PDA

View Full Version : Down beat and Upbeat



kiwichook
12th-April-2007, 09:53 AM
Haven't checked if there is a thread on this, yes, am being lazy, but can anyone explain to me what is the difference is between dancing on the "up beat" as opposed to dancing on the "down beat"..?
How can you tell which beat a dancers working on?
cheers

Paul F
12th-April-2007, 10:35 AM
There's someone that should have been in my musicality class :grin:
:wink:

There is lots of opinion on downbeats and upbeats depending on what dancing you are doing. It is advised that, if you want to accentuate a beat, it would be the upbeat (or even beat).
Certain pieces of music demonstrate it more than others. My favourite, and the one I use in my musicality classes, is Wade in the Water. If you count through the beats using a "1,2" repeating count you should find that the 2 is a stronger beat than the 1. It is presumed that the dancer will try and express that beat over the down beat.

Of course, there are no hard and fast rules. This is personal interpretation at the end of the day.

To tell which a dancer is dancing on is very difficult unless their body movement is increadibly obvious. Ultimately you are trying to spot their interpretation of music which, in itself, is tricky.

Caro
12th-April-2007, 10:44 AM
Ok... time to see if I've understood all what you guys on the forum have explained to me over the past year or so... :D

When your ceroc teacher counts before starting a move (5, 6, 7, 8... semi-circle to the left...), he/she actually counts the downbeats only, i.e. you could say in ceroc you dance (or in fact you start dancing) on the downbeat. Then the most common way of doing things is to step on every musical beat.
So you could very well start dancing ceroc on the upbeat, but it would feel and look very weird to most people.

Now in fact the musical beat is twice as fast as that (think clapping on the beat), when the teacher counts 5,6,7,8 he/she is in fact counting 1 (5),2,3(6),4,5(7),6,7(8),8 , which is called 2 bars of music (well, in most of the music that we dance ceroc to - but some DJs like to be mischievious at times ;) ). In this count, odd beats are called downbeat (or onbeat) while even beats are called upbeat (or backbeat or offbeat). So when people are saying, 'those guys are dancing offbeat', it means they are dancing on the even musical beats. You don't want to do that :wink:

Other dance style sometimes dance on the other beat, the upbeat, but I'll let others more qualified people to explain that...

A few links to other threads:

Counting on the off beat (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/dj-booth/10378-counting-off-beat.html)
When do you clap when you clap half-beat? (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/dj-booth/8880-musicality-when-do-you-clap-when-you-clap-half-beat.html)
Dancing on the beat (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/intermediate-corner/2955-dancing-beat.html)

*crosses fingers and hopes she hasn't said too much rubbish*

ducasi
12th-April-2007, 01:05 PM
[...] So when people are saying, 'those guys are dancing offbeat', it means they are dancing on the even musical beats. You don't want to do that :wink: [...]
If you're stepping (approximately) every beat (whether up or down) – how can you you be dancing off beat?

MartinHarper
12th-April-2007, 03:10 PM
If you're stepping (approximately) every beat (whether up or down) – how can you you be dancing off beat?

Normally in MJ we take bigger steps on the down beat. The up beat is often simply a weight transfer (eg, in a rock step) or bringing the feet together (eg, when moving together in a first move or yoyo).

Caro
12th-April-2007, 03:26 PM
If you're stepping (approximately) every beat (whether up or down) – how can you you be dancing off beat?

As MH said, you do different things on the on and off beat. So, when you do the ceroc 'step back' for example, it happens on the downbeats. In a class (with a willing partner!) you could try and offset the teacher by exactly one musical beat - you would then be dancing 'on the upbeat' and it would feel really strange. :sick:

As a follow I would normally step on the right foot on the on beat and on the left on the off beat (same as simple steps in WCS), because that's the most common thing to do and works well with most moves. I suspect leaders do the opposite...

Lou
12th-April-2007, 03:47 PM
Normally in MJ we take bigger steps on the down beat. The up beat is often simply a weight transfer (eg, in a rock step) or bringing the feet together (eg, when moving together in a first move or yoyo).
:yeah: Except I would've said "more significant" rather than "bigger".

Think of the Arm Jive, for instance. It would feel really weird if you had to change arm direction on the up-beats.

ducasi
12th-April-2007, 04:36 PM
Think of the Arm Jive, for instance. It would feel really weird if you had to change arm direction on the up-beats.
The arm-jive is special as each movement is normally done in two beats...

I agree that in most cases there is a more emphatic step/move/whatever on the down beat, but generally, as a free-form dance form, I'm not sure you can always say that someone is dancing to the up or down beat – more that they are simply dancing to the beat. (But if more people tell me I'm talking nonsense, I'm prepared to change my thinking. :))

Lou
12th-April-2007, 05:15 PM
The arm-jive is special as each movement is normally done in two beats...
I disagree. Most MJ moves take 2 beats to get from one significant position to another. I deliberately chose the Arm Jive because it's the simplest to get your head around. But it applies equally well to others. Think of the standard First Move for instance... ( :devil: )

Step back on 1.
Bring the Lady in on 2.
Turn out & step back on 3.
Bring the Lady back in on 4.
Turn the Lady under on 5
Step back on 6.
(carry on into return as desired... as always, remember that 1 MJ count = 2 beats)

All of those items listed above are positions that you hit on the downbeat. Obviously, you are travelling to each position in between each count. These are the upbeats. Followers, like Caro, tend to also step on these upbeats, in order to get to the required position more easily. And this is why Andy McGregor believes in his One True Footwork so strongly. It feels nice to do LRLRLRLR.

The downbeat is emphasised. It feels good to make your significant moves on that beat. It's also what gives the music its framework - like the positions above give the move its framework. They fit together, you see? And that's a definition point of what makes the dance MJ.

Now, if you try to make your significant positions on the upbeat, it jars. You are not dancing to the music.

Of course, this is a simplified version of what happens. Music has a structure, too. There may be syncopations & different emphasis on beats in the bar. But the counts, along with the emphasis of the music, will always hold true*.

*Except when folks get more experience & choose to play with the rules by getting to the position a bit early or late, or whatever else suits the mood & the music. But that's OK - 'cos they know what they're doing, even if they haven't thought about it like this. :wink:

ducasi
12th-April-2007, 10:15 PM
[...] It is advised that, if you want to accentuate a beat, it would be the upbeat (or even beat).
Certain pieces of music demonstrate it more than others. My favourite, and the one I use in my musicality classes, is Wade in the Water. If you count through the beats using a "1,2" repeating count you should find that the 2 is a stronger beat than the 1. It is presumed that the dancer will try and express that beat over the down beat. [...]


[...] The downbeat is emphasised. It feels good to make your significant moves on that beat. It's also what gives the music its framework - like the positions above give the move its framework. They fit together, you see? And that's a definition point of what makes the dance MJ.

Now, if you try to make your significant positions on the upbeat, it jars. You are not dancing to the music. [...]
So, should I emphasis the up beat, or the down beat? :confused:

Mr Cool
12th-April-2007, 11:22 PM
Understanding Down beats and Up beats may be good stuff in theory, In practice rather confusing to most.:whistle:
Musicality classes are also a good idea for learning more about music and how it is constructed.:blush:
However to learn to dance well with good musical interpretation there is no substitute to practice.:wink:
Simply listening to the music and practicing dancing to it using simple basic moves is key to success no matter what style of dance. :wink:
Dancing is about the dexterity of the feet and the dancers Mind feet coordanation.:yeah:

Its a bit like any sport it helps to know the rules but you have to practice to improve.:clap: :clap: :clap:
:waycool: :waycool: :waycool:

Robert Winter
12th-April-2007, 11:49 PM
So, should I emphasis the up beat, or the down beat? :confused:
The annoying answer to this question is both. ;) It depends on are you dancing an upbeat or a down beat style? For those who are unsure MJ is an upbeat dance (ie the initiating step is on the even count) and WCS is a down beat dance (ie the initiating step is on the odd count).

In its most basic form, musicality tends to consists of "hitting the breaks". For example there may be a break in the music (generally on an odd count, ie 1, 3, 5, 7) and one will lead a dip/comb/check/whatever on this break. However, musicality is not just about "hitting the breaks", it is also about how ones dancing looks in between those hits. This is where emphasizing the up beat comes into play.

In WCS by dancing to the upbeat it tends to stretch out ones actions and makes the dance look more fluid and elastic which is why a lot of people stress the importance of it. This is because the initiating step is on the odd count (1) and the "completion step" is on the even count (2). As such it looks a little stilted if one emphasizes the 1. However, MJ differs in that our "completion step" is on the odd count (1 as we have taken our initiating step on the 8 of the previous phrase). So if we emphasize the upbeat it can have the effect of looking a little more stilted than if we emphasize the down beat and hang before our next "initializing" step.

For this reason WCS will often look more dynamic (in terms of its fluid look) than MJ because it is built to make better use of both the down and up beat. However, there are a number of "workarounds" which one can use in MJ to make our style look infinitely more amazing and fluid than it generally does. To do this we also make use of the upbeat, but not so much in terms of emphasizing it more in terms of "rolling" the action so that our body flight is as fluid as possible when we arrive on the down beat.

Hope this helps. :nice:

MartinHarper
12th-April-2007, 11:51 PM
So, should I emphasis the up beat, or the down beat? :confused:

With the risk of contradicting someone who teaches musicality, when I hear "Wade in the Water", I don't see how it is making the up beats "stronger". The breaks are on down-beats. The bigger notes and important words (e.g., "Wade", "Water") are on down-beats.

In answer to your question, beginners and newer intermediates should certainly emphasize the down-beats, and will find themselves doing that naturally as a consequence of dancing Modern Jive moves. Beyond that, I'm less sure, but for myself I feel like continuing to routinely emphasize the down-beats is the right answer.

Lou
13th-April-2007, 09:43 AM
Its a bit like any sport it helps to know the rules but you have to practice to improve.:clap: :clap: :clap:
:waycool: :waycool: :waycool:
No one's denying that, Andy. In fact, that's what I was saying above - in that once they know the rules, an experienced dancer can play with them in order to make their dancing expressive. :D


With the risk of contradicting someone who teaches musicality, when I hear "Wade in the Water", I don't see how it is making the up beats "stronger". The breaks are on down-beats. The bigger notes and important words (e.g., "Wade", "Water") are on down-beats.
But that's exactly what Robert says here:


In its most basic form, musicality tends to consists of "hitting the breaks". For example there may be a break in the music (generally on an odd count, ie 1, 3, 5, 7) and one will lead a dip/comb/check/whatever on this break. However, musicality is not just about "hitting the breaks", it is also about how ones dancing looks in between those hits. This is where emphasizing the up beat comes into play.

It's those "initiating steps" that are important. Andy McG's R's if you like. :wink:


To do this we also make use of the upbeat, but not so much in terms of emphasizing it more in terms of "rolling" the action so that our body flight is as fluid as possible when we arrive on the down beat.
:worthy: That's good. :clap: It's far better - and far more accurate - than what I was trying to say above. You have to arrive on the down beat for it to feel right, but it's the travelling that you can play with. And that's probably why it feels better to dance to popular MJ songs like Michael Buble's "Crazy Little Thing Called Love", when the upbeats are nicely highlighted by a tom (although Martin'll probably correct me, being a drummer), and all the breaks are on 1, than, say, All Saints' Rock Steady, where the emphasis is all wrong, or indeed Amy Winehouse's Rehab, where whilst the emphasis is on 1, the drum pattern is interesting. It's not that you can't dance to the latter 2 - it's just that the rhythm confuses a lot of dancers.


In answer to your question, beginners and newer intermediates should certainly emphasize the down-beats, and will find themselves doing that naturally as a consequence of dancing Modern Jive moves. Beyond that, I'm less sure, but for myself I feel like continuing to routinely emphasize the down-beats is the right answer.
:yeah: ...kinda.... except I would change "emphasize" to a different term. It's the state of having reached the position on the downbeat that's important. That doesn't need to be emphasized, as it's important enough on its own.

Andy McGregor
13th-April-2007, 10:33 AM
OOH!!! A discussion about beats and footwork. Caro is talking sense (good post Caro :clap: ) And Lou's here :flower:

What a shame I've got to do some work :tears: But, before I go, my opinion is that calling beats upbeat and downbeat is confusing :confused:

Robert Winter
13th-April-2007, 10:47 AM
...my opinion is that calling beats upbeat and downbeat is confusing :confused:We, at least I, am not calling beats upbeat and downbeat. I am calling counts upbeat and downbeat. :wink:

Lou
13th-April-2007, 11:00 AM
Caro is talking sense (good post Caro :clap: ) And Lou's here :flower:
Ouch! :rofl: Cheers Andy! :rolleyes: :flower: :na:


But, before I go, my opinion is that calling beats upbeat and downbeat is confusing :confused:
Grab your accoustic & just have a strum along to the music....

ducasi
13th-April-2007, 11:50 AM
The annoying answer to this question is both. ;) That's why I asked the question! ;)


It depends on are you dancing an upbeat or a down beat style? For those who are unsure MJ is an upbeat dance (ie the initiating step is on the even count) and WCS is a down beat dance (ie the initiating step is on the odd count). Hmm... This confused me...

Maybe because other people seem to be talking about the more emphatic completion steps, rather than the initiating steps, so one might figure that MJ is a downbeat dance, while WCS would then be an upbeat dance. :confused:

But I think I understand what you're saying...

For this reason WCS will often look more dynamic (in terms of its fluid look) than MJ because it is built to make better use of both the down and up beat. However, there are a number of "workarounds" which one can use in MJ to make our style look infinitely more amazing and fluid than it generally does. To do this we also make use of the upbeat, but not so much in terms of emphasizing it more in terms of "rolling" the action so that our body flight is as fluid as possible when we arrive on the down beat.
Our footwork naturally emphasises the down beats, and we can be clever with the up beats in other ways.

Lou, would you be kind enough to break down the movements in a first move to the beat, rather than the count?

Robert seems to be saying that the "step back" happens on beats 8&1 or 2&3... This is confusing me slightly...

Caro
13th-April-2007, 11:56 AM
Robert seems to be saying that the "step back" happens on beats 8&1 or 2&3... This is confusing me slightly...

I *think* the step back always happens on the downbeats, 1,3,5 and 7.
Somebody correct me please if I'm wrong. :flower:



Caro is talking sense (good post Caro :clap: )


:eek: I am making sense in Andy McGregor's world - I almost feel tainted :tears: ;)

ducasi
13th-April-2007, 12:17 PM
I *think* the step back always happens on the downbeats, 1,3,5 and 7.
Somebody correct me please if I'm wrong. :flower:
But if the "step back" in two beats (one count) then it must happen either on 8&1 or 1&2 (plus 2&3 or 3&4, etc...) Which would you say it is?

Robert says that MJ initiates on even beats...

However, MJ differs in that our "completion step" is on the odd count (1 as we have taken our initiating step on the 8 of the previous phrase)
This would imply that at the start of every routine in class the semi-circle is on beat 1, and the step back is beats 2&3. No?

Caro
13th-April-2007, 12:27 PM
But if the "step back" in two beats (one count)

The step back only takes one musical beat (half a ceroc count if you want, but it does happen on the second half of that count hence you 'hit' the count)...

Take a first move: step back (beat 1), and (beat 2) in (beat 3), and (turn the lady out) beat 4, step back (beat 5)... etc...

The initiating movement (as I understand it) is the infamous 'semi-circle to the left' which happens on beat 8 (first half of ceroc count 1...)

Lou
13th-April-2007, 12:50 PM
But if the "step back" in two beats (one count) then it must happen either on 8&1 or 1&2 (plus 2&3 or 3&4, etc...) Which would you say it is?

Robert says that MJ initiates on even beats...

This would imply that at the start of every routine in class the semi-circle is on beat 1, and the step back is beats 2&3. No?
As you say in the 1st paragraph - when your lovely teacher counts 5, 6, 7, 8, before you step back, you start to move on the implied "and" after the 8, reaching the step back position on 1. This "and" happens on the upbeat, and you commit on the downbeat. The "And" is what I understand Robert to mean by "initiation step".

BTW... you don't really want me to break down the First Move into beats yet again, do you? :rofl: :devil: :eek: There's far too many variations. And Andy McG will get cross with me. :whistle: :flower:

Robert Winter
13th-April-2007, 01:16 PM
Robert seems to be saying that the "step back" happens on beats 8&1 or 2&3... This is confusing me slightly...Well, what makes this confusing is how your local teacher counts you in. Most people (including me) count in an MJ class with 5 & 6 & 7 & 8 & 1. Both the "&" and "number" represents a count. So the numbers are the down beat and then "&'s" are the up beats.

However, if we use "rolling" count then we would count in 5 6 7 8 1. In this case the even numbers represent up beats and the odd numbers represent the down beat.

So, if I were counting using "standard" count your first step would be on the & before the 1. But if using rolling count your first step would be on the 8 before the 1.


...at the start of every routine in class the semi-circle...Oh dear god NO!!!!!

MJ does NOT start with a semi-circle. I know lots of people still teach it like this, but you don't need a massive semi circle to tell your follow you are starting to dance. Just a gentle lead sending your hand straight toward your partner is enough to send her back.

Think of it like starting a car. In the "olden" days we use to use a crank handle to start a car. But today we use a push button. You can still use the crank, but why drive a jalopy when you could cruise in an Aston Martin. :wink:

ducasi
13th-April-2007, 02:25 PM
I've just realised than my use of "&" to group two beats together into a single Ceroc count could be confusing when "&" is commonly used to signify half a beat. I'll change to using simple commas: "2,3", OK?


The step back only takes one musical beat (half a ceroc count if you want, but it does happen on the second half of that count hence you 'hit' the count)... That's not what others seem to be saying.

Or you...

The initiating movement (as I understand it) is the infamous 'semi-circle to the left' which happens on beat 8 (first half of ceroc count 1...) This is implying that beat 8 is part of the move, thus it takes two beats, and one count.

Or see here (http://www.afterfive.co.uk/guide/latest/html/first_move_full.html).


As you say in the 1st paragraph - when your lovely teacher counts 5, 6, 7, 8, before you step back, you start to move on the implied "and" after the 8, reaching the step back position on 1. This "and" happens on the upbeat, and you commit on the downbeat. The "And" is what I understand Robert to mean by "initiation step".OK, so it's "8,1"... Got it now.


BTW... you don't really want me to break down the First Move into beats yet again, do you? :rofl: :devil: :eek: There's far too many variations. And Andy McG will get cross with me. :whistle: :flower: Not if you don't want to...

1(d) "five"
2(u)
3(d) "six"
4(u)
5(d) "seven"
6(u)
7(d) "eight"
8(u) step-
1(d) -back ("one")
2(u) step-
3(d) -in ("two")
4(u) turn-
5(d) -out ("three")
6(u) turn-
7(d) -in ("four")
8(u) turn-
1(d) -under ("five")
2(u) step-
3(d) back ("six")

This look right to everybody? :)


Well, what makes this confusing is how your local teacher counts you in. No, what confuses me is that the Ceroc count is even and odd beats, not odd and even ones. So it's "8,1" ("one"), "2,3" ("two"), "4,5" ("three"), "6,7" ("four"), "8,1" ...

And the Ceroc counts cross bars. (I'm sure you could make a joke from this line.)


[... stuff about counts vs beats that I fully understand ...]
So, if I were counting using "standard" count your first step would be on the & before the 1. But if using rolling count your first step would be on the 8 before the 1.
Yep, that's what I thought you were saying, I just never considered that we'd actually be starting to dance before the next bar, but thinking about it, it makes sense (in order to emphasis beat 1, you've got to be moving before it comes.)

Regarding semi-circles...

Oh dear god NO!!!!!
I agree entirely; I was just using the term (as mandated by UK Ceroc teaching ;)) to mark a point in time.


Cheers! :)

MartinHarper
13th-April-2007, 02:54 PM
I don't see how WCS is a "downbeat dance". In your standard sugar push, you have the bigger movements on the "1" and the "4" (and consequently the bigger leads just before that), and there are other 6-beat WCS moves that follow the same pattern of emphasis. That's one downbeat and one upbeat.


Robert seems to be saying that the "step back" happens on beats 8&1 or 2&3... This is confusing me slightly...

I understand that this one of the differences in Aussie Ceroc. They would step back left on the "8" and bring the right foot back to meet the left foot on the "1" (same size step but it looks smaller), making Aussie Ceroc upbeat and hence unmusical.


Popular MJ songs like Michael Buble's "Crazy Little Thing Called Love", when the upbeats are nicely highlighted by a tom (although Martin'll probably correct me, being a drummer), and all the breaks are on 1

I think Crazy Little Thing Called Love uses a snare drum for the upbeats rather than a tom, but I don't have a soundcard to check that with. Overall the song has a greater emphasis on the downbeats than the upbeats, as is standard.

In other news, Rehab is a great song for dancing. :)

Caro
13th-April-2007, 02:58 PM
That's not what others seem to be saying. (...)

Or you...

This is implying that beat 8 is part of the move, thus it takes two beats, and one count.



Well sorry if I was confusing, yes there is movement prior to the step back in order to make it happen (the initiating movement, like the semi-circle), but the actual step back is one beat - it consists of one weight change, and that weight change only takes a very short moment of time, dancing on time with the music is about making that weight change happen on the beat.
Of course in reality all that happens smoothly and there is a continuous movement (we don't dance like robots).

ducasi
13th-April-2007, 03:09 PM
[...] (we don't dance like robots).
Nor do some robots (http://www.nomura-g.co.jp/technical/PBDR-en.html). :wink:

ducasi
13th-April-2007, 03:10 PM
I understand that this one of the differences in Aussie Ceroc. They would step back left on the "8" and bring the right foot back to meet the left foot on the "1" (same size step but it looks smaller), making Aussie Ceroc upbeat and hence unmusical.
Just when I thought I understood what was going on! :eek:

Lou
13th-April-2007, 04:10 PM
I think Crazy Little Thing Called Love uses a snare drum for the upbeats rather than a tom, but I don't have a soundcard to check that with.
:D Snare, tom, high hat whatever. One of them little drum things. :rolleyes: Don't ask me, I'm a bassist.


Overall the song has a greater emphasis on the downbeats than the upbeats, as is standard.
Exactly. I dance to the bassline myself. There's lovely emphasis on 1 & 3. :D


In other news, Rehab is a great song for dancing. :)Catches a lot of leads out, though...



I understand that this one of the differences in Aussie Ceroc.Just when I thought I understood what was going on! :eek:
You and me both, mate. Martin - who steps back on the right? Have you got a video/detailed description somewhere of that footwork?

MartinHarper
13th-April-2007, 04:40 PM
Martin - who steps back on the right? Have you got a video/detailed description somewhere of that footwork?

Still no sound card, so I'm having to pick up the beat visually, but try this one, featuring some guy called Robert:

YouTube - Modern Jive Intermediate Moves 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCvKhrgpvok)

Right at the start, you have the woman stepping back left (on "8") and then bringing her right foot back to meet her left foot (on "1"). Meanwhile her partner is doing the mirror of that. Relative to UK Ceroc timing, or Lindy timing, they're stepping back one beat earlier.

Andy McGregor
13th-April-2007, 08:02 PM
MJ does NOT start with a semi-circle. MJ does not. But Ceroc, as it's taught in the UK does...


Think of it like starting a car. In the "olden" days we use to use a crank handle to start a car. But today we use a push button. You can still use the crank, but why drive a jalopy when you could cruise in an Aston Martin. :wink:I love this quote. I often get people visiting from the "class down the road" and they stand out as they do the semi-circle. I will use this example - especially if the person doing the semi-circle is old enough to remember starting handles :devil:

Robert Winter
14th-April-2007, 12:14 AM
...who steps back on the right? Have you got a video/detailed description somewhere of that footwork?Every MJ class I have ever been too (at least those that teach footwork) the Guys first step is on his right foot and the ladies first step is on her left foot.


I don't see how WCS is a "downbeat dance". In your standard sugar push, you have the bigger movements on the "1" and the "4" (and consequently the bigger leads just before that), and there are other 6-beat WCS moves that follow the same pattern of emphasis. That's one downbeat and one upbeat.A dance is not down beat or up beat because of where the emphasis is. As stated earlier the emphasis can be put on either the up or down beat.

A dance is up or down beat depending on where it starts in its "standard" form. ie in any WCS basic your first step is on the down beat (1) making it a down beat dance. Any MJ basic move will start on the up beat (8) making it an up beat dance.


I understand that this one of the differences in Aussie Ceroc. They would step back left on the "8" and bring the right foot back to meet the left foot on the "1" (same size step but it looks smaller), making Aussie Ceroc upbeat and hence unmusical.What are you talking about? Everyone in MJ (at least those who dance on beat) step back (guys right, ladies left) on the 8 and then "close" their feet on the 1.

It should be noted that I am talking straight count here so there is no & count being use.


IAnd the Ceroc counts cross bars. (I'm sure you could make a joke from this line.)You would be better saying that the "Ceroc" count crosses phrases rather than bars.

Most dance styles will use 8 counts to describe a phrase. Whether they use "Ceroc" count, rolling count or straight count. These 8 counts in fact cuts across two bars, don't forget that most of our music is 4/4 timing, so there are 4 beats in a bar.

WCS will use 8 steps to describe a phrase. Starting on 1 and finishing on 8. MJ is different in that we don't start with "stretch" connection as WCS does. We have to build this stretch and use 2 counts to do this. Hence stepping back on 8,1. This builds our slot and then we can start to dance.

NZ Monkey
14th-April-2007, 02:39 AM
What are you talking about? Everyone in MJ (at least those who dance on beat) step back (guys right, ladies left) on the 8 and then "close" their feet on the 1.

I've admitted to being hopelessly confused when reading these threads in the past, and today is no different.

That being said, I'd love to know *how* closing the feet on the 1 emphasises the down beat as opposed to making the initial step on the 1 instead.

I do this the same way that I'd been taught in Auckland, and that was to step back with the right foot on count 1, closing on count 2 and so forth. The realities of dancing being what they are this quickly changes to an automatic RLRLRL pattern unless you deliberately want to change it for whatever reason, and I can't say that anything I've seen in NZ has looked noticably different from what I've seen of the CMJ dancers here and in London. Simon Borland and Susie Kable also teach stepping back at the start of the minor phrase with the right foot for the guys (as in - stepping so that the right foot moves first and touches down on the 1st count), even if they didn't use that term themselves, and they are/were affilitated with CMJ (to be honest I don't know what the current situation is with them being in the UK, but you probably do Robert :yum: ).

Although CerocUK(TM) dictates that footwork is an evil that should never be mentioned in classes, I know that there are a number of very good people working under the Ceroc name that teach different models again (those dastardly rebels :devil: ). I can't say any of them look any less dramtic or musical for it.

Robert Winter
14th-April-2007, 03:16 AM
Well, it depends on what you are looking for. I am talking about a basic step option that I teach as a core to MJ. It is because I think that things are easier to learn if there is a frame work to them.

I know that Ceroc UK don't teach footwork, and there are pros to that. But I believe that if people come to class with no knowledge of dance and you can give them specific footwork to do then it makes their life a little easier.

Also, after a while you will play with footwork. I know that my dance is not made up of step, step, step, step. So to say, "this is my footwork" is something of a mirage as it will shift from dance to dance.

Though, I do feel that some people in this thread are a little confused about counting as far as what count they take their first step on (in a basic footwork pattern). The nature of MJ (whether you count it or not) is to take your first step on the up beat and your closing step on the down beat. It doesn't matter what foot you start on or when in the phrase you choose to begin, whether you call 5 & 6 & 7 & 8 or 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. It is the nature of the dance.

NZ Monkey
14th-April-2007, 03:21 AM
(as in - stepping so that the right foot moves first and touches down on the 1st countAhhh sod it!

I meant to say 1st count in a straight 8, as in the first beat in an eight count here.

Caro
14th-April-2007, 09:09 AM
What are you talking about? Everyone in MJ (at least those who dance on beat) step back (guys right, ladies left) on the 8 and then "close" their feet on the 1.



there you go, I dance offbeat. I knew it :tears:

A part that the most commong thing in the UK is for the lady to step back right, personally (and I'm not going to say what others do here) I step back on 1 (as in my feet are apart on 1).

straycat
14th-April-2007, 11:20 AM
Every MJ class I have ever been too (at least those that teach footwork) the Guys first step is on his right foot and the ladies first step is on her left foot.

I've no idea what foot I was taught to step back on in MJ (possibly the right) - but I always rockstep on the left, not the right, if I'm doing a rockstep. Might be the Lindy influence coming out though. It's really just a matter of preference in MJ.



What are you talking about? Everyone in MJ (at least those who dance on beat) step back (guys right, ladies left) on the 8 and then "close" their feet on the 1.

Everyone in MJ except myself, anyone who's ever taught me, and anyone I've ever danced with :whistle: - we're all 'rockstep on 1' people.

Lynn
14th-April-2007, 11:33 AM
A part that the most commong thing in the UK is for the lady to step back right, personally (and I'm not going to say what others do here) I step back on 1 (as in my feet are apart on 1).Not saying I'm understanding a lot of this thread - I think its just confusing me - but I'm pretty sure that I step back right on the 1 as well. (Unless doing cha cha, when I step back on 2 :wink: )

Andy McGregor
14th-April-2007, 11:38 AM
All this talk of downbeat and upbeat seems a bit silly to me. It makes it sound like MJ is a march with 2 beats to the bar. It is not. There is a big difference between the action you take on beat one of a minor (8 beat) phrase compared to beat 7 of that 8 beat phrase. But they are both the same beat in the world of upbeat and downbeat speak.

Therefore, I submit that this talk of upbeat and downbeat is downright confusing to your dancer-in-the-street. And this is why I'm behaving completely out of character and not really participating in this debate. However, my silence does not mean I agree with anything, particularly the bit where Robert Winter says "Every MJ class I have ever been too (at least those that teach footwork) the Guys first step is on his right foot and the ladies first step is on her left foot." I can only guess that the first step is taken on beat 8 in the musical phrase* :confused:

*Or, possibly, as their water goes down the plug-hole in the opposite direction, this might actually be correct in the antipodies.

ducasi
14th-April-2007, 11:52 AM
What are you talking about? Everyone in MJ (at least those who dance on beat) step back (guys right, ladies left) on the 8 and then "close" their feet on the 1.
I guess everyone in the UK dances off beat then, as we are taught to step back on our right/left foot and leave our left/right more or less where it was. Our feet don't "close" on the step back.

NZ Monkey
14th-April-2007, 12:07 PM
*Or, possibly, as their water goes down the plug-hole in the opposite direction, this might actually be correct in the antipodies.Awwww, come on Andy - play nice.

We all know you're just jealous that people actually want to hear Roberts opinion on the matter :devil: :innocent:

Andy McGregor
14th-April-2007, 04:28 PM
Awwww, come on Andy - play nice.I thought I was playing nice. I've not disagreed with Robert, I've applauded his talk of the lack of semi-circles and the fact they are old fashioned. I've even said I like his comparison to cars with starting handles.

All I've done is ask about the beat which he says the ladies should step back right.

And, doesn't the water go down the plug-hole the other way? :confused:


We all know you're just jealous that people actually want to hear Roberts opinion on the matter :devil: :innocent:While we're talking about playing nice, NZ Monkey is implying that people don't want to read my opinion. And in a deprecating way. Is this playing nice?

ducasi
14th-April-2007, 04:56 PM
And, doesn't the water go down the plug-hole the other way? :confused:
As a total aside, no, Andy, the water doesn't go down the plug-hole the other way – it's just a commonly held misconception (http://www.snopes.com/science/coriolis.asp).

Robert Winter
15th-April-2007, 12:40 AM
I guess everyone in the UK dances off beat then, as we are taught to step back on our right/left foot and leave our left/right more or less where it was. Our feet don't "close" on the step back.


Not saying I'm understanding a lot of this thread - I think its just confusing me - but I'm pretty sure that I step back right on the 1 as well. (Unless doing cha cha, when I step back on 2 :wink: )


Everyone in MJ except myself, anyone who's ever taught me, and anyone I've ever danced with :whistle: - we're all 'rockstep on 1' people.No you don't.

I am happy to conceed that guys in the UK seem to mostly lead on the left foot and girls right, but the principle of when the weight transferance happens is still the same. It is on the 8.

I agree that this does get confusing if you are doing a rock step as can seem like you are stepping on 1, but in fact you are moving on 8 and completing that motion on 1.

For those who still refuse to believe a teacher with my record...

YouTube - Modern Jive Dance Lesson (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--pgDVVq4oo)

Here is one to music. They are starting on the 2 rather than the 8, but the concept of them dancing on the even numbers if using straight count still applies, meaning even if they danced to the phrase they would not start on the 1.

YouTube - Modern Jive Lesson, watch if you want to learn to dance fast (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRdxmnRjxHg)

This is free style, but once again their weight transference is happening on the even counts or up beats:

YouTube - Advanced final - Scottish Ceroc Competition (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geam_pk5AwE)

YouTube - SJ and Dan doing ceroc at Midlands champs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvEZq2LQ6vE)

YouTube - Ceroc at Taboo 2007 - Romantic (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqUcUs2c4-c)

In closing, some people do actually make their initiating movement on the "1" in the music, but this is wrong. It is not because I am saying it is the nature of the dance. This is where up beat and down beat comes in. Sorry Andy but it is crucial.

MJ is an up beat dance. WCS is a down beat dance. As such your initiating movement in MJ MUST be on the even counts (or & counts if you are using that method) and your initiating movement in WCS MUST be on the odd counts. Try leading WCS on 2 instead of on 1. Try leading Cha Cha on 1 instead of on 2. It feels terrible and that is the same thing that happens with MJ if you lead it on 1 rather than on 8.

It doesn't matter if you use a rock step, kick ball change, a simple step step motion or just stand still and yank your arms around, you are initiating movement on even counts if you are doing it right, end of story and my apologies to those who have been taught it the opposite way.

However, I do feel that what we have in this thread is "person X believes Z to be so and writes about it. Person Y also believe Z to be so but writes about it in such a way that person X thinks person Y is wrong". I always believe that text is a very bad medium for communication, especially when music and visuals are needed. Would love to continue this discussion if I get to teach any of you in a future workshop. :cheers:

Lynn
15th-April-2007, 02:25 AM
I am happy to conceed that guys in the UK seem to mostly lead on the left foot and girls right, but the principle of when the weight transferance happens is still the same. It is on the 8.

I agree that this does get confusing if you are doing a rock step as can seem like you are stepping on 1, but in fact you are moving on 8 and completing that motion on 1.So the lead is on the 8 and the step completion is on the 1? But then doesn't that mean the weight transfer is on the 1?

I haven't been taught the 'down beat and upbeat' thing but a popular track like Gotan Project's Santa Maria sounds to me to have a 'stronger' beat on the 1 (and 5) so that is what I would be inclined to step on. Am I therefore dancing against the MJ beat? (Or am I talking rubbish - quite possible, still getting to grips with all this!)

Sorry, can't watch the clips - on dial up.

Robert Winter
15th-April-2007, 02:35 AM
So the lead is on the 8 and the step completion is on the 1? But then doesn't that mean the weight transfer is on the 1?

I haven't been taught the 'down beat and upbeat' thing but a popular track like Gotan Project's Santa Maria sounds to me to have a 'stronger' beat on the 1 (and 5) so that is what I would be inclined to step on. Am I therefore dancing against the MJ beat? (Or am I talking rubbish - quite possible, still getting to grips with all this!)

Sorry, can't watch the clips - on dial up.
The weight completes its transfer on the 1, however it initiates on the 8.

Also, most tracks you listen to will have the heavier beat on the 1, 3, 5 & 7. But this only means that is where you hits will fall and thus where you will put your breaks. It doesn't affect when you start your dance nor when you should be stepping.

So I don't start stepping on a 5 simply because that is where the major hit is. I need to start at the beginning of a phrase (which is always 1). In WCS I can take my first step on the 1 but in MJ I need to preempt that and beginning the motion on the 8.

You will find that this is (most likely) what you currently do. You just don't think about it that way. Take any song, start stepping and begin to count & 5 & 6 & 7 & 8. You will find that your first step (be it your right or left foot) will always fall on the "&" and your other foot will always fall on the number (be it 5 6 7 or 8). As a lead, you will generate tension, your "push back" will be on the & as you take your first step (or in the case of a rock step the "rock" part) and then your partner and you will be in open dance position on 1.

Lynn
15th-April-2007, 02:51 AM
So I don't start stepping on a 5 simply because that is where the major hit is. I need to start at the beginning of a phrase (which is always 1). In WCS I can take my first step on the 1 but in MJ I need to preempt that and beginning the motion on the 8. Preempt on the 8 I can understand but you were saying a couple of posts back that as followers we don't actually step with weight transfer on the 1.

In WCS to get the follow stepping forward on the 1 does the lead not need to also be pre-empting on the &?



You will find that this is (most likely) what you currently do. You just don't think about it that way. Take any song, start stepping and begin to count & 5 & 6 & 7 & 8. You will find that your first step (be it your right or left foot) will always fall on the "&" and your other foot will always fall on the number (be it 5 6 7 or 8). As a lead, you will generate tension, your "push back" will be on the & as you take your first step (or in the case of a rock step the "rock" part) and then your partner and you will be in open dance position on 1.I'll try that and see. I don't tend to listen to music in 'Ceroc counts' though I do listen in '8s' (rather than bars of 4). Though I've only tended to do that recently, more often instinctively 'feeling' my way through music.

Robert Winter
15th-April-2007, 04:47 AM
Preempt on the 8 I can understand but you were saying a couple of posts back that as followers we don't actually step with weight transfer on the 1.

In WCS to get the follow stepping forward on the 1 does the lead not need to also be pre-empting on the &?Well, if you want to start talking preempt then in MJ you preempt on 7 (if using a straight count).

The 8 is where the movement takes place.


WCS is a little different in that the preempt is on the 8&a (using rolling count) before the 1.


I'll try that and see. I don't tend to listen to music in 'Ceroc counts' though I do listen in '8s' (rather than bars of 4). Though I've only tended to do that recently, more often instinctively 'feeling' my way through music.Too true. Which is why most people think they start moving on the 1 because that is where they naturally hear the phrase starting even if they know nothing about music.

But in MJ you will step first on the 8 and second on the 1.

Andy McGregor
15th-April-2007, 05:06 AM
But in MJ you will step first on the 8 and second on the 1.At last the answer to the question I asked - and the place where N Z Monkey decided that nobody wanted to read my opinion.

And we agree :clap:

At least we agree on which foot you should be on. I still don't like this talk of upbeat, downbeat, etc - it's too confusing for the reasons I gave earlier. Of course you emphasise the odd numbered beats in MJ - but you place special emphasis on beat 1 in the 8 count and talk of beats as having only two types does not fit with this.

Robert Winter
15th-April-2007, 05:55 AM
...I still don't like this talk of upbeat, downbeat, etc - it's too confusing for the reasons I gave earlier. Of course you emphasise the odd numbered beats in MJ - but you place special emphasis on beat 1 in the 8 count and talk of beats as having only two types does not fit with this.Could you explain that a bit more?

In an 8 count phrase anything with an odd number 1, 3, 5, 7 is a down beat, because it has a heavier feel. Anything with an even number 2, 4, 6, 8 is an upbeat because it has a lighter feel.

But if you think this is confusing, wait until I get onto heavy measures and light measures. :wink:

NZ Monkey
15th-April-2007, 09:48 AM
- and the place where N Z Monkey decided that nobody wanted to read my opinion.

Spoken in jest Andy. You can tell by the liberal use of cute little smiley icons. :flower:

I'd still like to know what the reason for closing the feet in step footwork is for. I've gathered from what Robert has said (although he's never stated explicitly so this is just my impression) that this is to emphasise the upbeat, or the downbeat, or the sidebeat (perhaps that's the right one? -get it? Right one? OK, I'll stop with the bad puns)....possibly the inside-outbeat... one of those little buggers anyway. :confused:

I'm just not sure *how* this emphasises anything. I do it because it's become automatic (and I like the way it looks.... perhaps whatever it's supposed to be doing is working :wink: ) but I'd love to understand *why* step footwork's been formulated that way in the first place. Is it just to prevent stray legs going off in all sorts of random and untidy directions?

straycat
15th-April-2007, 11:27 AM
What are you talking about? Everyone in MJ (at least those who dance on beat) step back (guys right, ladies left) on the 8 and then "close" their feet on the 1.




No you don't.

I am happy to conceed that guys in the UK seem to mostly lead on the left foot and girls right, but the principle of when the weight transferance happens is still the same. It is on the 8.

I agree that this does get confusing if you are doing a rock step as can seem like you are stepping on 1, but in fact you are moving on 8 and completing that motion on 1.


Ahhhh. I now understand the confusion. The impression given by your first comment was that one places the backstep foot on the ground on eight, then 'closes' the feet together on one - which all seemed a bit odd.

To me, 'step back on one' means simply that my left (or right) foot hits the ground on one. So to initiate the move before that point is pretty much a given - though to say it's exactly on eight is probably an over-simplification.

straycat
15th-April-2007, 11:46 AM
However, I do feel that what we have in this thread is "person X believes Z to be so and writes about it. Person Y also believe Z to be so but writes about it in such a way that person X thinks person Y is wrong". I always believe that text is a very bad medium for communication, especially when music and visuals are needed.

It's probably safer I don't comment on most of the videos referenced in this post.
(although the Victoria / Keith clip is great :respect:)

I think you're spot on with this comment though - it does get confusing when we're all talking about the same thing with different terminology. Especially when so many of us are so passionate about the subject. Which is not to say the discussions are not worth having though - we've certainly all got things we can learn from it.

Andy McGregor
15th-April-2007, 12:17 PM
Could you explain that a bit more?

In an 8 count phrase anything with an odd number 1, 3, 5, 7 is a down beat, because it has a heavier feel. Anything with an even number 2, 4, 6, 8 is an upbeat because it has a lighter feel.

But if you think this is confusing, wait until I get onto heavy measures and light measures. :wink:All I'm saying is that there is no need to tell students that there is an upbeat or a downbeat. And I'm especially saying that you must not tell students that they are the only kinds of beat there are - to do that would have them starting a phrase in their dancing that commenced on beat 3, 5 or 7. Put simply, they need to know where beat 1 is, especially after a break. They need to know what beat in the bar the break has come on so that they know when the break is over.

And, once you've got into discussion about breaks you need to start talking about 12 bar blues, etc - a giant leap for somebody who thinks there's only 2 types of beat.

Finally, I've remembered something I posted ages ago that backs Robert's assertion that dancing starts with a step on beat 8. It also supports my assertion that the lady goes back on beat 1. And it also proves that the semi-circle to the left is counter-productive - although as semi-circle to the right, a la Viktor, is OK (ish :devil: ).

When you start the lady dancing you need to ensure that her weight is on her left foot on beat 8 of the previous bar, then, by applying gentle pressure into her hand, you get her to step back on her right foot with the weight transfer on beat 1 of the next musical phrase. I like to think of it as and-er-one over two beats. The timing during teaching is as follows;

5 - beat 1 guys step left, ladies right
& - beat 2 same foot as above
6 - beat 3 guys step right, ladies left
& - beat 4 same foot as above
7 - beat 5 guys step left, ladies right
& - beat 6same foot as above
8 - beat 7 guys step right, ladies left
& - beat 8 still on the same foot a above
er - guy applies pressure into the ladies hand to get her to step back and as her weight is on her left foot she...
1 - .. steps back right

In the teaching situation we need to get the lady to step onto her left foot on beat 8. We usually start people stepping left & right in the countdown, this happens naturally, so long as we ask the guys to step left on the odd counts in the countdown and the ladies to step right. This is the same timing as I see at Ceroc lessons - which is why I'm confused when Ceroc teachers tell me that "it doesn't matter which foot"!

In the freestyle situation I find that applying gentle pressure to the right on beat 8 places the lady's weight on her left foot ready for ther 'er' moment when I apply gently pressure into her hand to get her to step back right on beat 1. As I said earlier, there is an argument that doing a semi-circle to the right (when in the LR hand hold) on beat 8 will place the weight on the ladies left foot - and the hand going between your bodies will naturally cause the lady to step back - hopefully on the right foot. This inward semi-circle is perferable to the outward one that Ceroc teach, however, I can see no reason to do either and many reasons to do neither.

Andy McGregor
15th-April-2007, 12:22 PM
(although the Victoria / Keith clip is great :respect:):yeah:

I have always thought this couple are underrated. In Britrock a couple of years ago I watched them in the Open final and was worried that my friend, and some-time competition partner, Lisa Saw was out-danced by Victoria and Keith :tears: Lisa and her partner (forget his name* :wink: ) got the Gold and Victoria and Keith were outside the medals :confused:



*Simon of Simon & Nicole :worthy:

Robert Winter
15th-April-2007, 02:27 PM
It's probably safer I don't comment on most of the videos referenced in this post.
(although the Victoria / Keith clip is great :respect:)

I think you're spot on with this comment though - it does get confusing when we're all talking about the same thing with different terminology. Especially when so many of us are so passionate about the subject. Which is not to say the discussions are not worth having though - we've certainly all got things we can learn from it.
Well yes. But then I couldn't immediately find some of the best in the UK on YouTube. I did find one or two greats on YouTube, but I was appalled at the compression which had some of them looking like they were on the half beat.

A curse on video compression tools.

Ghost
15th-April-2007, 02:30 PM
To me, 'step back on one' means simply that my left (or right) foot hits the ground on one. So to initiate the move before that point is pretty much a given - though to say it's exactly on eight is probably an over-simplification.
It's one of those "hidden in plain sight" things. "Footwork isn't taught", but once it was pointed out to me that the teacher and demo were taking a small (say a half normal stride) step back on the eight, I wondered "How didn't I see that before?"

(The answer being that on the eight I was firmly looking at my partner. It's only when I got round to sitting down and watching teachers and demos during the class that I started to notice the other stuff :rolleyes: )

Edit: just to confuse things a bit more - all the "step back on the left / right" stuff is reversible.

Mr Cool
15th-April-2007, 05:01 PM
:nice: For those who still refuse to believe a teacher with my record...

YouTube - Modern Jive Dance Lesson (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--pgDVVq4oo)

Here is one to music. They are starting on the 2 rather than the 8, but the concept of them dancing on the even numbers if using straight count still applies, meaning even if they danced to the phrase they would not start on the 1.

YouTube - Modern Jive Lesson, watch if you want to learn to dance fast (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRdxmnRjxHg)

This is free style, but once again their weight transference is happening on the even counts or up beats:

YouTube - Advanced final - Scottish Ceroc Competition (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geam_pk5AwE)

YouTube - SJ and Dan doing ceroc at Midlands champs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvEZq2LQ6vE)

YouTube - Ceroc at Taboo 2007 - Romantic (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqUcUs2c4-c)

In closing, some people do actually make their initiating movement on the "1" in the music, but this is wrong. It is not because I am saying it is the nature of the dance. This is where up beat and down beat comes in. Sorry Andy but it is crucial.

MJ is an up beat dance. WCS is a down beat dance. As such your initiating movement in MJ MUST be on the even counts (or & counts if you are using that method) and your initiating movement in WCS MUST be on the odd counts. Try leading WCS on 2 instead of on 1. Try leading Cha Cha on 1 instead of on 2. It feels terrible and that is the same thing that happens with MJ if you lead it on 1 rather than on 8.

It doesn't matter if you use a rock step, kick ball change, a simple step step motion or just stand still and yank your arms around, you are initiating movement on even counts if you are doing it right, end of story and my apologies to those who have been taught it the opposite way.

Well I think you are probably a great teacher of moves.
The video clips you chose show lots of moves very little about dancing to phases, very little footwork and I would question if any of them know what a downbeat is.:confused:
I think your understanding of musicality is not helpful and confusing for most dancers
The real strength of modern jive is its flexibility it can be danced to a wide range of music in a wide range of styles.
For many dancers including me the music dictates the dance. therefore if the music wants me to hold a break emphasise a down beat or a hesitation thats what i do simple.
Conversely with a different partner I may well lead a different dance to the same track. this to me is what dance is about lead and follow, music led but open to a range of interpretations.:wink:
Most good dancers do not count the beats they instictively start at the start of a phase. :whistle:
It is not that important which foot you step back on, one might prefer to step across for example.
Dancers can perform single steps triple steps double time half time or more likely
a combination of the above their choice.
To say that MJ is a up beat dance and WCS is a down beat is a nonsense it depends on the music and how each dance is led.:cheers: :cheers:

:waycool: :waycool: :waycool:

Ghost
15th-April-2007, 05:02 PM
Could you explain that a bit more?

In an 8 count phrase anything with an odd number 1, 3, 5, 7 is a down beat, because it has a heavier feel. Anything with an even number 2, 4, 6, 8 is an upbeat because it has a lighter feel.

Like the attached (hopefully)

Ghost
15th-April-2007, 06:47 PM
there you go, I dance offbeat. I knew it :tears:

A part that the most commong thing in the UK is for the lady to step back right, personally (and I'm not going to say what others do here) I step back on 1 (as in my feet are apart on 1).
Um boss - I think the important thing is when you finish your step back, not on which foot or whether they're together :flower: So as long as your step back finishes on the 1st beat, then you're onbeat.

cf the difference between
* weight shifting to your left foot on the 8 and stepping back on your right foor on the 1
(on beat)
and

* weight shifting to your left foot on the 1 and stepping back on your right foor on the 2
(off-beat)

It is entirely possible to dance out of phase the second way (trust me I've done it). The catch is that most hits in the music are on odd beats and so will now be on the "AND" part of your counts making it trickier to catch them. Oh and it feels weird.

Robert Winter
16th-April-2007, 12:14 AM
Well I think you are probably a great teacher of moves.
The video clips you chose show lots of moves very little about dancing to phases, very little footwork and I would question if any of them know what a downbeat is.:confused:
I think your understanding of musicality is not helpful and confusing for most dancers
The real strength of modern jive is its flexibility it can be danced to a wide range of music in a wide range of styles.
For many dancers including me the music dictates the dance. therefore if the music wants me to hold a break emphasise a down beat or a hesitation thats what i do simple.
Conversely with a different partner I may well lead a different dance to the same track. this to me is what dance is about lead and follow, music led but open to a range of interpretations.:wink:
Most good dancers do not count the beats they instictively start at the start of a phase. :whistle:
It is not that important which foot you step back on, one might prefer to step across for example.
Dancers can perform single steps triple steps double time half time or more likely
a combination of the above their choice.
To say that MJ is a up beat dance and WCS is a down beat is a nonsense it depends on the music and how each dance is led.:cheers: :cheers:

:waycool: :waycool: :waycool:You are perfectly correct in that the beauty of MJ is its flexibility and that even people with two left feet can come along, feel relaxed and learn to dance in a fun environment. I am not disputing that and discussion of counts, frame, styling etc. does not negate this. The point of discussing the techniques behind the dance is that some people are interested. If you are not then just ignore the post and move on. But when an expert is trying to help it might be nice to either ignore him or add something constructive, rather than flaming his efforts.

Second, if you are going to be rude enough to flame a person about their contribution then it would be advisable to "flame with merit". But flaming me about my dance ability and knowledge in the realm of MJ is just down right stupid, and if you think my posts are adding nothing to this forum then you should take a long hard look at your last one.

Finally, my posts may not be helpful to you, but whether you agree with me or not is irrelevant. A phrase has 8 counts to it. It contains both down & up beats. These are facts and I am yet to teach someone who is a lesser dancer for knowing them. :cheers::cheers:

P.S. As for the clips chosen. They were picked simply because they were the easiest to find on YouTube and demonstrated "stepping on the 8". Perhaps if they are sooooo poor you might be kind enough to post footage of yourself dancing, then you can really put me in my place with a demonstration of your amazing floor abilities. :wink:

Robert Winter
16th-April-2007, 12:16 AM
Like the attached (hopefully)
Superb graphic. :)

Lynn
16th-April-2007, 12:52 AM
In an 8 count phrase anything with an odd number 1, 3, 5, 7 is a down beat, because it has a heavier feel. Anything with an even number 2, 4, 6, 8 is an upbeat because it has a lighter feel.

But if you think this is confusing, wait until I get onto heavy measures and light measures. :wink:Is that along the lines of what Jordan talks about on the J&T Musicology DVD? 'Cos that all makes perfect sense to me.

So in MJ we are normally marking the upbeat with the lighter feel?

As for the stepping, I'm going to have to wait till I dance next to see what I do.

I'm still sure I would, given the freedom to do so (ie given space to decorate or if I was leading) be marking the down beat in tracks like Santa Maria (eg if I was leading ochos I'd be leading the side step part on the 1 and 5 and allowing the follower to pivot on the 2, 3, 4 - and yes I know that's tango, but its surely valid to do AT moves within MJ if its an AT track - I'm thinking of that as its a nice move to highlight those strong downbeats.)

Amir
16th-April-2007, 01:07 AM
In closing, some people do actually make their initiating movement on the "1" in the music, but this is wrong. It is not because I am saying it is the nature of the dance.

I don't understand how this is true all. When you start a dance has nothing to do with if you are dancing on the upbeat or downbeat. All the clips you showed emphasized the downbeats, not the upbeats.

Competition Cha cha, for example, is danced on the 2. But you can initiate the dance on the one as long as the rock step still happens on the 2. All this to arrive at the important part being that the cha cha cha occurs on the 4 & 1.

In modern jive almost everyone, including the clips you posted, danced the rocksteps and turns accenting the downbeats. I don’t see how the initiating movement has anything to do with it, since if you understand the dance structure you can start on any count you like and still end up at the same places at the same times.





This is free style, but once again their weight transference is happening on the even counts or up beats:



I feel like we must be watching different clips! They are doing weight transfers (ie steps) when moving, on every count, not just the upbeats or the downbeats. Their movements complete on the 1s and 3s, which means to me they are dancing on ‘one’ or to use your terminology, dancing on the downbeat. For example, when doing a first move, their rock step (which is always one of the most emphasized steps) is on the down beat. Which is the same as Charleston, lindy hop, rock n roll, jive, and of course, modern jive.


This must be (as you have said) an argument about terminology, because watching the same clips we both agree the dancers you chose are doing it the normal way (although some of them are not as consistent as others). I simply don’t understand how you came to the conclusion that modern jive is an upbeat dance, and how the initiating movement could have anything to do with it.

Amir
16th-April-2007, 01:19 AM
(Incidentally I have tried dancing modern jive on the upbeats and find it a real challenge. An interesting exercise in tango to improve musicality, rhythmic control and awareness is to only step on the upbeats, then to try switch between dancing on the upbeat and then back to the down beat. I find I can get dancing just on the up beat down, but if I go back down from dancing upbeats my downbeats get mixed up. When I feel down about it I consider finding the teacher that suggested it to me and beating him up until he is down. beat. But I'm no good at fighting so I just imagine I am a giant marshmallow.)

Ghost
16th-April-2007, 01:20 AM
MJ is an upbeat dance (ie the initiating step is on the even count)



This must be (as you have said) an argument about terminology, because watching the same clips we both agree the dancers you chose are doing it the normal way (although some of them are not as consistent as others). I simply don’t understand how you came to the conclusion that modern jive is an upbeat dance, and how the initiating movement could have anything to do with it.

I really hope Robert's saying it's an upbeat dance because you begin on the upbeat, and complete the move on the downbeat.

Otherwise I'm lost. :flower:

Amir
16th-April-2007, 01:38 AM
I really hope Robert's saying it's an upbeat dance because you begin on the upbeat, and complete the move on the downbeat.

Otherwise I'm lost. :flower:

Well I'm lost either way! WCS also starts on the 8 (with the stretch away to create leverage) and the movement completes on the down beat. So why is that a 'downbeat dance' and mj an upbeat dance? Well? I propose we abolish all beats. From now on I will only dance to a soft and soothing whistle produced by three Greek maidens in period dress, standing in profile so we can admire their straight noses and puckered lips, and perhaps one day immortalize them on the side of a vase.

Ghost
16th-April-2007, 01:44 AM
Well I'm lost either way! WCS also starts on the 8 (with the stretch away to create leverage) and the movement completes on the down beat. So why is that a 'downbeat dance' and mj an upbeat dance?
Drat - I dont know WCS but I was hoping the converse was true. Oh well - just have to wait till getting up time in Oz I guess.


Well? I propose we abolish all beats. From now on I will only dance to a soft and soothing whistle produced by three Greek maidens in period dress, standing in profile so we can admire their straight noses and puckered lips, and perhaps one day immortalize them on the side of a vase.
Please, please, please can we have this at the next T-Jive? :clap:

Robert Winter
16th-April-2007, 02:36 AM
Is that along the lines of what Jordan talks about on the J&T Musicology DVD? 'Cos that all makes perfect sense to me.Yes. Exactly on the same lines. :nice:

I suppose I could have just saved a lot of pointless typing and referenced that at the start.:wink:


This must be (as you have said) an argument about terminology, because watching the same clips we both agree the dancers you chose are doing it the normal way (although some of them are not as consistent as others). I simply don’t understand how you came to the conclusion that modern jive is an upbeat dance, and how the initiating movement could have anything to do with it.You are correct. It is a case of "battle of terminology". The dancers in the clips are doing it the "normal" way, but my conclusion about MJ being up beat comes simply from the "basic" step pattern (I do really want to emphasize basic here).

If using step step footwork in an 8 count pattern MJ steps, even odd even odd even odd (8 1 2 3 4 5). WCS steps odd even odd even (1 2 3 4).

So, imagine dancing WCS by taking your first step on 2 and your second step on 3. This would feel just as strange as taking your first step in MJ on 1 and your second step on 2.

As for why MJ is up beat and WCS down beat. It is not because of the beat they emphasise, it is because the first step in a basic MJ pattern is on an UP beat and the first step in WCS is on a DOWN beat (with 1, 3, 5, 7 being down beats and 2, 4, 6, 8 being up beats).

When we see people dancing MJ on what is often referred to as the "half beat" this is because they took their first step on the 1 and second on the 2 so they are dancing on a different timing to everyone else.


...From now on I will only dance to a soft and soothing whistle produced by three Greek maidens in period dress, standing in profile so we can admire their straight noses and puckered lips, and perhaps one day immortalize them on the side of a vase.I am with you on that one. Something which was suppose to very simple has really spiraled. :confused:

Jamie
16th-April-2007, 02:49 AM
Completely off topic, but, is no one else having OCD with the threads title?

"Down{SPACE}beat and Upbeat"

It's driving me crazy! :sick:

Amir
16th-April-2007, 03:17 AM
So, imagine dancing WCS by taking your first step on 2 and your second step on 3. This would feel just as strange as taking your first step in MJ on 1 and your second step on 2.

:


Thats the whole problem! I do take my first step (onto my left foot) in MJ on 1. You take your first step onto your right foot on 8. We both end up on our left foot on 1, but we start at different times. Which is why I don't see how it is useful to classify a dance according to which count you start with.

Cha Cha is 'on two' because the rock step is on 2. This is true even if I take my first step (sideways onto my right) on 1, then rock forward on 2. (I'm no cha cha expert but that is my understanding of the few lessons I have done.)




When we see people dancing MJ on what is often referred to as the "half beat" this is because they took their first step on the 1 and second on the 2 so they are dancing on a different timing to everyone else.


Well since I take my first step on 1 and my second on the 2, I have to disagree with you! They are dancing on the half beat because their movements are emphasizing the upbeats, (which dancers sometimes call half beats). If when doing a first move your rock step is on count 2 or 4 I would say you are dancing on the upbeat, or dancing on the half beat. If you rock back on 1 or 3 I would consider that standard 'downbeat' dancing.

I am curious if the distinction between downbeat and upbeat dances is something you have developed or something that exists amongst other dance circles. No disrespect to it either way, but I have genuinely never heard this terminology used in this context. Do you (or does one) classify cha cha as an upbeat dance, for example?

Robert Winter
16th-April-2007, 03:45 AM
I am curious if the distinction between downbeat and upbeat dances is something you have developed or something that exists amongst other dance circles. No disrespect to it either way, but I have genuinely never heard this terminology used in this context. Do you (or does one) classify cha cha as an upbeat dance, for example?I was first made aware of the concept of down beat and up beat dancing by Myles Munroe on the Ceroc & Modern Jive Forum (http://www.cerocforum.com).

You will need to log-in to read the thread, but for those who arn't a member here is the key part of his post:


Hi All, Myles Munroe here (Tessa's partner)

Tessa asked my opinion on this matter and thought my background in multiple dances would lend for a very informative post, so here goes:

The first question about the possibilty of being limited by dancing upeat/down beat vs. Downbeat/upbeat is a good one, the debate is still going on in the Hustle community and the Nite club Two-step community. There are two answers, one simple, one not so much.
Once two dancers start moving (one on the down, the other on the up) they will look equally on time. If a hustle dancer or MJ dancer were dancing to a techno song that had bass hits on all beats 1, 2, 3, 4 etc..... then you would not be able to tell the difference of an upbeat dancer or a down beat dancer.
Here's the trickier part. Most modern music (unlike classical) is accented on the up beats. The main pulse is on the ups (think of what beat you would snap on) and the phrasing and structure of the songs are all set on the 1's or downbeat. This allows people to think it best to dance on the upbeat to stay on the accent. These people will dance to only one aspect of a song. Musicians aren't thinking about dancers when they write music. They will start their instrumentation around the 1 beat and same with the lyrics. When a song hits a break or a dancer starts dancing to the start of the song is where the difference of the downbeat or upbeat dancer shows itself.
A downbeat dancer will begin moving when the song starts or resumes after a break. An upbeat dancer will either move before or after the start/resume of a song and will appear to be "off-time". Again, once they're going and until the next break they will both look fine except to the musically trained person who understands phrasing.
Almost every song that we would wcs or mj to will have the breaks on 1 or 5 of an 8 beat measure of music. A down beat dancer will be more likely to be "naturally" hitting it by having their patterns beginning on the downbeats because they will hear the break or phrase change coming a few beats early and will only have to pause or not start a pattern and they will hit the music.
An Upbeat dancer will have to interupt their patterns or wait an extra count once they hear the break coming. The upbeat dancer will be forcing the breaks as it is more likely that they will be beginning a new pattern on the 8 and have to wait from 7 until the break on 1 or start and stop their patterns.
As far as the interpretation of music goes, it is in most cases more beneficial to the overall dance to dance on the downbeat. Obviously there are exceptions to every rule, again in the case of classical music and most traditional asian songs where the pulses/accents are on the downbeats. These songs would best be danced on the upbeat. (I have a fascinating summary of a study done on Chinese people and North American music and Dance, I'll bring it up in another post if people ask)

Amir
16th-April-2007, 11:19 AM
I was first made aware of the concept of down beat and up beat dancing by Myles Munroe on the Ceroc & Modern Jive Forum (http://www.cerocforum.com).

You will need to log-in to read the thread, but for those who arn't a member here is the key part of his post:

Well I’ll get my teeth into this properly later, when I find my floss, but in the mean time, I only see a distinction here between upbeat/down beat dancers, as opposed to upbeat and down beat dances. Anyway, he seems to me to be advocating dancing wcs and modern jive on the downbeat (which I agree with, and what everyone in those clips was doing) so I still don’t understand why you think of it rigidly as an upbeat dance. I could dance it on the upbeat, but as Miles says, “An upbeat dancer will either move before or after the start/resume of a song and will appear to be "off-time” so why advocate it for modern jive? Modern jive should (and almost always is) danced on the downbeats which is the best way to look and feel phrased with the music – although I haven’t yet been to Australia so maybe the norm is different there. But you seemed to draw a distinction between dancing on the half beat and dancing on the upbeat. They are two words for the same thing, although I don't think musicians ever call them halfbeats, that is a dancers term.

Anyway, he seems to be repeating the mistake of simplifying downbeat vrs upbeat to when you start to dance. Which isn’t true. Like the example I keep giving, you can start cha cha with your side step on 1 and still be on the two. You can start salsa with a right step on 8 and still be on ‘one’. You can start modern jive on 8 and still be on 1. (Although it would be much easier in my opinion to simply start on one like every other dance modern jive is related to: lindy, swing, jive etc.) A musician can start playing on 4 and still be emphasising downbeats, or start playing on 1 and accenting the upbeats. The start does not an upbeat or a downbeat make.

I also find it strange the implication that classical music should be danced on the upbeat just because it emphasizes the downbeats. (Maybe I misunderstood this last point.) In classical ballet you would almost always start moving on the downbeat, and the dance emphasizes the downbeats all the way through.

Finally, he is saying that dancing on the downbeats will make it easier to hit breaks. This is true for mj, where if you start on 1 most patterns will finish on a downbeat. But wcs patterns finish on the upbeats, for example, a whip will finish on 8 and a sugar push on 6. To hit a break on 7 you need to accelerate a whip to finish a count earlier, after which you wait one count to resume on 1. So arguably starting wcs on 2 would make it easier for beginners to hit breaks, (like in wade in the water where the breaks are on 1) though of course it is not a serious argument since it is the acceleration into the break that makes it exciting in the first place. I know Miles knows all this so I’ll see you all on the other forum to get into the meat of this! (or the soybean alternative for our planet conscious friends.)


(I have heard of this debate in Niteclub but it isn't to do with when you start moving, its to do with where in the music you take the long sideways stride. This may be simplified in conversation to breaking on 'one' or 'two', but this can get confusing for people who use a weight transfer on one in preparation to 'break on two'.)

Ghost
16th-April-2007, 11:26 AM
This is true for mj, where if you start on 1 most patterns will finish on a downbeat. But wcs patterns finish on the upbeats


However, musicality is not just about "hitting the breaks", it is also about how ones dancing looks in between those hits. This is where emphasizing the up beat comes into play.


So MJ is an upbeat dance because most patterns finish on the downbeat and WCS is a downbeat dance because most patterns finish on the upbeat; in both cases you emphasise the other beat to arrive at the definition of the dance?

Amir
16th-April-2007, 11:39 AM
So MJ is an upbeat dance because most patterns finish on the downbeat and WCS is a downbeat dance because most patterns finish on the upbeat; in both cases you emphasise the other beat to arrive at the definition of the dance?

How is this relevant? They will only finish on the down beat in MJ if you started on the downbeat. You are repeating the same thing in a more complicated way.

Anyway, in wcs a pattern ends (for beginners with an anchor step) before the next one starts, true for most other dances as well.

In MJ, the last step of a pattern is the first step of the next, since we don't use a triple step to round off the patterns.

Aleks
16th-April-2007, 11:59 AM
when an expert is trying to help it

IMO we need an 'expert' in music theory to explain this properly - CJ where are you - together with a professional dancer.

FWIW Amir's explaination made the most sense to me so far.

Ghost
16th-April-2007, 12:01 PM
How is this relevant? They will only finish on the down beat in MJ if you started on the downbeat. You are repeating the same thing in a more complicated way.
Well MJ seemed to make sense from a "It starts on the down beat so it's an upbeat dance", but I understood you to be saying

WCS also starts on the 8
that WCS and MJ start on the 8 and so the concept needs to become more complicated to incorporate it.
If I understood you properly

But wcs patterns finish on the upbeats
then WCS ends on the upbeat and so works if you define the dance as the opposite of the beat the patterns end on.


In MJ, the last step of a pattern is the first step of the next, since we don't use a triple step to round off the patterns.
ie

They will only finish on the down beat in MJ if you started on the downbeat.
So once you've started dancing MJ, be it on the 8 or the 1, as long as you complete the first move on the downbeat, you'll stay completing the moves on the downbeats unless you deliberately alter the timing?

Amir
16th-April-2007, 12:43 PM
IMO we need an 'expert' in music theory to explain this properly - .

Not sure that will help as when I speak to these people their use of terminology is very different from dancers. For example, for a musician, (based on the last conversation I had with one,) only the 1st count of a bar is called the down beat. This is because this is when the conductors baton strikes downwards. Which would mean the 3rd count is not considered a down beat, but us dancers do refer to this as a down beat. Also, most dancers count in 8s, and musicians in 4s. (Although Latin dancers I meet count cha cha in 4s, which I found very confusing to start with being so used to working with 8s)

Anyway, thanks to Robert I am now aware of the distinction sometimes made between upbeat and downbeat dances. Modernjive, and Jive are considered upbeat dances. Cha cha and WCs are downbeat dances. This has nothing to do with when you start the dance, however, but rather how you are moving in relation to the music.

To clarify why using the initiating step to classify a dance does not work consider this: Ballroom Jive is an upbeat dance. WCS is a downbeat dance. They both start on 1, and on the same foot as each other.

So how do you know if a dance is upbeat or downbeat? When I'm sure I fully understand it myself I'll be back to explain. As I said, the distinction is new to me, but I am sure it has less to do with when you are stepping and more to do with the character of the movement.

Amir
16th-April-2007, 01:17 PM
Haven't checked if there is a thread on this, yes, am being lazy, but can anyone explain to me what is the difference is between dancing on the "up beat" as opposed to dancing on the "down beat"..?
How can you tell which beat a dancers working on?
cheers

The conversation went way off this first question, unless I misunderstood the question. If you are doing your rock step on the first or third count of the bar then you are dancing on the downbeat, or 'on time.'

To explain how to find the first count of the bar in writing would take much longer than simply finding someone at a ceroc night who can explain it to you using the music playing.

What I have discovered thanks to this thread is the distinction made between an upbeat and downbeat dance. Although in modern jive you rock step on the downbeats, the character of the dance makes it an upbeat dance. This is interesting but probably useless information, so if you haven't understood it I doubt it really matters. What is important is that you know how to rock step on 1.


In Australia step ceroc they teach (as I understand it) to step back on eight. I would consider this a preparation step, like the side step you teach beginners in cha cha so they are ready to rock on 2. Or the stretch and weight transfer you can create in wcs ready to step on 1.

In my opinion it would be much easier to simply start mj on one, with a rock step, but that is whole different conversation, more to do with different approaches to arrive at the same goal.

spindr
16th-April-2007, 01:18 PM
A strong movement is stepping feet apart.
A weak movement is closing feet together.

In some music strong beats are on 1 (3) 5 (7).
In some music strong beats are on 2 (4) 6 (8).

Ideally you would fit your strongest movements to the strongest beats in the music. E.g. some DJs play cha-cha's for Modern Jive, and rumbas for WCS -- others just play pop.

SpinDr

Gadget
16th-April-2007, 01:29 PM
So, should I emphasis the up beat, or the down beat? :confused:
You should emphisise the music ;)

Seriously - ignore the ''up beats" and "down beats" - if you're advanced enough to worry about them, then you probably already step on the correct ones and move on the beat.

Listen to everything except the beat and place the emphasis on that: guitars, vocals, keyboard,...
The beat (up or down) is just the framework that the rest of the music fleshes out. By stepping and moving on the beat, you have created your own framework for the dance - place emphasis and movements to flesh out your dance like musicians/musical artists use instruments.

ducasi
16th-April-2007, 02:40 PM
You should emphisise the music ;)

Seriously - ignore the ''up beats" and "down beats" - if you're advanced enough to worry about them, then you probably already step on the correct ones and move on the beat.

Listen to everything except the beat and place the emphasis on that: guitars, vocals, keyboard,...
The beat (up or down) is just the framework that the rest of the music fleshes out. By stepping and moving on the beat, you have created your own framework for the dance - place emphasis and movements to flesh out your dance like musicians/musical artists use instruments.
:yeah:

Probably the most sensible comment in this thread.* :respect:

(*Though Gadget isn't the only to make it, to be fair.)

Ghost
16th-April-2007, 02:56 PM
To explain how to find the first count of the bar in writing would take much longer than simply finding someone at a ceroc night who can explain it to you using the music playing.
Outside of workshops, do any teachers actually explain how to "count yourself in"? Because in freestyle if you start by just stepping back on a beat, you've only got a 50/50 chance of it being the "right" one in terms of upbeat and downbeat and only a 1 in 8 chance of it being the first count of the bar.

ducasi
16th-April-2007, 04:43 PM
Outside of workshops, do any teachers actually explain how to "count yourself in"? Because in freestyle if you start by just stepping back on a beat, you've only got a 50/50 chance of it being the "right" one in terms of upbeat and downbeat and only a 1 in 8 chance of it being the first count of the bar.
And yet, somehow we manage... :really:

Mr Cool
16th-April-2007, 08:43 PM
You should emphisise the music ;)

Seriously - ignore the ''up beats" and "down beats" - if you're advanced enough to worry about them, then you probably already step on the correct ones and move on the beat.

Listen to everything except the beat and place the emphasis on that: guitars, vocals, keyboard,...
The beat (up or down) is just the framework that the rest of the music fleshes out. By stepping and moving on the beat, you have created your own framework for the dance - place emphasis and movements to flesh out your dance like musicians/musical artists use instruments.

Nice common sense post,.:respect:
Dancing to me is simple and does not require complex rules or knowledge of how music is constructed.
I have always believed good dancers are musicians with their feet.
I simply dance to the music, interpreting it as I go picking out different parts, emphasising sometimes the vocals sometimes an instrument. Feeling the music leading the pauses and breaks. I apply the same principle whatever the genre of dance, be it Swing, AT, Balboa, Blues, MJ, or WCS.
I certainly do not want to have to think too much to dance well I simply need the right music, a good follower and a nice fast floor as I love footwork.
I for one believe people should dance more to music that inspires them to dance and go to lessons less.:whistle:
I am no Expert of dance just a life long student, I love it.:yeah:

:waycool: :waycool: :waycool:

Amir
17th-April-2007, 12:07 AM
This:



Dancing to me is simple and does not require...knowledge of how music is constructed.


and this:



I have always believed good dancers are musicians with their feet.


seem to me to contradict. If you believe (as I do) that dancers are musicians with their feet, don't you think they should have some knowledge of how music is constructed? Do you know any musicians who don't know how music is constructed?

Music is not complicated. The music we listen to in Modern jive is very simple and the structure can be explained in under one hour. Since over your life time you may spend 100s of hours dancing, one hour to understand the basic structure of music is a good investment.

I do not know any dancers with impressive musicality who don't understand the structure of the music. Does anyone really think that musical masters like Jordan and Tatiana or Chicho don’t know about music structure? Of course when they dance they just feel it. But they learnt it first.

Most of this thread has been about terminology and classification which is not important for becoming a good dancer.

But that as dancers we count music in 4 lots of 8 beats, to make 32 count phrases (with some exceptions) can be summarized in one sentence, and explained and demonstrated to someone in less than an hour, and can change the way you approach dance forever.

Dancing should be free and freedom requires choice. The more knowledge you have the more choice you have.

Lynn
17th-April-2007, 12:21 AM
Outside of workshops, do any teachers actually explain how to "count yourself in"? Because in freestyle if you start by just stepping back on a beat, you've only got a 50/50 chance of it being the "right" one in terms of upbeat and downbeat and only a 1 in 8 chance of it being the first count of the bar.Not sure there would be much point - surely if you can't hear the 1 to start the dance on, you can't hear it to start the count to start the dance.

The best thing to do is listen to music when not dancing, try to find the 1 and count from there to get used to where it is in the music. There's more beyond that in terms of counting the 4 sets of 8 but I can't remember the correct terminology 'cos I'm too tired and don't want to be even more confusing.

I've only recently started to do all this because I could always hear the 1 anyway without having to count or think about it, so was a bit lazy about it all. Then I started to learn WCS...

Ghost
17th-April-2007, 12:40 AM
Dancing to me is simple and does not require complex rules or knowledge of how music is constructed.
I for one believe people should dance more to music that inspires them to dance and go to lessons less.:whistle:

Fair 'nuff. One of my favourite follows does just that. We have dances "choreographed by the Universe" - I've no idea what the technical merits are (and frankly when we're dancing I don't care), but I enjoy dancing with her tremendously. :clap:

Thing is this is a Dance Discussion Forum. There's a reason Franck doesn't just link to a page saying
"JUST DANCE"

So while I'm very happy that you dance the way you do :cheers: , I think you'll find that there are others who are interested in the more technical aspects.



Dancing should be free and freedom requires choice. The more knowledge you have the more choice you have.
:yeah: Including the choice to ignore / break the rules :clap:


Not sure there would be much point - surely if you can't hear the 1 to start the dance on, you can't hear it to start the count to start the dance.
Yeah I'm thinking more of a musicality workshop. Oh well. Good tip though :flower:

Lynn
17th-April-2007, 08:01 AM
Yeah I'm thinking more of a musicality workshop. You said 'outside of workshops' so I thought you were talking about regular classes. Musicality workshops are a great and highly recommended - they do vary though. Some are about listening to the different layers of the music, how to express different styles - for what we are discussing here you need to find one that teaches structure of music. I know I've already mentioned it here but Jordan and Tatiana's Musicology DVD is a good starting point - its for WCS but the description of the structure of music can be applied to any dance.

Can anyone recommend any other DVDs that teach similar things?

Amir
17th-April-2007, 09:13 AM
Can anyone recommend any other DVDs that teach similar things?

Robert Royston (http://www.robertroyston.com) has a DVD called WEST COAST SWING MAPPING- ‘HEARING THE MUSIC’

I haven't seen this DVD but I have done a class with him in this subject and it was excellent.

Robert Cordoba (http://www.cordobaszekely.com/videos.shtml) also has a breaks dvd. Again, I haven't seen it myself but I have done a musicality class with him which was also brilliant.

These are both WCS dvds so the moves covered won't be useful but their approach to music and dancing will be.

Caro
17th-April-2007, 09:31 AM
I do not know any dancers with impressive musicality who don't understand the structure of the music. Does anyone really think that musical masters like Jordan and Tatiana or Chicho don’t know about music structure? Of course when they dance they just feel it. But they learnt it first.

But that as dancers we count music in 4 lots of 8 beats, to make 32 count phrases (with some exceptions) can be summarized in one sentence, and explained and demonstrated to someone in less than an hour, and can change the way you approach dance forever.

Dancing should be free and freedom requires choice. The more knowledge you have the more choice you have.

massive :yeah: to all that.

As I have said elsewhere, I used to think I wasn't really made for dancing or anything related to music... Until I went to my first musicality class (incidentally, by Amir) just over a year ago or so and it was a complete revelation to me. Not only music suddendly made sense, but Amir is also brilliant at making you feel comfortable trying stuff out and constantly emphasises that there's no such thing as people who are complete 'natural' about those things, just people that have been exposed to music / dancing a lot and some who haven't. (usual address for the cheque, Amir).

So I do feel very strongly when I hear / read people saying : 'just dance' or worse 'just feeeel it' , 'you can dance or you can't' cause it just isn't helping anybody, and basically hindering their progression on the dance journey. Rubbish, in a word.

ducasi
17th-April-2007, 11:33 AM
So I do feel very strongly when I hear / read people saying : 'just dance' or worse 'just feeeel it' , 'you can dance or you can't' cause it just isn't helping anybody, and basically hindering their progression on the dance journey. Rubbish, in a word. I'd say that "you can dance or you can't" is miles from "just dance" or "just feeeel it" in meaning and likely motivational help.

Maybe it's because I have a little musical understanding from music lessons as a youngster, or maybe I am naturally musical, but having been to at least three musicality classes by well respected experts and not felt that I have learnt a great deal, the best advice I can give myself is "just dance".

Obviously that doesn't work for everybody (otherwise there wouldn't be a market for the DVDs mentioned above, or the workshops) but when it comes down to it, if people are struggling trying to understand how music works and how they can apply it to their dancing, but can enjoy themselves when they just dance, I'd say to them as well, "just dance".

Reading this thread it's apparent that the difference between "up" beats and "down" beats and what makes an "upbeat" or "downbeat" dance isn't common knowledge, and what's more, isn't essential to make someone a good dancer. So, again I say – don't bother with up beats and down beats – "just dance".

However, as Ghost said, there are folks who are interested in discussing the technical aspects of music and dance – I'm one of them – I just wouldn't want to give the wrong impression on how necessary this technical knowledge is.

I trust I have not hindered you too much. :flower:

Caro
17th-April-2007, 12:13 PM
Maybe it's because I have a little musical understanding from music lessons as a youngster, or maybe I am naturally musical, but having been to at least three musicality classes by well respected experts and not felt that I have learnt a great deal, the best advice I can give myself is "just dance".


You see what you call being naturally musical is what I would call having been exposed to music more than the average person (i.e. music lessons, possibly people in your family play instruments, listen to a lot of music, etc). Yes people then differ in how quickly they grab the concepts and learn, but essentially, I think you cannot be naturally musical - you can be a fast learner however.

And yes, 'Just dance' might be then the right advice for you - however I don't want to let that be the most common advice to most people - because most people will benefit in understanding how music is structured.



... if people are struggling trying to understand how music works and how they can apply it to their dancing, but can enjoy themselves when they just dance, I'd say to them as well, "just dance".


yes people can have fun just going through the motions, but why denying them the path to musicality, which will add another dimension to their dancing??? If they struggle to understand how music work, it is either because it has been badly explained to them, or because they just need a bit more of practice, and the controlled and safe environment of a musicality workshop will help them.




Reading this thread it's apparent that the difference between "up" beats and "down" beats and what makes an "upbeat" or "downbeat" dance isn't common knowledge, and what's more, isn't essential to make someone a good dancer. So, again I say – don't bother with up beats and down beats – "just dance".


I agree that this thread has become very technical and frankly the whole 'this is a down/up beat dance because the initiating movement starts on...' has gone way, way over my head, but I think it is important that the average dancer should understand that you can dance on time or offbeat (i.e. one musical beat offset to everybody else), and a way to understand that is to understand what the down and up beats are (even if only that it's the odd and even counts in the '8 mini-phrase'), especially if you can't feel it (you cannot talk about and understand what you cannot name).



I trust I have not hindered you too much. :flower:

No ;)

ducasi
17th-April-2007, 12:50 PM
You see what you call being naturally musical is what I would call having been exposed to music more than the average person (i.e. music lessons, possibly people in your family play instruments, listen to a lot of music, etc). Yes people then differ in how quickly they grab the concepts and learn, but essentially, I think you cannot be naturally musical - you can be a fast learner however. I disagree. I think there are natural dancers, natural musicians, natural athletes, and natural any-other-basic-human-activity.


yes people can have fun just going through the motions, but why denying them the path to musicality, which will add another dimension to their dancing??? If they struggle to understand how music work, it is either because it has been badly explained to them, or because they just need a bit more of practice, and the controlled and safe environment of a musicality workshop will help them. I don't think you need to understand how music works to be musical – again, I really think some people are naturally musical.

It's not in my nature though to deny anybody anything, but until the next musicality workshop comes along, I'd tell them to ...

I agree that this thread has become very technical and frankly the whole 'this is a down/up beat dance because the initiating movement starts on...' has gone way, way over my head, ... ... stop worrying and just dance! :D


... but I think it is important that the average dancer should understand that you can dance on time or offbeat (i.e. one musical beat offset to everybody else), and a way to understand that is to understand what the down and up beats are (even if only that it's the odd and even counts in the '8 mini-phrase'), especially if you can't feel it (you cannot talk about and understand what you cannot name). I disagree – I don't think this is a big issue for "the average dancer", and I'd imagine that the majority of average dancers don't understand the difference between upbeats and downbeats and which they are dancing to.


(you cannot talk about and understand what you cannot name). I disagree with this too! :yum:


No ;) Glad to hear it. :hug:

bigdjiver
17th-April-2007, 02:02 PM
... If you believe (as I do) that dancers are musicians with their feet, don't you think they should have some knowledge of how music is constructed? Do you know any musicians who don't know how music is constructed? ...I write songs. It is just a natural gift. I have little idea of musical theory beyond that there are things called bars and staves and time signatures, but I doubt I could explain those to the satisfaction of an examiner. I have no doubt that musical theory would greatly enhance my songs and my dancing, but my time is better spent on other talents. As long as my partners are smiling, I am content.

Ghost
17th-April-2007, 02:10 PM
Yeah I'm thinking more of a musicality workshop. Oh well. Good tip though :flower:


You said 'outside of workshops' so I thought you were talking about regular classes.

Sorry - I should have written
*dawning realisation" Yeah, now that I think about it more, this probably isn't going to happen in a Ceroc class and instead would be a music workshop, as Amir said you'd want an hour to explain things properly and as Ducasi said, you can get by without it.


I know I've already mentioned it here but Jordan and Tatiana's Musicology DVD is a good starting point - its for WCS but the description of the structure of music can be applied to any dance.
Ok I can find plenty of people willing to sell me Prince's Musicology dvd, but none for Jordan and Tatiana's - where can I get it? :flower:

Caro
17th-April-2007, 02:38 PM
Ok I can find plenty of people willing to sell me Prince's Musicology dvd, but none for Jordan and Tatiana's - where can I get it? :flower:

try here (http://www.jordantatianaswing.com)(and then click on products) :flower:

Lou
17th-April-2007, 02:55 PM
I disagree – I don't think this is a big issue for "the average dancer", and I'd imagine that the majority of average dancers don't understand the difference between upbeats and downbeats and which they are dancing to.
It's not a big issue, simply because of the way MJ is taught. The teacher doesn't need to say that "this is an up beat .. .this is a down beat"... etc. By using counts, demonstrating, and using the dreaded rhythmical "step back, step in, turn the lady, blah-blah"... etc., it conveys to the class when they should step. And all the moves have the same pattern, so it's predictable. Your average dancer absorbs it all unconsciously (or should that be subconsciously?). :wink: I suspect your "average dancer" will just shrug and say that they don't know why they do it - they just do it.

It doesn't mean that this theory isn't important, and that the concept isn't there. It's just that sometimes your brain is more clever and you understand more than you realise. :flower:

Amir
17th-April-2007, 03:04 PM
How much of music is natural?


I disagree. I think there are natural dancers, natural musicians, natural athletes, and natural any-other-basic-human-activity.
:

How do you define natural? Do you mean something that occurs without human intervention or assistance?

It is an interesting debate. For years we thought that language is a human invention. Noam Chomsky's great contribution was that grammar is in fact innate. We have genetic potential to organize symbols in particular syntax that has meaning. I don't pretend to understand the details, but it seems to be a given amongst linguists these days. There also appears to be a window (up to age 7, for example) in which this potential can be realized. If a child is not exposed to language by this time, it seems they can learn words but never develop the capability to compose sentences.

So perhaps you think music is like language, and is an innate human capability.

If so, I would argue that unless brain damaged or neglected, everybody can learn music, just as everybody can learn language. It is not like only some of us naturally are capable of learning grammar and some of us are not. Or that some of us can learn music but others can not. I find it unlikely that the ‘music’ gene is something that somehow skips some of us over.

Either way, although grammar may be natural, language must still be learnt. I don’t care how much grammar gene you have, unless you grow up around people who speak a language you won’t be able to speak it. Unless you go to school or experience the equivalent, you will not develop your language to a very high level.

Music is also a human construct. It is developed through society. All cultures have developed ways of organizing sound that is meaningful to them, but the huge variety evident in these different ways points to the fact that how we organize sound is not 'natural'. What you think of as natural music is very recent in human history. “Not until the seventeenth century did most music begin to be written and heard in measures – definite patterns of strong and weak beats.” (1)



What are the implications if some people are 'naturals'?


I disagree. I think there are natural dancers, natural musicians, natural athletes, and natural any-other-basic-human-activity.
:

What I will concede is that some people learn some things faster than others, and develop further. How from this you can reach a conclusion of ‘don’t bother learning’ I don’t understand! You only reach your own individual potential with training and knowledge. Anyone can get better at what they love with useful knowledge. You may not end up the best dancer/athlete/cook in the world, but you will end up better than you were.

Are you saying those who are natural don’t need the knowledge, and those who are not should not bother since they will never get it anyway?

Anyway, how do you know if you are ‘a natural’ or not? I recently heard Daniel Barenboim, the great conductor and virtuoso pianist say the following, which struck a chord and made me laugh:
“Somebody asked me not long ago: 'Since you became an adult have you met a child prodigy?' I said, 'No never, but many parents'.” (2)




Don't Give Up on Knowledge!



I disagree – I don't think this is a big issue for "the average dancer", and I'd imagine that the majority of average dancers don't understand the difference between upbeats and downbeats and which they are dancing to.
:

Of course if you are content to be an average dancer, then it is true. Don’t worry, just dance! If too many people start learning about music, however, the ‘average’ will be somewhat higher and you will no longer be an average dancer, but a below average dancer. I guess that would be a good incentive to tell everyone else not to go to musicality workshops!

(as a ‘commercial operator’ I also have a strong incentive to tell everyone they should got to workshops! But it is not because I make money from it that I believe it is important. It is because I believe it is important that I chose to make a living from it.)

Most of the time when I hear people say ‘that knowledge is not important’ they don’t actually have that knowledge themselves. (I am guilty of this earlier in this thread when I said it is not important to know if MJ is upbeat or downbeat. Because I don’t know myself I assume it is not important, otherwise I would have to swallow my pride.) If you don’t understand it, how do you know it is not important? Have you met someone with this knowledge who applied it, then decided it was actually a waste of time and their dancing is no better for it?


Learning without realising it

It is also so annoying when people say ‘oh, I hear music naturally.’ That is like Scotsman saying they speak with a Scottish accent naturally. No you don’t. You speak like that because you grew up somewhere where everyone else spoke like that. If you had grown up in Africa you would speak with an African accent. If I played you some Stravinsky, or certain Classical Indian music, or almost any music different from that which you grew up around, you would not be able to hit breaks, predict the downbeat or even stay on time. If you grew up taking music lessons, or dancing to music with your friends, or singing with your family, do not then have the arrogance to say you know music naturally. You learnt it. Not in a classroom perhaps, but you still learnt it. And you can always learn more if you are interested and open and curious. If you missed out learning about music as a child you can learn it as an adult. Maybe it is harder as an adult, but as I have said, music structure of what we listen to is so simple, most people can understand it in one hour, and be able to implement it much quicker than it took them to learn to drive.


Stop Worrying and Just Learn!



... stop worrying and just dance! :D
:

I agree no one should worry. But why not say ‘stop worrying just learn it!’ If someone asked you to show them how to ceroc would you say ‘Stop worrying about it! Just dance!’

Anyone on this forum has almost definitely learnt ceroc, if not in a class then from friends or by observation. There is no need to learn ceroc you can enjoy dancing in your room alone, and hopefully some of you still do. But if you are reading this chances are you instinctively understand the value or learning (ceroc in this case) and applying it, and the new possibilities, choices and freedoms this allows.

Sermon over.

x

A


(1) Grout, D. and Palisca, C. (4th edition) “A History of Western Music” p.352
“ At first these patterns were not regularly recurring; the use of a single time signature corresponding toa regular succession of harmonic and accentual patterns, set off by barlines at regular intervals, was common only after around 1650.”

(2) BARENBOIM, D. “In the Beginning Was the Sound” Reith Lectures 2006 BBC Radio 4 - Reith Lectures 2006 - Lecture 1: In the Beginning was Sound (http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/reith2006/lecture1.shtml)

Caro
17th-April-2007, 03:05 PM
I disagree. I think there are natural dancers, natural musicians, natural athletes, and natural any-other-basic-human-activity.


And I disagree vehemently :na:
I guess we would need to get into the definition of what you call 'natural' here, but I personally don't believe there's a music gene, a piano gene, a run-fast gene. There are different people of different learning abilities, physical abilities (I might struggle a bit more than you with the piano if I only have 8 fingers), and those people are brought up in very different environments (again, we're not equal if your mum has got a piano in the living room and mine has sewing machine - which she doesn't by the way, so I can't even sew either :na: ).
So in a few words, there are people with more dispositions than others to a particular discipline, but those pre-dispositions can only be more developped by learning the relevant techniques.


I don't think you need to understand how music works to be musical – again, I really think some people are naturally musical.


Back to Amir's point about musicality geniuses - do you know any that doesn't know anything about how the music works?

So people think they will naturally find 'breaks' in the music for example, but it's only because they have uncousciously learnt to recognise the clues in the music that lead to a break... So they do understand something about how music is structured eventhough they cannot explain it - again, putting words to that can only expand their horizons (after a first phase where they'll be confused, of course, cause that's new to them).



I I disagree – I don't think this is a big issue for "the average dancer", and I'd imagine that the majority of average dancers don't understand the difference between upbeats and downbeats and which they are dancing to.


Well good for you if you have never danced 2 steps offbeat. :worthy:
Most people will dance on time because that's how they learn it when the teacher counts them in, but look at an average ceroc dancefloor for a couple of tunes and I'd be surprised if you don't see anybody at any point dancing offbeat. Not something you want to do, so you'd better know 1. it exists 2. how to fix it.


EDIT: Amir's beat me to it with a much more comprehensive reply... as usual, :worthy:

Ghost
17th-April-2007, 03:35 PM
Can anyone recommend any other DVDs that teach similar things?

London Swing Dance Society: swing, lindy hop, jive events and classes in London, UK (http://swingdanceuk.com/main/shop/videos/videos.htm#bw) - Secrets Of Improvisation / Dancing To The Music

Ceroc and Modern Jive Dance Videos - Tapes and DVDs (http://www.modernjive.com/videos-nicky.html#MUSICALITY) - C&MJ's Musicality & Style for Modern Jive (where Robert explains the whole upbeat down beat thing :wink: I watched this through once on my own, then once with a friend who understands this stuff and got her to explain it to me - which worked much better than my original "So, teach me musicality :flower: " request)

The 2006 BFG - ask Franck or Trampy. CJ did a class on musicality and it's well covered on the dvd

ducasi
17th-April-2007, 06:14 PM
Hmm... Seems I have a lot to answer...

First on the "natural" thing...

I believe that language (communicating), singing, music, running, swimming, are all natural aspects of the human condition – that is left alone humans would develop all these skills to some degree without help from other humans who had already developed these skills.

I also believe that some people are innately better at these skills than others.

Ask a mother who has more than one child who is the best dancer, singer, or talker and they'll be able to tell you. In a family though you'd expect all the children to get similar exposure to music, singing, etc...

Where one child has greater exposure to music or dancing, it might be supposed that that would make them more skilled in that area, but I'd suggest it could also be because they had a natural ability in that area that made them chose to take lessons or practice more.

For a skill like running, the size and shape of your body makes a huge difference to your ability. I think that there is such a thing as a natural athlete.

I also think that aspects of how your body and brain is put together can make you a better dancer, singer or musician.

However, all this discussion is entirely beside the point. I did not claim to be naturally musical, I suggested it was a possibility as an alternative to actual knowledge of music which has meant that I feel I hadn't learnt much in the musicality workshops I have attended.

It really don't matter either way to the "just dance" discussion...


What I will concede is that some people learn some things faster than others, and develop further. How from this you can reach a conclusion of ‘don’t bother learning’ I don’t understand! How you figure I have concluded "don't bother learning" I don't understand either.

Where did I say that?


You only reach your own individual potential with training and knowledge. Anyone can get better at what they love with useful knowledge. You may not end up the best dancer/athlete/cook in the world, but you will end up better than you were. I agree.


Are you saying those who are natural don’t need the knowledge, and those who are not should not bother since they will never get it anyway? Nope.


Anyway, how do you know if you are ‘a natural’ or not? I've no idea. I've been told I was a "natural" in one or two WCS classes I took a while back. I don't think so, but perhaps the best way to know if you're a natural is to be told by people who have the particular skill?


Of course if you are content to be an average dancer, then it is true. I used the phase "average dancer" because Caro did. I'd be delighted to see the average raised, and would work to try and stay on the right side of "average". (Assuming I currently am, of course!)


Most of the time when I hear people say ‘that knowledge is not important’ they don’t actually have that knowledge themselves. [...] If you don’t understand it, how do you know it is not important? Have you met someone with this knowledge who applied it, then decided it was actually a waste of time and their dancing is no better for it? I would never say that knowledge is not important, however after reading and taking part in this thread last week I went dancing on Saturday. I don't think my dancing was any different based on the knowledge I have gained from this thread.

That said, I already knew the difference between a down beat and an up beat, that downbeats are emphasised in MJ at points of greatest compression or tension (typically) and that up beats can be emphasised in other ways.

(Aside, this reminds me of one thing I did learn at a musicality workshop – ideas on how to mark double and triple accents. :respect:)

What "knowledge" was of no importance so-far at least, was that MJ is a downbeat dance, and WCS is an upbeat dance – I've still to have explained to me what this actually means, and what impact it should have on my dancing, if any.


I agree no one should worry. But why not say ‘stop worrying just learn it!’ If someone asked you to show them how to ceroc would you say ‘Stop worrying about it! Just dance!’ I am not a teacher, and opportunities to learn the technicalities of music and dancing come along rarely. Perhaps I should say "stop worrying and buy a musicality DVD." If you had a DVD based purely around MJ, with the musicality content from your workshops in it, I'd certainly recommend it.

But while they wait for the workshop or DVD, don't worry, just dance...



I guess we would need to get into the definition of what you call 'natural' here, but I personally don't believe there's a music gene, a piano gene, a run-fast gene. [...]

Back to Amir's point about musicality geniuses - do you know any that doesn't know anything about how the music works? My father learnt to play a church organ by watching his father. He can belt out hundreds of tunes from memory. He cannot read music. I'd say it's likely he has a natural understanding of music.

Unfortunately I did not inherit his talents and cannot play any musical instrument, despite lessons.


Well good for you if you have never danced 2 steps offbeat. :worthy: I've probably danced many steps offbeat. I fail to see the crime...


Most people will dance on time because that's how they learn it when the teacher counts them in, but look at an average ceroc dancefloor for a couple of tunes and I'd be surprised if you don't see anybody at any point dancing offbeat. Not something you want to do, so you'd better know 1. it exists 2. how to fix it. Perhaps it's just because we're different people, but when I look across the "average" ceroc dancefloor, I'm not looking to see who's on or off the beat, and so I can't say I've ever noticed people dancing offbeat. (Dancing to a totally different beat, sure...)

But if they don't know, how important is it that they fix it?

Caro
17th-April-2007, 06:47 PM
If you had a DVD based purely around MJ, with the musicality content from your workshops in it, I'd certainly recommend it.


:yeah: now there's an idea Amir... :whistle:



My father learnt to play a church organ by watching his father. He can belt out hundreds of tunes from memory. He cannot read music. I'd say it's likely he has a natural understanding of music.


I'd say he's got a very good aural memory and has developed an understanding of the structure of music through listening and playing, even if he doesn't know the terminology that applies to it. 'Watching his father' is to me the key here, he learnt that way, this has nothing to do with being a natural organ player or musician. But again, I'll give you that he must be a fast learner, which not everybody is.




I've probably danced many steps offbeat. I fail to see the crime...


Never said it's a crime. But it sure is something that most of us will have done or do regularly when we mess up. And it's wrong. You can very well not know / realise it and still have a great time, but most dances will have a definition of what is dancing on time (right) and off time (wrong) - unless you do want to do it but that's a different matter.



But if they don't know, how important is it that they fix it?

Aside from being wrong as I said, this will also hinders your ability to phrase the music, hit the breaks etc. But I guess if you don't worry about dancing on time then you sure don't worry about that either !

Robert Winter
17th-April-2007, 11:31 PM
London Swing Dance Society: swing, lindy hop, jive events and classes in London, UK (http://swingdanceuk.com/main/shop/videos/videos.htm#bw) - Secrets Of Improvisation / Dancing To The Music

Ceroc and Modern Jive Dance Videos - Tapes and DVDs (http://www.modernjive.com/videos-nicky.html#MUSICALITY) - C&MJ's Musicality & Style for Modern Jive (where Robert explains the whole upbeat down beat thing :wink: I watched this through once on my own, then once with a friend who understands this stuff and got her to explain it to me - which worked much better than my original "So, teach me musicality :flower: " request)

The 2006 BFG - ask Franck or Trampy. CJ did a class on musicality and it's well covered on the dvd
Thanks for the plug. :)

It is a great DVD for anyone who does not "naturally" hear it all in the music. I agree, ideally you don't want to be counting as you are dancing, but if people keep on telling you "hey your on the half beat" but no one seems prepared to explain why nor help you to get on the beat then this DVD is for you.

Of course, if you do "just get it" but would like the vocab to explain what it is you naturally do, then you might want to check it out too. ;)

Amir
18th-April-2007, 01:29 AM
How you figure I have concluded "don't bother learning" I don't understand either.

Where did I say that?


I may have misunderstood you, but when you said 'don't bother with up beats and down beats, just dance' I took that to mean 'don't bother learning what these are.'



What "knowledge" was of no importance so-far at least, was that MJ is a downbeat dance, and WCS is an upbeat dance – I've still to have explained to me what this actually means, and what impact it should have on my dancing, if any.

Me too. (By the way it is the opposite, wcs is downbeat and mj is upbeat.) I am yet to understand what this means and if this could have an impact in my dancing. My argument is that until we do understand, neither of us are qualified to judge if it is important!




But if they don't know, how important is it that they fix it?

In the grand scheme of things, extremely unimportant! But from the point of view that getting better at something and being appreciated for it can be fun, then even if it is not important it can be worthwhile.

That dude they recently plastered on the English 20 pound notes argued that "the whole society is at risk when any segment of society is poorly educated." (1) He was talking about much broader issues than musical beats. But within our dance community I feel that we would all benefit if there was little more common knowledge..

As an aside, I’m not surprised your dancing hasn’t improved from reading this thread. I don’t think you can hardly learn anything useful on the forum. What the forum is good for is discovering gaps in your knowledge. For example, thanks to this forum I found out about dance styles, terminology, events and people that I did not know existed. But I had to go learn about them in the real world – not rely on the forum to educate me or blame it when it couldn’t. What seems ubiquitous amongst all online forums is the amount of speculation, confusion and misinformation that obscures the occasional gem.


(1) Sachs, J "The End of Poverty", Penguin, p. 253

Thetruth
21st-August-2007, 01:09 AM
Well I think you are probably a great teacher of moves.
The video clips you chose show lots of moves very little about dancing to phases, very little footwork and I would question if any of them know what a downbeat is.:confused:
I think your understanding of musicality is not helpful and confusing for most dancers
The real strength of modern jive is its flexibility it can be danced to a wide range of music in a wide range of styles.
For many dancers including me the music dictates the dance. therefore if the music wants me to hold a break emphasise a down beat or a hesitation thats what i do simple.
Conversely with a different partner I may well lead a different dance to the same track. this to me is what dance is about lead and follow, music led but open to a range of interpretations.:wink:
Most good dancers do not count the beats they instictively start at the start of a phase. :whistle:
It is not that important which foot you step back on, one might prefer to step across for example.
Dancers can perform single steps triple steps double time half time or more likely
a combination of the above their choice.
To say that MJ is a up beat dance and WCS is a down beat is a nonsense it depends on the music and how each dance is led.:cheers: :cheers:

:waycool: :waycool: :waycool:

Finally someone who knows..................rather than all this dribble about up and down beats. Most of the posters here have knowledge of Advanced MJ and are learning WCS at beginner level. It all changes as you know the rules, you can start to improvise on them. The WCS beginners here in Oz are learning to dance to a disciplined style rather than MJ which is not so disciplined in its steps or movements. Unfortunately, musicality is not a strong point in MJ currently. Its seems to be smile at the audience and dont develop the partnership connection in competitions. MJ in its steps does not maintain the consistency therefore, the beat count is lost. And it is picked up wherever in the count rather than commencing again on the 1 beat count of the music. Therefore, leading to missed chances with hits on the 1 beat if movement of steps remained inconsistent, rather than remaining consistent on each beat. This clearly does not happen in MJ consistently like in Ballroom/Latin, Salsa, WCS. Tango dancers are great improvisors of music in their dance, as they feel the music.......................

David Bailey
21st-August-2007, 08:21 AM
Finally someone who knows..................rather than all this dribble about up and down beats.
Just because you (or indeed I) can't follow it, doesn't make it drivel. I can't follow a technical discussion about anatomy, for example.


Most of the posters here have knowledge of Advanced MJ
Nope. I don't even know what "advanced MJ" is - hell, I'm not sure it even exists.


and are learning WCS at beginner level.
Nope :)


Unfortunately, musicality is not a strong point in MJ currently.
Obviously, musicality is better in WCS than in MJ. On the other hand, musicality is better in MJ than in salsa.


Its seems to be smile at the audience and dont develop the partnership connection in competitions.
Who's talking about competitions?


MJ in its steps does not maintain the consistency therefore, the beat count is lost. And it is picked up wherever in the count rather than commencing again on the 1 beat count of the music. Therefore, leading to missed chances with hits on the 1 beat if movement of steps remained inconsistent, rather than remaining consistent on each beat. This clearly does not happen in MJ consistently like in Ballroom/Latin, Salsa, WCS.
I'm not quite sure what you're saying here?


Tango dancers are great improvisors of music in their dance, as they feel the music.......................
Well, they should be, but in practice the musicality at some milongas is a bit limited.

Thetruth
22nd-August-2007, 03:51 AM
Originally Posted by Thetruth http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/images/orange_buttons_basic/viewpost.gif (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/land-1000-dances/12162-down-beat-upbeat-post402636.html#post402636)
MJ in its steps does not maintain the consistency therefore, the beat count is lost. And it is picked up wherever in the count rather than commencing again on the 1 beat count of the music. Therefore, leading to missed chances with hits on the 1 beat if movement of steps remained inconsistent, rather than remaining consistent on each beat. This clearly does not happen in MJ consistently like in Ballroom/Latin, Salsa, WCS.
I'm not quite sure what you're saying here?


If you dont understand this comment then I think you may need to reconsider your knowledge of dance and music we dance too.

David Bailey
22nd-August-2007, 08:26 AM
If you dont understand this comment then I think you may need to reconsider your knowledge of dance and music we dance too.
Oh well, fair enough, I'll just go and shoot myself then shall I? :rolleyes:

One simple lesson I've learned in my time as a professional communicator, is that if someone doesn't understand me, the chances are that's because I've not made myself clear. I'd recommend you bear that in mind.

Oh, and it's "to" not "too" :na:

Mr Cool
22nd-August-2007, 07:33 PM
.

Finally someone who knows..................rather than all this dribble about up and down beats. Most of the posters here have knowledge of Advanced MJ and are learning WCS at beginner level. It all changes as you know the rules, you can start to improvise on them. The WCS beginners here in Oz are learning to dance to a disciplined style rather than MJ which is not so disciplined in its steps or movements. Unfortunately, musicality is not a strong point in MJ currently. Its seems to be smile at the audience and dont develop the partnership connection in competitions. MJ in its steps does not maintain the consistency therefore, the beat count is lost. And it is picked up wherever in the count rather than commencing again on the 1 beat count of the music. Therefore, leading to missed chances with hits on the 1 beat if movement of steps remained inconsistent, rather than remaining consistent on each beat. This clearly does not happen in MJ consistently like in Ballroom/Latin, Salsa, WCS. Tango dancers are great improvisors of music in their dance, as they feel the music.......................

Why do people always knock MJ and try to baffle people with technocrap my experience is there are no experts. only opinions.:eek:

I believe no matter what dance style you want to mention there are two types of dancer people who are moves led:sad: and people who are music led.:worthy:
I for example consider the music to be the key to any dance.
Indeed if i cannot dance to a track then i wait for the next one.:wink:
It matters not what style of dance I am leading be it Lindy. Balboa.WC. Tango.Blues. or MJ my aim is always the same i want to dance and lead with a positive connection, smoothly with maximum musical interpratation.:cheers: :cheers:

:waycool: :waycool: :waycool:









Since when did a dance have to be disciplined the Tango I know and love is certainly not.most dancers of most learn through learning moves and

Thetruth
23rd-August-2007, 02:24 AM
.

Why do people always knock MJ and try to baffle people with technocrap my experience is there are no experts. only opinions.:eek:

I believe no matter what dance style you want to mention there are two types of dancer people who are moves led:sad: and people who are music led.:worthy:

Since when did a dance have to be disciplined the Tango I know and love is certainly not.most dancers of most learn through learning moves and

Try learning Cha cha or Samba, then the "techno crap" you mentioned would be essential. I notice the styles you dance are moves based. This helps in understanding your comments above. I mean disciplined as in basic steps required to mantain the beat count. This happens in Latin American and Ballroom. However, once learnt it is like freestyling when dancing. The dancers know the moves and the steps (best of both worlds) :waycool:

Thetruth
23rd-August-2007, 02:34 AM
Oh well, fair enough, I'll just go and shoot myself then shall I? :rolleyes:

One simple lesson I've learned in my time as a professional communicator, is that if someone doesn't understand me, the chances are that's because I've not made myself clear. I'd recommend you bear that in mind.

Oh, and it's "to" not "too" :na:

This is a dance site...............not a spelling forum. But noted you correction....:nice:
I am sure as a professional communicator that you dont rely on forums to communicate technical information. My post, that you are having trouble with, would be difficult to understand for the inexperienced dancers or ones that have not moved amongst dance styles. I could better explain face to face as a professional communicator would highly recommend rather than an intenet forum.

David Bailey
23rd-August-2007, 08:58 AM
My post, that you are having trouble with, would be difficult to understand for the inexperienced dancers or ones that have not moved amongst dance styles.
Well, fair enough, I can't argue with that. I mean, I've only been dancing for a little while, and it's well-known that I've not sampled these mystical "other dance styles" you refer to. But thanks for not being patronising, I appreciate it, it's boosted my newbie confidence no end.


Try learning Cha cha or Samba, then the "techno crap" you mentioned would be essential. I notice the styles you dance are moves based.
Tango's hardly "moves based" - certainly not compared to the other dances.

Again, I'm confused as to what you mean, but I'm going to hazard a guess that you're describing "dancing to the rhythm" - for example, the clave in salsa?

David Franklin
23rd-August-2007, 09:11 AM
Again, I'm confused as to what you mean, but I'm going to hazard a guess that you're describing "dancing to the rhythm" - for example, the clave in salsa?The thing is, it's much easier to maintain an air of infallible superiority if you never actually make a coherent explanation of what you're trying to say.

Discussions of 'ineffability' in Good Omens spring to mind...

Mr Cool
23rd-August-2007, 06:15 PM
Try learning Cha cha or Samba, then the "techno crap" you mentioned would be essential. I notice the styles you dance are moves based. This helps in understanding your comments above. I mean disciplined as in basic steps required to mantain the beat count. This happens in Latin American and Ballroom. However, once learnt it is like freestyling when dancing. The dancers know the moves and the steps (best of both worlds) :waycool:

As it happens I have danced Ballroom and Latin.:nice:
love the waltz and the foxtrot.:nice:
I Never liked the Cha Cha or the Samba not my style.:D
I much prefer the Rumba much more stylsh.:wink:

:waycool: :waycool:

David Bailey
23rd-August-2007, 06:29 PM
The thing is, it's much easier to maintain an air of infallible superiority if you never actually make a coherent explanation of what you're trying to say.
Ah, so that's where I've been going wrong all this time :tears:


Discussions of 'ineffability' in Good Omens spring to mind...
Yeah, it's ineffable, innit... :)

Thetruth
24th-August-2007, 02:09 AM
Well, fair enough, I can't argue with that. I mean, I've only been dancing for a little while, and it's well-known that I've not sampled these mystical "other dance styles" you refer to. But thanks for not being patronising, I appreciate it, it's boosted my newbie confidence no end.


Tango's hardly "moves based" - certainly not compared to the other dances.

Again, I'm confused as to what you mean, but I'm going to hazard a guess that you're describing "dancing to the rhythm" - for example, the clave in salsa?

I am a big advocate of getting the little things right. The fundamentals of dance. Unfortunately, when I started learning ceroc no one talked about the beat count matching the music count. When I started to learn latin/ballroom it was the first thing I was taught about being in time with the beat count. There are songs for dance styles like Cha cha.........as the beat count of the music is 2,3, 4&1. Samba 1a1, 2a2 and the beat count of the music is designed for samba. So songs are written for some styles of music, this is what I mean regarding the beat count in dance. Its is not mentioned nor taught in the same way when learning ceroc. The count is 1.2.3.4 but can be picked up anywhere in the beat count which means the dance beat is lost and hits on the 1 beat count are not always made as they are in Cha cha, Samba, Rumba and Jive.
Tango is basically the guy driving the lady around the dancefloor controlling her movements by leading from the chest. I have spent hours doing exercises designed to stop leading from the arms and lead with the chest. Anyone who has done martial arts may know of an exercise that involves swing the arms by moving the chest. This exercise is great for learning to lead with the chest which is essential in Tango. But it is a moves based dance with sensuality, character, style and is a style were you "feel" the music.
Hope this helps clarify some understanding of what is a huge learning curve........:nice:

NZ Monkey
24th-August-2007, 03:58 AM
Anyone who has done martial arts may know of an exercise that involves swing the arms by moving the chest. I’m a martial arts instructor!... ….and I’ve only seen that in a Karate Kid movie. Number 27 I think.


Hope this helps clarify some understanding of what is a huge learning curve........:nice: I think you might want to take a look at this sometime: sarcasm - Definitions from Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sarcasm).


It might save some pain later. Or perhaps cause some now..... :confused:

Thetruth
24th-August-2007, 07:21 AM
I think you might want to take a look at this sometime: sarcasm - Definitions from Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sarcasm).


It might save some pain later. Or perhaps cause some now..... :confused:

Settle down NZ Monkey.....................in no way were my comments meant to be sarcasm. Dancing is a huge learning curve and I mean that with myself and others in mind. Sorry if you think it sarcasm, but you couldnt be further from the truth....:wink:

NZ Monkey
24th-August-2007, 10:33 PM
Settle down NZ Monkey.....................in no way were my comments meant to be sarcasm. Dancing is a huge learning curve and I mean that with myself and others in mind. Sorry if you think it sarcasm, but you couldnt be further from the truth....:wink:I just don't know what to say to that..... :what:

David Bailey
24th-August-2007, 10:51 PM
I just don't know what to say to that..... :what:
:rofl: Well, you are in NZ, that's a long way isn't it? :grin:

JCB
26th-August-2007, 02:17 PM
A nature vs. nurture debate? ...on a dance forum? :what:

It appears to me that Ducasi is basically saying: “if the dancer feels “it ain’t broke”, why push in and try and “fix” it?... and if you don’t have an intrinsic interest in something as daunting to the outsider as musical structure, then although you may learn the basics, you are unlikely to understand what you have learned, in a way that allows you to put it to practical use.


It appears to me that Amir is saying that when a little bit of self-application, (studying the most basic principles of musical structure), would both clarify understanding of the rhythm of the dance, and open up new dimensions to the interpretation of music through dance; and as so many MJ intermediates plead for advice on improving their musicality, it is a crying shame they won’t make the effort.


It appears to me that they are both right.
But, Caro, I have to disagree with you on the nature/nurture debate! :devil:

ducasi
26th-August-2007, 11:19 PM
It appears to me that Ducasi is basically saying: “if the dancer feels “it ain’t broke”, why push in and try and “fix” it?... and if you don’t have an intrinsic interest in something as daunting to the outsider as musical structure, then although you may learn the basics, you are unlikely to understand what you have learned, in a way that allows you to put it to practical use.
I don't think I was exactly saying that. I was just expressing that to most dancers, good or bad, concept such as whether MJ is an upbeat dance or a downbeat dance is pretty irrelevant. They do their dance as best they can... Musicality classes and workshops are useful – all of the ones I've been to have been pitched at a level appropriate for people with no prior understanding of musical structure, thus they are likely to understand and take away something.

However, getting into the technicalities, where you currently need to understand a fair bit more musical jargon, is probably not much use to people with no musical education, and is perhaps more suited to the advanced dancer or teacher who wants to find practical knowledge from the more esoteric details, either to use, or to pass on to students in a way they can understand.

So, that's why I'd said don't worry about upbeat or downbeat – "just dance (to the beat as you were taught.)" Maybe as an addendum I should add, "but go to a few good musicality workshops – it'll be worth it, and perhaps you'll be taught some useful knowledge derived from this particular technical point."


It appears to me that Amir is saying that when a little bit of self-application, (studying the most basic principles of musical structure), would both clarify understanding of the rhythm of the dance, and open up new dimensions to the interpretation of music through dance; and as so many MJ intermediates plead for advice on improving their musicality, it is a crying shame they won’t make the effort.
And I agree entirely with this point of view.

I especially recommend Amir's musicality classes (and CJ's) as they take the technical details and make it useful for dancers of all levels.

Perhaps if there was a good (or any) MJ DVD on musicality we could recommend to new dancers, the general standard of MJ dancing would be raised.

EDIT: Do Ceroc UK sell CMJ (Australia)'s Musicality DVDs?

ducasi
26th-August-2007, 11:25 PM
A nature vs. nurture debate? ...on a dance forum? :what:

[...]

But, Caro, I have to disagree with you on the nature/nurture debate! :devil:
I had planned to let this discussion drop, but as you mention it, there's one thing I'l like to reply to in Caro's last post...


I'd say he's got a very good aural memory and has developed an understanding of the structure of music through listening and playing, even if he doesn't know the terminology that applies to it. 'Watching his father' is to me the key here, he learnt that way, this has nothing to do with being a natural organ player or musician. But again, I'll give you that he must be a fast learner, which not everybody is.
Perhaps being "a fast learner", with "a very good aural memory" (other people might call this "a very good ear for music") is enough to give someone the potential to be a natural musician, what do you think? :)

Thetruth
27th-August-2007, 01:53 AM
I just don't know what to say to that..... :what:

You refer me to the definitions of sarcasm and then I deny I am being sarcastic. So why this comment? Its okay, Australians understand that kiwi's start to choke when challenged............:wink:

NZ Monkey
27th-August-2007, 03:18 AM
You refer me to the definitions of sarcasm and then I deny I am being sarcastic. So why this comment? Its okay, Australians understand that kiwi's start to choke when challenged............:wink:


You refer me to the definitions of sarcasm and then I deny I am being sarcastic. So why this comment? Its okay, Australians understand that kiwi's start to choke when challenged............ *Sigh*

*Sigh again….*

New Zealanders understand that Australians have a hard time reading between the lines, seeing anything they don’t want to and having any idea of when to drop something. It’s OK, you can’t help it – it’s genetics coupled with conversational and literary skills distorted by listening to nasal accents all day and watching Kath and Kim in the evenings. Luckily I’m a nice kind of guy and don’t mind pointing my poor misguided Aussie brethren in the right direction from time to time.

NZ Monkey ticks “wind up an Aussie” off his list of things to do for the day….. :wink:

I wasn’t accusing you of being sarcastic at all TheTruth. I was merely pointing out that DavidJames was having a merry time at your expense, and you seemed completely oblivious to his somewhat subtle mockery. That you managed to misinterpret even the not-so-subtle hint I gave you makes it somewhat funnier in my slightly twisted opinion.

I’m sorry DavidJames – I’ve well and truly spoilt your fun now….. you’ll have to aim a little lower next I guess or it just isn’t sport. Pretend you’re a convict or something if that helps. :whistle:

Thetruth
27th-August-2007, 03:57 AM
*Sigh*

*Sigh again….*

New Zealanders understand that Australians have a hard time reading between the lines, seeing anything they don’t want to and having any idea of when to drop something. It’s OK, you can’t help it – it’s genetics coupled with conversational and literary skills distorted by listening to nasal accents all day and watching Kath and Kim in the evenings. Luckily I’m a nice kind of guy and don’t mind pointing my poor misguided Aussie brethren in the right direction from time to time.

NZ Monkey ticks “wind up an Aussie” off his list of things to do for the day….. :wink:

I wasn’t accusing you of being sarcastic at all TheTruth. I was merely pointing out that DavidJames was having a merry time at your expense, and you seemed completely oblivious to his somewhat subtle mockery. That you managed to misinterpret even the not-so-subtle hint I gave you makes it somewhat funnier in my slightly twisted opinion.

I’m sorry DavidJames – I’ve well and truly spoilt your fun now….. you’ll have to aim a little lower next I guess or it just isn’t sport. Pretend you’re a convict or something if that helps. :whistle:

Simple minds are easily amused.........Good one DavidJames/NZ Monkey...:D