Sight or feel?

[David Bailey]

Inspired by the "connection" thread, which sense is most important to you in connecting with your partner?

I'm (clearly) in the "touch" camp, but I'd be interested in what others felt.

[ducasi]

Physical connection is too profound to just say "touch".

Sometimes the visual connection can overwhelm the physical connection in intensity, which can make for a mind-blowing dance.

Hard to say which is most important. Physical connection is very important, but the intensity possible in a visual connection is something you wouldn't want to miss out on.

Hmm... Probably touch wins with its essentiality, but I reserve the right to change my mind once I work out what it's actually thinking.

[Wouldbe]

Not sure who I'm agreeing with here, but for me it's the not-quite-touch. There's something about a mambo move, for example, where your footwork is in perfect synchronicity, without the knee-bumping, tug-of-war effect... you just know. Gives me that tingly feeling. I think I'd have exactly the same amount of enjoyment out of a dance where there was no physical contact, only close proximity, eye contact (very powerful) and telekinesis. (We'd look pretty stupid doing the catapult this way, though!) Does that make me a sight-biased person, neither touch nor sight, or a weirdo to keep as far away from as possible?!

[Caro]

being slowly landing from a couple of fantastic tangos, I have to say that 'touch' wins for me, a hundred times.
Sight can be extremely important too and add another dimension to a dance, but I can have a great connection with my partner with no sight involved (say in a tango close embrace, or if I just close my eyes), whereas the opposite is not quite so true - well, not in a dance context anyway.

[Ghost]

I can have a great connection with my partner with no sight involved (say in a tango close embrace, or if I just close my eyes), whereas the opposite is not quite so true - well, not in a dance context anyway.
I'm curious about this - are you saying that if you're being led slowly without physical contact you don't have a great connection? Or if you're both "playing" / improvising but without touching?

EDIT: To answer DJ's question - it depends on the person I'm dancing with.

[Caro]

I'm curious about this - are you saying that if you're being led slowly without physical contact you don't have a great connection?


I'm saying that connection won't be as great as one I can get through 'touch'. It just can't beat it, in my experience... but I'm happy to be proven wrong :whistle:

Also maintaining that sort of connection (i.e. being lead through 'sight' only) is a lot more hard work than maintaining a great 'touch' connection - but that might be due to lack of practice, I admit. And there's also more interfering stuff to worry about, like balance (depending on what's 'sight' lead here, thinking of a tango 'invitation' exercise in particular - but generally speaking sight leading will lead slower 'moves' or changes of direction than normal leading, hence the balance issue).

[spindr]

"Once more with looking", or "Once more with feeling"?
Surely it's obvious, you need to dance with feeling :)

SpinDr

[Lynn]

being slowly landing from a couple of fantastic tangos, I have to say that 'touch' wins for me, a hundred times.
Sight can be extremely important too and add another dimension to a dance, but I can have a great connection with my partner with no sight involved (say in a tango close embrace, or if I just close my eyes), whereas the opposite is not quite so true - well, not in a dance context anyway.:yeah: I mostly dance AT with my eyes closed, which gives me the opportunity to focus the rest of my senses on the connection.

I've done the 'no contact' thing which obviously relies on sight, and the intensity of gaze thing (which I'm hopeless at).

Ideally though - both please!

[2Tone]

Most Definetley Touch !!!

[fletch]

Most Definetley Touch !!!

Welcome to the family

Lovely to see you yesterday :flower:

welcome to he forum have fun and keep posting :clap:

[Frankie_4711]

I voted 'touch' immediately, without hardly even thinking about it, because I love to dance with my eyes closed - not with just anyone, and obviously can't do it on a busy dancefloor - but it makes the whole experience so different ...

Then I withdrew my vote because I started thinking about the sight part, and how it can add so much to the dance ...

So now I'm just confused!:confused:

I think they are both important, but I'm going to go back and re-vote for 'touch', because I think you can have a lovely dance without the 'sight', but a dance needs to have that 'touch' element (or lack of it as Wouldbe described!) for it to work, so that is more important.

[Trouble]

a firm but deliberate and informative touch can send tingles all down my spine regardless of what or who im looking at. :D :awe:

For example connection is made for me when you can be guided by a hand on your back into sways, backsteps, forward steps and all from the finger touches on the small of your back or just below your shoulders. A lead that can do this is truly special and there arn't many i can tell you that.! :rolleyes:

[Lory]

So now I'm just confused!:confused:

I think they are both important, but I'm going to go back and re-vote for 'touch',

I'm NOT going to vote, because to me, some dances, touch is definitely most important but in others, sight is...

In fun and cheeky dances, a smile, a wink, a raised eyebrow or even poking your tongue out, is what makes the dance! Its seeing eachothers facial expressions that makes it fun!

In other dances, such as Tango, it's all about the feel!

But I think the true skill, is being able to change your lead/follow to adapt to the mood of the music! :clap:

Edit... You can have an intense and passionate dance, with or without sight but I don't think you can have a 'fun' dance without sight!

[Freya]

Difficult one!

I think I'd have to go for touch, since someone can Touch you with out actually Touching :wink: Am I just being Pedantic now? :rolleyes:

In fact thinking bout it! Touch is definately the way to go! Touch can be as light as a fingertip grazing the skin or as intense as an embrace! Are we still talking bout Dancing here? :wink:

[StokeBloke]

For me sight is more important than touch. By watching your partner carefully you can adapt and alter your lead/moves/style to blend and compliment with them. It also allows you to play with your follow far better. I'm sure I'll change my mind again by the end of the day.... but the aye's have it :D

[Freya]

Edit... You can have an intense and passionate dance, with or without sight but I don't think you can have a 'fun' dance without sight!

:yeah: Actually I'm with Lory on this one!

:tears: Do I have to Choose? I can't! I'm greedy I want everything!

[Tiggerbabe]

I can't chose either. I'm big on touch, but one move that sends tingles down my spine (every time, without fail :blush: ) is all in the eyes :drool:

[SilverFox]

I always take a good look before having a feel....:yum:

[Feelingpink]

I voted for touch ... but with AT, unfortunately I seem to follow better if I keep my eyes open & watch the guy's chest.

[Caro]

Edit... You can have an intense and passionate dance, with or without sight but I don't think you can have a 'fun' dance without sight!

not true! Again, I'll take my example in tango, when the man manages to take control of your legs he can do some pretty fun stuff with them... like wrapping one around his own leg (how cheeky is that?), making one of your leg 'caress' the other in an up and down motion (think weight on right leg which is straight and left calf caressing the outside of the right leg from the ankle to the thigh... I'm sure it has a proper name, but I don't know it -rep to whoever can enlighten me :wink: - and that's pretty cool too). There can be no eye contact involved, but you can be sure that any of those will bring a big smile on my face! And I'd be surprised if the guy isn't smiling too (and I have photographic evidence to support that!)

But I agree to the stuff you said Lory, i.e. looks, winks, tongue out :yum: will definately bring another dimension to the dance...

[Lynn]

Edit... You can have an intense and passionate dance, with or without sight but I don't think you can have a 'fun' dance without sight!But if it was one or the other - would you rather have a dance with your eyes closed but touch, or sight, but no touch at all. I think you need to think of it that way to make a proper comparison.

Ideally both working together is what we want of course.

[ducasi]

not true! Again, I'll take my example in tango [...]
Can we stick to talking about Modern Jive on this forum, thanks? :flower:

[David Bailey]

Can we stick to talking about Modern Jive on this forum, thanks? :flower:
That's crazy talk, that is... :na:

[Caro]

Can we stick to talking about Modern Jive on this forum, thanks? :flower:

I'd happily do so Ducasi, but the thread wasn't specific about modern jive - it asked what was more important to get a connection with a partner. I took that in the broader sense of connection while dancing and I think (thought?) that using examples from other dances would just help us to explore the topic more broadly. And quite frankly, I think we'd miss an awful lot on the connection topic if we were trying not to draw on our experiences in other forms of dance, blues, wcs and tango are my examples but I'm just as interested to listen to people who have a lindy, ballroom, salsa or whatever background :flower: .

So do we need to be clear now in the thread starter if we want to talk about dance in general, or just MJ? :confused:

[Gadget]

Touch.

If it were sight, then people would be more prone to judging who they danced with based on age, looks, attire, hairstyle,...
People would only want to be seen to dance with the "beautiful people" {:tears:}...
The dance would be taught on the basis of what looks good rather than proper lead and follow...

...no; a dance style where visuals have more importance than feeling is not one I want to be involved in.

[Lory]

I'm greedy I want everything!Luckily, in real life, we don't have to choose and if we get the right partner, we CAN have it all! :wink: :clap: :drool:


I can't chose either. I'm big on touch, but one move that sends tingles down my spine (every time, without fail :blush: ) is all in the eyes :drool::yeah:


But if it was one or the other - would you rather have a dance with your eyes closed but touch, or sight, but no touch at all. I think you need to think of it that way to make a proper comparison.
I still don't know.... the music would have to determine my preference!

Touch.

If it were sight, then people would be more prone to judging who they danced with based on age, looks, attire, hairstyle,...
Looks hadn't featured in my thought process, it was more the facial expressions and eye contact that I was thinking about :)

[David Bailey]

I'd happily do so Ducasi, but the thread wasn't specific about modern jive - it asked what was more important to get a connection with a partner. I took that in the broader sense of connection while dancing and I think (thought?) that using examples from other dances would just help us to explore the topic more broadly. And quite frankly, I think we'd miss an awful lot on the connection topic if we were trying not to draw on our experiences in other forms of dance, blues, wcs and tango are my examples but I'm just as interested to listen to people who have a lindy, ballroom, salsa or whatever background :flower: .
On a slightly more serious note - yes, it's unfortunate that we can't discuss certain aspects of technique without using other dance vocabulary.

I spent some time - a good couple of years - trying to learn advanced technique at MJ classes, to no avail. With a few honorable exceptions, there just isn't the market for it; I wish there was.

So if you want to talk about technique, it's not often you can use MJ in it.


So do we need to be clear now in the thread starter if we want to talk about dance in general, or just MJ? :confused:
Ah, "he wouldn't understand" (Tango mania quote #13 :) )

[David Bailey]

I still don't know.... the music would have to determine my preference!
Hmmm... maybe I should have added "sound" to the poll...

[Ghost]

I'm saying that connection won't be as great as one I can get through 'touch'. It just can't beat it, in my experience... but I'm happy to be proven wrong :whistle:

Aha :flower:


But if it was one or the other - would you rather have a dance with your eyes closed but touch, or sight, but no touch at all. I think you need to think of it that way to make a proper comparison.

Ideally both working together is what we want of course.

I've mused on the dances / moments where I've had profound connection. Some have been with my eyes closed, some with my eyes open but not touching, some with my eyes open and with touch. I think it's more a case of what you do with it that counts. For me one isn't intrinsically "better" than the other.

Edit: Oh and one moment with my eyes closed and no touching

[ducasi]

I'd happily do so Ducasi, but the thread wasn't specific about modern jive - it asked what was more important to get a connection with a partner. I took that in the broader sense of connection while dancing and I think (thought?) that using examples from other dances would just help us to explore the topic more broadly. And quite frankly, I think we'd miss an awful lot on the connection topic if we were trying not to draw on our experiences in other forms of dance, blues, wcs and tango are my examples but I'm just as interested to listen to people who have a lindy, ballroom, salsa or whatever background :flower: .

So do we need to be clear now in the thread starter if we want to talk about dance in general, or just MJ? :confused:
Every thread in this area of the forum (i.e. the dance area) that's not in the "land of 1,000 dances" is implicitly specifically about Modern Jive.

While talking about how experiences in other dance forms has affected your MJ is fine, I don't think that how another dance works is necessarily relevant in a MJ discussion.

For example in dance forms where physical contact is much less common than in MJ (thinks... Arm Jive? Line Dancing? Morris Dancing?) then the visual connection is clearly going to be the most important connection between dancers.

Saying that Tango works mainly with physical connection is both undeniable, and irrelevant.

[David Bailey]

Saying that Tango works mainly with physical connection is both undeniable, and irrelevant.
Weeeeellll.... Whilst it's true that some people (not me of course :innocent: ) do talk about Tango all the time, almost all the AT techniques are relevant when discussing lead-and-follow.

Personally, I'd dearly love for there to be an MJ teacher in the London area who gave advanced classes (or hell, even basic classes) in this type of thing. But there ain't - "advanced Ceroc" is "more moves" for most people.

So we often have to resort to other dances in this type of discussion.

Yes, we probably do it too much (:blush: ), but we can only talk about what we know.

[Caro]

Saying that Tango works mainly with physical connection is both undeniable, and irrelevant.

Is that what I said really? I made points using examples taken from tango, is the relation MJ/blues/tango that obscur to you? To make it clearer, almost anything that can be lead in tango through the connection obtained via the close embrace can be lead in MJ through the connection provided by a ballroom hold (admitedly, some stuff will be trickier that way) and blues through a... blues hold connection.

I can point out that every single example I took, was taught in a ceroc environment: the 'invitation exercise' to practice 'sight connection' was taught by Franck and Sheena in a workshop on connection at the BFG last year.
Amir taught in a jango class (organised by cerocscotland in Sterling last summer) the 'leg caress move' I mentioned later.
The leg wrap thing is taught in ceroc classes as a little dip, whose signal is: "tango lunge!" :rolleyes: .

Really Ducasi while I'd happily acknowledge I might have been a tad heavy on the tango side of things, I can't see how that is irrelevant to a thread on connection.



For example in dance forms where physical contact is much less common than in MJ (thinks... Arm Jive? Line Dancing? Morris Dancing?) then the visual connection is clearly going to be the most important connection between dancers.


And I'd be very happy to read about that sort of experience... am I the only one here?



*goes sulking in a corner and counts '5,6,7,8, semi-circle to the left & step back' and thinks hard how that could help a discussion on connection*

Blimey will I have to start posting at the other place? :rolleyes:

[Lory]

I agree with DJ and Caro... all the technique classes i've attended have been in 'other' forms of dance, so i'm afraid, thats all I can draw on. But, I believe all aspect are still relevent to MJ ;)

[ducasi]

Is that what I said really? I made points using examples taken from tango, is the relation MJ/blues/tango that obscur to you? To make it clearer, almost anything that can be lead in tango through the connection obtained via the close embrace can be lead in MJ through the connection provided by a ballroom hold (admitedly, some stuff will be trickier that way) and blues through a... blues hold connection.

I can point out that every single example I took, was taught in a ceroc environment: the 'invitation exercise' to practice 'sight connection' was taught by Franck and Sheena in a workshop on connection at the BFG last year.
Amir taught in a jango class (organised by cerocscotland in Sterling last summer) the 'leg caress move' I mentioned later.
The leg wrap thing is taught in ceroc classes as a little dip, whose signal is: "tango lunge!" :rolleyes: .

Really Ducasi while I'd happily acknowledge I might have been a tad heavy on the tango side of things, I can't see how that is irrelevant to a thread on connection.
I'm sticking to my argument, I'm afraid... Sure, when elements of lead and follow, and particular moves are adopted into MJ from Tango, then sure it is valid, but if that's the case, please talk about them in a MJ context.

MJ isn't Tango – the lead and follow techniques are different, the connection is different.

In the present discussion, while it's clear that "touch" has a dominant role in connection in MJ, "sight" is very important too. (Which is basically what Lory was saying in her post you were replying to.)

Looking to Tango to argue against this doesn't prove anything about MJ.

(But don't take this personally, Caro – this rant could equally have been directed at any one of the other rabid Tango nuts around here. :flower:)

[David Bailey]

(But don't take this personally, Caro – this rant could equally have been directed at any one of the other rabid Tango nuts around here. :flower:)
Oi! You looking at my dance? Huh?
:na:

[Trouble]

Oi! You looking at my dance? Huh?
:na:

your nuts are rabid then.......eeeeouuu :wink:

[Caro]

In the present discussion, while it's clear that "touch" has a dominant role in connection in MJ, "sight" is very important too. (Which is basically what Lory was saying in her post you were replying to.)

Looking to Tango to argue against this doesn't prove anything about MJ.


*sigh* but I never denied that... I believe the words I used were 'sight can add another dimension to the dance', that's pretty important that...

I simply replied to Lory who said that she thought a fun dance was impossible without the sight element, by giving examples (which can be lead in MJ), that would, IMO, make a dance pretty fun and don't necessarily involve eye-contact. That works if the (physical) connection is strong enough that the lead can make the follow do 'fun' stuff (with her legs or hips for example).

[Norty Nomie]

I answered touch with out even thinking about it or reading your other comments.

On the touch side, i would say there is a whole lot more about touch than just hand hold allow. Recently at storm i danced with a partly sighted guy and had a really great dance :respect:

You can dance together with without sight but you could NOT dance apart and you would have no idea what the other was doing.

When i teach moves where the ladies must not anticipate what the guy is to do (i.e. to make sure that the guy is leading and not just the lady putting herself in the correct position) i get the ladies to close there eyes and relax. you would be suprised at what a diferent it makes.:wink:

On the sight side, i would have to say that it is important in the sence of eye contact from a girls point of view having great eye cotact is also part of the lead.

There has be a number of dances where the eye contact has been so strong that it takes over and two dancers become one on the dance floor, and just from eye contact allow you can tell what your partner is thinking and what is coming next.:clap:

[ducasi]

*sigh* but I never denied that... I believe the words I used were 'sight can add another dimension to the dance', that's pretty important that...

I simply replied to Lory who said that she thought a fun dance was impossible without the sight element, by giving examples (which can be lead in MJ), that would, IMO, make a dance pretty fun and don't necessarily involve eye-contact. That works if the (physical) connection is strong enough that the lead can make the follow do 'fun' stuff (with her legs or hips for example).
Ok, I get the point you're making (and don't really disagree with it, though I think that by adopting your examples, you'd be more likely to be dancing Tango or Jango, rather than MJ.)

But I was making a specific point that I thought you were appealing to Tango too much, and a general point that too much of these discussions on lead and follow and connection technique end up talking about different dance forms that require different technique.

I believe there is enough technique in Modern Jive (though maybe not universally agreed on, and definitely not universally taught) that we shouldn't need to appeal to other dance forms to try to tell us how we should be dancing MJ.

No?

[straycat]

I believe there is enough technique in Modern Jive (though maybe not universally agreed on, and definitely not universally taught) that we shouldn't need to appeal to other dance forms to try to tell us how we should be dancing MJ.

No?

Mmm. I agree it isn't universally taught... but when it comes to lead / follow / connection etc, I can safely say that I have never had any serious teaching in these areas in an MJ setting which was not directly derived from another dance form (mostly Lindy, with some Tango, and some WCS)

To be honest, most of the teaching I've had along those lines has been when I've been learning other dance forms.

Anyway - it doesn't really surprise me that most people need to go outside MJ to talk about this stuff to any real depth....

[CeeCee]

...this rant could equally have been directed at any one of the other rabid Tango nuts around here. :flower:)
Hey! Who else can you possibly mean? Damnit I'm going to be late for my tango class now as I had to respond to THAT comment.


Inspired by the "connection" thread, which sense is most important to you in connecting with your partner?

Yes sight and touch are important but I can safely say that the sense of smell can seriously interfere with my connection with a partner. The dance is much easier when he smells yummy. It takes all of my skills to dance with a partner who smells er... well... you know, while trying to hold my breath for three minutes. Especially in close hold in Argentine Tango.

[Lynn]

We could get really fussy and say we could only talk about things in a Ceroc context since this is a Ceroc forum...:devil:


Mmm. I agree it isn't universally taught... but when it comes to lead / follow / connection etc, I can safely say that I have never had any serious teaching in these areas in an MJ setting which was not directly derived from another dance form (mostly Lindy, with some Tango, and some WCS)

To be honest, most of the teaching I've had along those lines has been when I've been learning other dance forms.

Anyway - it doesn't really surprise me that most people need to go outside MJ to talk about this stuff to any real depth....Likewise - outside of the likes of Franck's connection classes and dips and drops, there hasn't been that many technique classes that I've been to within MJ. Technique about how to lead certain moves is taught and you're supposed to work out the principles yourself from that I guess.

MJ itself looks outward to other dances to learn and develop which is a good thing.

And the fact that the contributors on here dance MJ and yet when there are discussions about connection on here we look to things learnt outside of MJ to discuss technique in itself says something.

Maybe I'll have to post more elsewhere too...

[frodo]

Every thread in this area of the forum (i.e. the dance area) that's not in the "land of 1,000 dances" is implicitly specifically about Modern Jive. ...

While threads in the "Land of 1000 dances" are specifically about dances which are 'Non Ceroc' and 'Modern Jive', it doesn't automatically follow the converse is true.

OK if this was knitting forum and had a "Land of 1000 dances" section it might be reasonable to say everything not in the "1000 dances" section was implicitly specifically about knitting.


However there is a big overlap and topics don't always fall neatly into a discrete bucket, which doesn't fit in well with 'Every' and 'Specifically'.

[Cruella]

I always take a good look before having a feel....:yum:

Do you need your glasses to find it then?

[MartinHarper]

You can have an intense and passionate dance, with or without sight but I don't think you can have a 'fun' dance without sight!

I mostly agree. Caro mentions some fun moves that get used in a MJ blues/UCP setting, and I can think of others, but for me what completes the fun aspect is going into a more open position afterwards, and laughing about it together. Maybe we could feel the giggles instead of see them, but I don't think it would be the same.

Having said that, blindfolded steal/tag dances can be lots of fun.

[Gadget]

So if you want to talk about technique, it's not often you can use MJ in it.:confused: Why not? Is there a special dictionary with strange words that differentiate between connection? "Tangtile - the touch connection in tango" "Ballroom fold - when the ballroom frame is collapsed and both partners come together" {anyone feel a new thread? ;)}


MJ isn't Tango – the lead and follow techniques are different, the connection is different.Are the lead and follow techniques different? I was (am) under the impression that it's all about getting your partner to move where you want them: in MJ you are free to use every available method of doing this - from shoving your partner with your feet, to hair pulling, to full body leads, to visual leads, to signals to whatever you need/want to do to convey your intentions.


To be honest, most of the teaching I've had along those lines has been when I've been learning other dance forms.If you're complaining, then move to Scotland.
My first workshop {a loooong time ago} was a beginner one taken by Franck. The next were by DavidB in 'leading & following' and 'musicality' - and others followed by various top notch teachers in spins, connection, blues, UCP, frame, ... it's not as if I was passing up any in between; I've only been to two or three that were purely moves based.
{:respect: to Franck}

[David Bailey]

:confused: Why not? Is there a special dictionary with strange words that differentiate between connection?
Because there's little context, and no established advanced body of technique or best practice, beyond what a few individuals are doing. The best way to find out consensus good practice is to look on here, which is a pretty feeble standardisation mechanism.

There are no official MJ training courses, there are no organisation bodies, there are no agreed standards, etc. etc.

Hell, look at the arguments about which foot to step back on, in the fundamental First Move... :rolleyes:


If you're complaining, then move to Scotland.
Is that some kind of Scots saying? :innocent:


{:respect: to Franck}
Franck, DavidB, Amir.

I don't know of anyone else in MJ who specialises in teaching technique or lead-and-follow. That's three whole technique teachers, out of - what, 500+?

Everyone else seems to be too busy teaching the Whirlaround-wrapabout-Jump-up-and-down-Move or whatever.

Short of reducing it to "Franck said this / DavidB said this / Amir said this" discussions, there's no real context within which to discuss best practice beyond a certain basic level ("don't yank").

Don't get me wrong - other dances have lots of disagreements too - toe vs. heel leads, that sort of thing. But there's a much higher level of development, in terms of technique, in AT than there is in MJ.

For example, it's difficult to discuss posture, intention, projection, or dissociation in MJ - whereas in AT, these are pretty much established and standardised.

[Ghost]

Short of reducing it to "Franck said this / DavidB said this / Amir said this" discussions, there's no real context within which to discuss best practice beyond a certain basic level ("don't yank").
That won't work either because they have different approaches eg Amir's step footwork vs Franck's whatever works best for you.

It would be interesting to see what the common ground is though

I think there's a couple of interesting points to what Caro and Ducasi are saying.

Firstly if you're talking about something other than Ceroc, then it needs to be understandable to someone who doesn't know it. My saying that "I try not to torque my partner's wa", is not terribly helpful if you don't know what it means. On the other hand it is good advice.

Secondly does it apply directly to Ceroc or does it need modifiers / caveats? eg Tango floorcraft is going to apply if you're deliberately moving around the floor, but with the modifier that everyone else probably isn't.

Thirdly given the lack of agreed upon "advanced" knowledge, there's always going to be an element of the blind leading the blind. "This worked for me - I think this is why. Try it. Tell me what happens."

[straycat]

"I try not to torque my partner's wa", is not terribly helpful if you don't know what it means. On the other hand it is good advice.


Although from some people it might just be a typo :na:



Thirdly given the lack of agreed upon "advanced" knowledge, there's always going to be an element of the blind leading the blind.

Which, according to Lory, will almost certainly be no fun at all... (although it could be quite intense and / or passionate) :whistle:

[Lory]

Which, according to Lory, will almost certainly be no fun at all... (although it could be quite intense and / or passionate) :whistle:

Ahhhh but there's fun :D :rofl: and then there's Fun! :yum: :devil: :wink:

[Gadget]

Because there's little context, and no established advanced body of technique or best practice, beyond what a few individuals are doing.
:confused: but it's dancing. That's been around longer than all these factions of Tango, Ballroom, Salsa, Jive, Rockabilly, WCS, ... There are common elements in all of them - only when folk start using specific terms that are problems in communication.
To me, MJ is all about communication and breaking down the barriers that hinder it: a common language that everyone understands from "off the street punter" to "Dance God". Ceroc have instilled a few terms like "first move" and "yo-yo", but beyond that, what more is needed? Do I need to know what a 'ronde' is, or can I just say "sweep with the leg while pivoting"?

The "context" is dancing. How much more context do you need?
There is "no established advanced body of technique or best practice" because there is no definitive method of doing something: techniques can be used from every/any dance style if they help you communicate with your partner.
What there is, are people showing various techniques from other styles and how they are used within that style: if you remove the patterns and music from a specific dance style, what's left? Isn't this what's being taught?


{*}...there are no organisation bodies, there are no agreed standards, etc. etc.:clap: yae! a fact I, personally, am glad of. No one to tell you what you're doing is right or wrong except from your partner and how they move. Once you lay down the law you get lawyers - and IMHO the MJ world can do without lawyers policing it. ;)
{* I took out "official MJ training courses" because I consider workshops to be in this cattegory.}


Hell, look at the arguments about which foot to step back on, in the fundamental First Move... :rolleyes:And look at the consensus: either or whichever works for you. :wink: If it were a commandment that ye must only begin dancing by stepping back on the right foot then all those not doing so would be herratics and burned at the stake.



Franck, DavidB, Amir.

I don't know of anyone else in MJ who specialises in teaching technique or lead-and-follow.
Lorna - I would say specialises more in timeing of lead/follow,
Lisa - spinning and lady's style without interfearing with the lead/follow
Marc - follower control and 'aquard' leads
LillyB - following and follower's styling
LoungeL - dips & drops
AdamN - UCP led/follow
Tramp - blues lead/follow and arials
...
That's without really thinking too hard. They may not be billed as teaching these specific things, but their teaching is laden with techique from their speciality.

[CJ]

a firm but deliberate and informative touch can send tingles all down my spine regardless of what or who im looking at. :D :awe:

For example connection is made for me when you can be guided by a hand on your back into sways, backsteps, forward steps and all from the finger touches on the small of your back or just below your shoulders. A lead that can do this is truly special and there arn't many i can tell you that.! :rolleyes:


Weeeeellll.... Whilst it's true that some people (not me of course :innocent: ) do talk about Tango all the time, almost all the AT techniques are relevant when discussing lead-and-follow.

Personally, I'd dearly love for there to be an MJ teacher in the London area who gave advanced classes (or hell, even basic classes) in this type of thing. But there ain't - "advanced Ceroc" is "more moves" for most people.

So we often have to resort to other dances in this type of discussion.

Yes, we probably do it too much (:blush: ), but we can only talk about what we know.

Thank the heavens there are some independents who teach this stuff!!!! It's a shame for DJ, he might just have to wait a little, or :eek: leave London for a workshop:eek: :D

[CJ]

Without getting too controvertial (and REALLY hoping I don't divert the thread), there is energetic connection, which is way deeper than the other two combined (and what makes tose holy grail dances so special.).

:flower:

[David Bailey]

Thank the heavens there are some independents who teach this stuff!!!!
Four exclamation marks, the sign of a diseased mind. :D


It's a shame for DJ, he might just have to wait a little, or :eek: leave London for a workshop:eek: :D
Seing as I've been to over 100 hours of technique-based class over the last 3 months, I don't feel any immediate lack of opportunity. :rolleyes:

[CJ]

Four exclamation marks, the sign of a diseased mind. :D

Damn, I should have used 5: the sign of a deceased mind!!!!!

[MartinHarper]

It's dancing. That's been around longer than all these factions of Tango, Ballroom, Salsa, Jive, Rockabilly, WCS, ... There are common elements in all of them.

Well, yes.
There are also different elements in all of them. It's important not to let the differences blind us to the similarities, and important not to let the similarities blind us to the differences.


techniques can be used from every/any dance style if they help you communicate with your partner.

Connection techniques are two-way. In Lindy, when I place a hand on my follower's back, she "sits into" it, and that allows me to lead certain things easily. You need both the lead and the follow element in order for the technique to work. For practical purposes, neither of these elements are part of Modern Jive technique.

In practical terms, a social dancer should not borrow techniques from other dance styles, because most of the people they dance with will not supply the matching technique for the opposite role. Instead, a social Modern Jive dancer should use appropriate techniques for Modern Jive.

[David Bailey]

:confused: but it's dancing. That's been around longer than all these factions of Tango, Ballroom, Salsa, Jive, Rockabilly, WCS, ... There are common elements in all of them - only when folk start using specific terms that are problems in communication.
Yes, each dance has its own vocabulary, in the same way each discipline has its own jargon. And yes, sometimes the jargon and vocab just says the same thing in different ways. An ocho is a cross-over; a ronde is a lapiz, and so on. There are only so many ways to move after all :)

But, as MH says, there are both overlaps and differences. Arguably, MJ overlaps more dances than most, but other dances have their own specialities. You can do a West Manhattan in MJ, in AT, in salsa, and in Cha-cha - but they'll have differences in timing, posture and style in each dance.


:To me, MJ is all about communication and breaking down the barriers that hinder it: a common language that everyone understands from "off the street punter" to "Dance God".
To me, MJ is about bopping around a bit :rofl:


Ceroc have instilled a few terms like "first move" and "yo-yo", but beyond that, what more is needed? Do I need to know what a 'ronde' is, or can I just say "sweep with the leg while pivoting"?
That's just jargon, basically. Jargon is over-used, but is helpful to quickly summarize elements of a move.


The "context" is dancing. How much more context do you need?
How much have you got? :na:


What there is, are people showing various techniques from other styles and how they are used within that style: if you remove the patterns and music from a specific dance style, what's left? Isn't this what's being taught?
What's left is technique.


No one to tell you what you're doing is right or wrong except from your partner and how they move.
On the other hand, if there's no one to tell you that you're doing it wrong when - for example - your technique is poor, how will you ever improve? Why bother teaching anything at all, why not just bop around by yourself?


And look at the consensus: either or whichever works for you. :wink: If it were a commandment that ye must only begin dancing by stepping back on the right foot then all those not doing so would be herratics and burned at the stake.
Yeah, but the ones left alive would be much better dancers :grin:

[Ghost]

And look at the consensus: either or whichever works for you. :wink:
But there's a catch. What if it's not working :tears: :tears: :tears: :tears:

I hate the feeling of knowing that something's wrong, but not knowing what.

That for me is where technique comes in. So in some AT styles (forgive me Ducasi there's a point coming honest) women are taught do a certain move whenever possible. This just isn't going to work if I try it on a Cerocer. So understanding how to get someone to follow where I want them to go in the easiest, clearest fashion is probably going to come down to technique and old guys going "Yeah, you need to do x first. Oh and make sure you're also doing y. And it'll help her balance if you do z".

It's interesting watching the difference between how Ceroc moves are taught and how they're adapted to be actually led in freestyle.

[Gadget]

Connection techniques are two-way. In Lindy, when I place a hand on my follower's back, she "sits into" it, and that allows me to lead certain things easily. You need both the lead and the follow element in order for the technique to work. For practical purposes, neither of these elements are part of Modern Jive technique.:confused: Really? The very first 'technique' based workshop I went on had LillyB showing and teaching that very thing: the folllower providing some connection through whatever part of their anatomy was in contact - demonstrated with hand on back and in a wrap (or it may have been a basket). You need to equal any pressure so that you can react to it's absence as well as an increase in pressure.
It's leading with compression rather than tension. MJ tends to be led using tension; leading infront of the follower and only using compression to change the follower's direction.
'Faster' dances, such as Lindy lead mainly by compression; the lead is constantly holding the follower back and leads by 'letting them go'.

Two techniques, both are used in MJ. Which you use depends on how, what, when and who you are leading.


In practical terms, a social dancer should not borrow techniques from other dance styles, because most of the people they dance with will not supply the matching technique for the opposite role. Instead, a social Modern Jive dancer should use appropriate techniques for Modern Jive.Which are??? And they differ from other techniques how? Why not 'borrow' techniques from other styles? As DJ said - when you remove the patterns and music from them, all that's left is technique: how to move your partner.


...- but they'll have differences in timing, posture and style in each dance.Yes. And to apply these differences in MJ when the appropriate type of music is played - is that 'musicality'? Or are we no longer dancing MJ?


To me, MJ is about bopping around a bit :rofl:... with a partner. ;)


On the other hand, if there's no one to tell you that you're doing it wrong when - for example - your technique is poor, how will you ever improve? Why bother teaching anything at all, why not just bop around by yourself?Because it's about connection? I'm sure you can connect with yourself, but I've found it much better to bop around with a partner :D

And who better to tell you you're doing it wrong than the person you're doing it to :what:


I hate the feeling of knowing that something's wrong, but not knowing what.Ask? Isn't that part of the communication thing?


It's interesting watching the difference between how Ceroc moves are taught and how they're adapted to be actually led in freestyle.I have occasionally dissagreed with some of the specific leads taught, but mostly I've found it's errors of omission on how to lead something easier. (or it's entirley possable I'm just not getting what the teacher is saying :blush: )

What do you find changes from 'taught' to 'led in freestyle' ?

[David Bailey]

As DJ said - when you remove the patterns and music from them, all that's left is technique: how to move your partner.
Well, two things:

how to move yourself
and how to get your partners to go where you want them to go.


If I were to express an opinion, it would be that the latter is more essential for the leader, but the former is also important.

Re: different styles


Yes. And to apply these differences in MJ when the appropriate type of music is played - is that 'musicality'? Or are we no longer dancing MJ?
Hmmm... dunno. I think "Musicality" is separate from "style" - you can have good or bad musicality irrelevant of the style you dance.

Is Jango MJ? Is Blues? Is WCS-stylee? I dunno...


And who better to tell you you're doing it wrong than the person you're doing it to :what:
Sorry, but that's rubbish.

Yes, your partner can give you valuable feedback, but asking her to critique your dancing style and technique is just taking pot-luck; she may not know what to look for, she may just be expressing a personal opinion, she may be plain wrong.

Professional teachers may also have all of these flaws of course - but they're more likely to be trained in correct technique, posture, connection and so on.

Dance is a discipline; you can't just make it up as you go, any more than you can make up (say) mathematics as you go, by asking random strangers about calculus for example.

[Ghost]

Ask? Isn't that part of the communication thing?
Pretty much as David James said, going to a technique class is "asking", just asking someone who's likely to give a better answer.


I have occasionally dissagreed with some of the specific leads taught, but mostly I've found it's errors of omission on how to lead something easier. (or it's entirley possable I'm just not getting what the teacher is saying :blush: )

What do you find changes from 'taught' to 'led in freestyle' ?
Tweaks so it'll work on someone who doesn't know it eg

From the MJDA Forum here (http://www.mjda.org/forum/showpost.php?p=964&postcount=4)


A Ceroc move I don't lead is the wurlitzer. If the follow doesn't know she supposed to stop halfway through, then it makes a really effective wrist-break .

This is a consequence of the way it's taught.

If you lead it the way they teach it, ie with a push down and away guy's L to lady's R, then of course if they don't know that's what it is, they just push-spin out of it, and if you're holding on with the right hand it'll hurt them.

However, if you provide all the lead with your right hand instead, so that zero force comes from the left (if you start L-R, then the only left hand action is to let go), the move is just a right-handed prep into the spin, and you can tailor the amount of force to the follower, and make it as progressive in its application (both the prep and the spin) as is required to ensure that they can feel what's going on.

[Beowulf]

Dance is a discipline; you can't just make it up as you go, any more than you can make up (say) mathematics as you go, by asking random strangers about calculus for example.

Maths? cool.. I'd be willing to try! now if only dancing was as easy as calculus I'd be laughing!

but I have to say, (unless I've misinterpreted your post) you can make up new moves (or at least develop moves that you didn't know previously) by watching others? or have I grasped the wrong end of the curly brace here and integrating instead of differentiating?

[Ghost]

but I have to say, (unless I've misinterpreted your post) you can make up new moves (or at least develop moves that you didn't know previously) by watching others? or have I grasped the wrong end of the curly brace here and integrating instead of differentiating?
There's a catch. Some moves only work because of subtlties that aren't obvious. Without them, things go wrong. It's a good idea to try them out off the dance floor first to iron out the kinks. And even then be aware that it might not work on another follow due to differences in their flexibility, balance etc

[David Bailey]

but I have to say, (unless I've misinterpreted your post) you can make up new moves (or at least develop moves that you didn't know previously) by watching others? or have I grasped the wrong end of the curly brace here and integrating instead of differentiating?
Absolutely - but we're not talking about moves, we're talking about technique.

If you have technique, you (pretty much) don't need to know many predefined moves, as you'll "make moves up" every dance you do.

Which is why a lot of the good technique-based dancers use very few "moves".

[MartinHarper]

Really? The very first 'technique' based workshop I went on had LillyB showing and teaching that very thing.

I wasn't on the workshop, but my guess would be that what Lilly taught was similar but different. I'd hope so, anyway - to my mind a direct import of that Lindy technique would mess MJ up.


Why not 'borrow' techniques from other styles?

Because connection techniques are two-way. If I borrow a piece of leading technique from Dance X, and my partner doesn't borrow the matching piece of following technique, then the borrowed technique won't work properly. The same applies when my partner borrows following technique where I haven't borrowed the matching leading technique.

If we both borrow the relevant pieces of technique, then it will probably work reasonably ok, sure. However, in a social dance it's not appropriate to expect my partner to apply techniques from other dances. How is she to know that I want her to apply that technique? How can I tell if she knows that other dance? If she's asked me to dance MJ with her, is it likely that she wants to follow in a non-MJ style?