mark. Inflating the presentation scores to gain the correct placement is not new under CoP; it happened consistently under 6.0. But when the Zhangs are rewarded over her favorites, the "passionate" Shen/Zhao, then it is a problem of the scoring system.
The referee gave the Zhangs extra time in two ways: by not stopping the music and starting the two minutes right after the fall and by allowing the music to start from the beginning, giving them additional time to recover. If the music had started just before the passage where the fall had taken place, and the Zhangs took extra time to recover, the judges were responsible for deducting for seconds missed, and the referree would have been well within bounds to announce this to every judges, like Hoffmann did when Kwan went over the time limit in Dortmund. However, because of the rules they were prohibited from starting until after the fall music, and they had no choice but to wait until the appropriate place in their music.
Why are errors or discretionary calls by referees a CoP issue? The ISU has been loathe to address any errors at all publicly, except to use the SLC pairs fiasco to implement CoP, which they had developed secretly and had in their back pocket.
Under 6.0, there was no limitation on jumps, jump combinations, or jump combos in the free skate except for the Zayak rule. Repeat: there was no limitation on jumps, jump combinations, or jump combos in the free skate except for the Zayak rule. CoP sets a maximum number of jump elements and dictates that if the maximum is done, one must be an "axel-type jump." Under 6.0, there was no penalty for frontloading. Repeat, under 6.0, there was no penalty for front-loading. The difficult jumps and combinations were done at the beginning of the program, with one left for the end, then as now. At least CoP has a bonus incentive for jumps and throws landed in the second half of the program. Not quite a penalty, but an opportunity cost for front-loading.
Under 6.0 it was up to the judges' discretion to say whether a six-triple two double program was the same, more difficult, and less difficult as a seven triple program. For people who think that randomly throwing out three judges' scores is an issue, how about having each judge making ranking decisions secretly in his/her head, with no evidence that the same logic, difficulty assessment, and relative worth has been used for each skater?
Bianchetti described in her book what she considers a passionate performance: Shen/Zhao in Washington, Baiul, Sale/Pelletier. She may not have thought Buttle's performance passionate, which is fine, and her heart might be breaking having to watch him or the nervous, pain-ridden Lambiel skate. Slutskaya gave a breakout performance in Moscow last year; she succumbed to nerves and perhaps a mild relapse of her illness and couldn't reach the same heights in Torino, both under CoP. My heart didn't break from watching Rochette's fabulous free skate, Sarah Meier's 8th place performance, Liu's 11th place finish, despite being underrated, Takahashi's gallant try, Totmianina/Marin's beautiful free skate, Delobel/Schoenfelder's fabulous free dance, among many other performances that weren't marred by Olympic pressure, not the scoring system. It's too bad that her agenda prevented her from seeing all the things of beauty that were right there on the ice in Palavela.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2004
Perhaps, I wouldn't describe Buttle as "passionate", but I wouldn't devalue the quality of spirit in his skates. He hasn't been my favorite, but -in watching his performances - he seems to be really putting himself into them. I find that to be admirable and pleasing to watch. Johnny- who can be more of the artiste - doesn't seem to have that quality or it comes and goes like a will o the wisp. I just bought Bianchettii's book because 1. she does seem to have some interesting things to say and 2. it is a skating book that I haven't bought yet ( it's a disease, I tell you).
Note: It is ironic that she values passion so much because I would say that was definitely one of Cranston's defining qualities. He is not a fan of Bianchetti at all!
Note: It is ironic that she values passion so much because I would say that was definitely one of Cranston's defining qualities. He is not a fan of Bianchetti at all!
Hockeyfan228
Bianchetti is right. While you do make a case that the 6.0 system wasn't perfect, you really don't make a case FOR CoP. The reality is that skating is declining as a sport, but especially as an ART. Sasha Cohen was the only one (besides Matt Savoie) who made any artistic impression in my view. I certainly don't think Shizuka or Buttle were comprable, and definitely not Plushenko. But why should Plushenko try when it is no longer the trump card it once was? He doesn't need to, that's why. To give any credit for a rotated jump that isn't landed is laughable and only encourages skaters to incorporate jumps they aren't even close to landing in practice, or at the very best, rarely. In any other sport, this kind of nonsense wouldn't happen. Like a hockey puck landing near the net, but not in it. Sure, that would happen-I don't think so.
Bianchetti is right. While you do make a case that the 6.0 system wasn't perfect, you really don't make a case FOR CoP. The reality is that skating is declining as a sport, but especially as an ART. Sasha Cohen was the only one (besides Matt Savoie) who made any artistic impression in my view. I certainly don't think Shizuka or Buttle were comprable, and definitely not Plushenko. But why should Plushenko try when it is no longer the trump card it once was? He doesn't need to, that's why. To give any credit for a rotated jump that isn't landed is laughable and only encourages skaters to incorporate jumps they aren't even close to landing in practice, or at the very best, rarely. In any other sport, this kind of nonsense wouldn't happen. Like a hockey puck landing near the net, but not in it. Sure, that would happen-I don't think so.
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2003
I don't have to make a case for CoP. I've pointed out why I think that what Bianchetti blames on CoP existed under 6.0. Which, by definition, means that CoP isn't the cause of it.
Most of what she writes about in her book happened long before and leading up to SLC. In the pre-CoP era. If she wants to complain about the Cinquanta era -- politics, making deals with Federations to keep his position, backhanded procedural changes, cronyism, etc. -- then for me she loses credibility by trying to blame it on CoP.
Most of what she writes about in her book happened long before and leading up to SLC. In the pre-CoP era. If she wants to complain about the Cinquanta era -- politics, making deals with Federations to keep his position, backhanded procedural changes, cronyism, etc. -- then for me she loses credibility by trying to blame it on CoP.
Last edited:
Good post, but one correction.
I assume you mean jumps, jump combinations, or jump sequences.
Starting in the mid-90s (sorry, I don't have the exact year handy, there was an official limit of three combinations or sequences.
Here's the rule from the 2000-01 USFSA rulebook, with the second sentence new for that year:
hockeyfan228 said:
I assume you mean jumps, jump combinations, or jump sequences.
Starting in the mid-90s (sorry, I don't have the exact year handy, there was an official limit of three combinations or sequences.
Here's the rule from the 2000-01 USFSA rulebook, with the second sentence new for that year:
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
Hockeyfan, I would be interested to know what you think of Ottavio Cinquanta's reaction to the kind of charges that Mrs.Biancheti brings. He seems to agree that the skating perfomances are not up to snuff these days, but blames it on member federations who did not develop the talent to cope with the New Judging System:
Cinquanta says: "The ISU can produce administration, a system of judging, can organize competitions, but we don't produce the skaters. So if the member federations, the national federations, they are unable to make available talent, it is not the fault of the ISU. . . . As a general consideration today, the programs of the skaters in figure skating today are much, much more difficult than before, and in the past, in general. But I repeat, to not have the talent is another story."
Cinquanta says: "The ISU can produce administration, a system of judging, can organize competitions, but we don't produce the skaters. So if the member federations, the national federations, they are unable to make available talent, it is not the fault of the ISU. . . . As a general consideration today, the programs of the skaters in figure skating today are much, much more difficult than before, and in the past, in general. But I repeat, to not have the talent is another story."
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2003
Thank you for the correction!gkelly said:
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2003
Mathman said:
When it first launched, with the possibility of making over $100K for three GP wins and a GPF championship, there was incentive for a relatively small subset of skaters to skate CoP-friendly programs, and the Canadians, in addition to having created the system, did what CBC commented upon during the Olympic speedskating pursuit broadcast: they embrace new sports/systems and try to get in on early good results. For example, Canada trained their Men's and Women's pursuit teams long before the Olympics, hoping to win both races with a combination of skill and strategy. (They won silver in both.) Skate Canada sponsored seminars for skaters, coaches, and potential judges. Many Canadian skaters were lucky to have David Wilson, who worked with many over years, and whose programs already had the basic building blocks for CoP, and they had the example of Emmanuel Sandhu, who under 6.0 was doing great spins and footwork, followed by Buttle who needed the same to compete with Sandhu at Canadian Nationals.
But Skate Canada was an exception. The Russian Federation was said to be trying to keep the ISU from enforcing CoP in Moscow; they objected to a "test" system being used at their first, showcase Worlds. When that didn't work, they encouraged this year's rule changes that favored their gold-medal favorites. (Quid pro quo? Or making lemonade out of lemons?) The USFS seems to have its head in the sand until this year, stating that their hands were tied for Nationals last year because the ISU hadn't adopted the system officially. After two years of acting as if CoP was a bad hangover, they were suddenly with the program, with less than a year to spare. From Weir's reports, USFS came down hard on his free skate, but unless he's only telling part of the story, they focused on the levels of elements, instead of the missing jumps. (Since he did only eight of eleven allowed jumps, doing all of the allowed jumps would have made up for lower levels in spins and footwork. Penny wise, pound foolish.) While there were issues in how the levels were described and interpreted and rule changes and adjustments over the last three years, CoP is not rocket science and is written in English, and there was ample feedback to the programs under the system and time to adjust before the next competition.
Any new incentive system and any new scoring system that expects higher difficulty takes time to adjust to. It happens every post-Olympic year in gymnastics, when the code is redone, and this year, with the new scoring system. Regardless of how he values the GP series, CoP was only widely accepted for about a year an half, after it was was used for Euros, 4C's, and Worlds in Moscow. I think Cinquanta's reaction is part of his agenda to justify removing power from the Federations by making them appear incompetent for not playing the game from the beginning, which would have given all skaters most of an entire Olympic cycle to adjust to the system. I also think he wanted this to be a "showcase" Olympics for CoP, when it was just a reglar 'ol Olympics, with nerves rearing their ugly heads.
I don't agree that three years is enough time to adjust and to have a completely creative approach to the elements, even for those who embraced the system from the beginning. I think that will take a few more years in any case. Now, if every dance team gets an L4 on the spin because there's a skate-to-the-head, skate-to-the-head will become shorthand for high difficulty, in spite of the variations that would qualify for the same level, just as many skaters tried to emulate Kwan's change of edge spiral, where most of the attempts were just as feeble and just as tedious to watch. Once coaches and choreographers learn what balance is best for the program overal, they will be able to make the trade-off between one extra jump and two-three complicated spins and begin to focus on how to make more unique programs.
I can't argue with him for saying that he did his job: the ISU gave everyone a system, equipment, and training, and hired the ISU technical staff. The ISU doesn't train athletes or choreograph programs. They don't even hire the judges. I do think he's wrong about the quality of the Olympics.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2003
Ah, but Jeff Buttle is the poster-boy for CoP. Almost literally: there was a report that the ISU was using a tape of his Naqoyqatsi as a choreographic standard, even though he was an active competitor and this could have given him an unfair advantage with the judges.
I would think that for Bianchetti, this would disqualify him from being "passionate."
I would think that for Bianchetti, this would disqualify him from being "passionate."
A bit off topic I suppose, but do you really think there's any worth to us (fans) trying to let our federations know our stance on COP? Bianchetti makes many valid points... ones that should be addressed. But does anyone other than us really care? Clearly, Speedy doesn't.
I love skating and will continue to be a rabid fan... but all these sub-par programs this season have really worn my enthusiasm down. And yes, I blame COP for much of it. I don't think it should be aborted... but it does seriously need to be revised.
One thing that can't be blamed on COP is the number of miserable music selections made this year-- another big factor in the lame programs of this season.
I love skating and will continue to be a rabid fan... but all these sub-par programs this season have really worn my enthusiasm down. And yes, I blame COP for much of it. I don't think it should be aborted... but it does seriously need to be revised.
One thing that can't be blamed on COP is the number of miserable music selections made this year-- another big factor in the lame programs of this season.
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2003
I agree with Waxel's complaint about the lame music choices this year. I was disappointed by the number of skaters who chose to use standard music warhorses such as Carmen, Turandot, Samson & Delilah, Swan Lake, The Four Seasons, The Feeling Begins, Rachmaninoff's Concerto No. 2, and, especially, Romeo & Juliet. There was very little originality shown in musical selection--probably because it was the Olympic season, and no one wanted to take risks. I can understand that, but it made for a dull set of programs.
The trouble with skating to a classic is that unless the skater and their choreographer are extremely good, all they usually succeed in doing is making knowledgeable audience members remember how much better previous skaters did with the same music. A prime example of that this year was Chait and Sakhnovksy's Bolero program. It wasn't bad, but it wasn't particularly good, either. As a result, instead of enjoying their skating, I instead found myself mentally comparing them (unfavorably) with Torvill and Dean's performance to this music.
The same thing happened with Kostner's and Lambiel's performances to The Four Seasons. Because both were uninspired performances, I found myself thinking back to Usova/Zhulin's classic program to this music back in 1991-1992, instead of enjoying Lambiel or Kostner.
The trouble with skating to a classic is that unless the skater and their choreographer are extremely good, all they usually succeed in doing is making knowledgeable audience members remember how much better previous skaters did with the same music. A prime example of that this year was Chait and Sakhnovksy's Bolero program. It wasn't bad, but it wasn't particularly good, either. As a result, instead of enjoying their skating, I instead found myself mentally comparing them (unfavorably) with Torvill and Dean's performance to this music.
The same thing happened with Kostner's and Lambiel's performances to The Four Seasons. Because both were uninspired performances, I found myself thinking back to Usova/Zhulin's classic program to this music back in 1991-1992, instead of enjoying Lambiel or Kostner.
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2003
You have to realize that a skater who chooses 'warhorse music' for the first time, it could be difficult to feel comfortable with. That might explain Kostner and Lambiel. Let's see how they perform in Calgary with a little more familiarity under their belts. They both have excellent choreographic routines.
Skaters who use music they've skated to before do have comfort in its familiarity. That certainly takes away from a piece of the jitters.
The warhorses are ok with me if the skaters do something special with them. I sat up when Evan took the role of Don Jose in Carmen and not the Toreador. Yes, it could have been better, but he did take the risk. The ladies continue in the vain of Kat with batting their eyelashes in the title role - yeah, yeah, I've seen that before. The assortment of R&Js were prevelant among the skaters this past season. Some were better than others but they too, got me somewhat weary of their familiar tunes. If a skater skates clean throughout the routine while Turandot is playing, there will be a medal because of the big swell in the tune towards the end. Can't fail. Hats off to Joannie Rochette for coming up with a nice melody of French tunes. Refreshing for me.
Some old warhorses were not so prevalent this past season (unless they were used by much lower tier skaters which I didn't see). With several top ladies using the tried and true, Irina was at a disadvantage in her comfort zone of familiar music. Too late to change now, but I think had she used the warhorse, Don Quixote, she may have done better - but that's just speculation.
As I said at the beginning, I will tire easily of warhorse music unless the skater can bring a fresh look to his/her routine. (Few do, imo)
Joe.
Skaters who use music they've skated to before do have comfort in its familiarity. That certainly takes away from a piece of the jitters.
The warhorses are ok with me if the skaters do something special with them. I sat up when Evan took the role of Don Jose in Carmen and not the Toreador. Yes, it could have been better, but he did take the risk. The ladies continue in the vain of Kat with batting their eyelashes in the title role - yeah, yeah, I've seen that before. The assortment of R&Js were prevelant among the skaters this past season. Some were better than others but they too, got me somewhat weary of their familiar tunes. If a skater skates clean throughout the routine while Turandot is playing, there will be a medal because of the big swell in the tune towards the end. Can't fail. Hats off to Joannie Rochette for coming up with a nice melody of French tunes. Refreshing for me.
Some old warhorses were not so prevalent this past season (unless they were used by much lower tier skaters which I didn't see). With several top ladies using the tried and true, Irina was at a disadvantage in her comfort zone of familiar music. Too late to change now, but I think had she used the warhorse, Don Quixote, she may have done better - but that's just speculation.
As I said at the beginning, I will tire easily of warhorse music unless the skater can bring a fresh look to his/her routine. (Few do, imo)
Joe.
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2003
I do agree, Joesitz, that the warhorses can still work if a skater does something special with them.
For example, Sasha is such a talented skater that she can, on occasion, take even the most jaded and tired music and make it sing again. I remember when she skated to Rachmaninoff No. 2 for her 2003 long, it was the first program to that music that had really worked for me since Mishkutenok/Dmitriev used it in 1994. The combination of Sasha's dramatic skating and Tarasova's virtuoso choreography made the music feel fresh again. Same thing happened with Sasha's Malaguena short, also from 2003.
This year, I agree that Evan used Carmen pretty well. And, I must admit, I also loved Navka/Kostomarov's Carmen free dance. The music is so well known, but I thought that Zhulin choreographed the dance perfectly to take advantage of every beat and flourish. And I personally liked the dancers' interpretation of it--to me, they caught the dark, dynamic feeling of the music without overemoting and going over the top with their presentation.
Yes, a great skater and choreographer can make any music work. The problem is when you pair an incredible, classic piece with tired, uninspired skating. The disparity is just so striking.
For example, Sasha is such a talented skater that she can, on occasion, take even the most jaded and tired music and make it sing again. I remember when she skated to Rachmaninoff No. 2 for her 2003 long, it was the first program to that music that had really worked for me since Mishkutenok/Dmitriev used it in 1994. The combination of Sasha's dramatic skating and Tarasova's virtuoso choreography made the music feel fresh again. Same thing happened with Sasha's Malaguena short, also from 2003.
This year, I agree that Evan used Carmen pretty well. And, I must admit, I also loved Navka/Kostomarov's Carmen free dance. The music is so well known, but I thought that Zhulin choreographed the dance perfectly to take advantage of every beat and flourish. And I personally liked the dancers' interpretation of it--to me, they caught the dark, dynamic feeling of the music without overemoting and going over the top with their presentation.
Yes, a great skater and choreographer can make any music work. The problem is when you pair an incredible, classic piece with tired, uninspired skating. The disparity is just so striking.
I for one, have grown weary of ersatz latin and middle eastern themes with no true musical integrity. Just because something may sound "exotic" doesn't mean it's good. I realize many people enjoy these styles of music--- but one more tacky tango and I'll put a fork in my eye.
Then you've got Eman's tick-tock "masterpiece" (!). I guess I'll give him a nod for trying something original... but again, no true musical merit.
With the entire history of musical literature to chose from... you juat can't tell me ALL the compelling selections have been exhausted!
Then you've got Eman's tick-tock "masterpiece" (!). I guess I'll give him a nod for trying something original... but again, no true musical merit.
With the entire history of musical literature to chose from... you juat can't tell me ALL the compelling selections have been exhausted!
Which ones are tacky?
Just wondering which tangos you consider tacky? Belbin & Augusto, Silverstein and O'Meira plus Matthews and Zavozin all did tangos for their Free Dance. Any of them tacky in your opinion?
Just trying to get a bead on where you are coming from, not looking to shoot darts at you. Do you mind expounding?
Linny
Just wondering which tangos you consider tacky? Belbin & Augusto, Silverstein and O'Meira plus Matthews and Zavozin all did tangos for their Free Dance. Any of them tacky in your opinion?
Just trying to get a bead on where you are coming from, not looking to shoot darts at you. Do you mind expounding?
Linny
Similar threads
