PDA

View Full Version : In defence of 'moves'



bigdjiver
23rd-May-2007, 10:01 AM
I have watched the clip posted by 'woodface' about ten times now, and I would enjoy watching it again. I understood that he wanted reactions to the moves included to help him and Coni choose which to work on and include in their routines. I just accepted any imperfections as due to the novelty of some of the moves and the environment.

I have not seen the CerocX finals video, and I am sure that the dancers in them would inspire me, but I cannot believe that I would want to watch them 10 times. There are many of the great and the good that post here saying that it is not how many moves that you know, but how well you do them. To me the moves are the plot and the vocabulary, and are what keeps my interest. How well they are done is the spelling and the grammar, and I have never bought a book for the quality of its spelling and grammar (though errors do make a text less enjoyable).

To sum up, I am quite content with the way Ceroc classes are taught within my experience, quite content to throw away 19 / 20 of the moves taught, and quite content to complain about a few of them.

LMC
23rd-May-2007, 10:21 AM
Dances that feel absolutely fantastic may not always be that interesting to the observers. And dances that look wonderful to an observer may not always feel that great to the participants - how many of us have never asked to dance with someone because they looked fantastic, but were actually really difficult to lead/follow?


To me the moves are the plot and the vocabulary, and are what keeps my interest. How well they are done is the spelling and the grammar, and I have never bought a book for the quality of its spelling and grammar (though errors do make a text less enjoyable).
Good analogy, but I would put it the other way around, actually. IMO, the beginners' moves are the basic structure of the dance language - the grammar if you will. How they are put together forms the 'plot' - so yes, a certain number of moves are needed to create sufficient plot. Style and variations are the vocabulary that add interest to the plot.

I have never bought a book for the quality of its spelling and grammar either. But the structure of those may make it unenjoyable.

As a lead, I treat classes the same way - I may add one move from the class to my still very limited repertoire. I think the high "it's not about the number of moves" consensus (guilty as charged) is a backlash against the lack of "grammar" teaching by most Ceroc operators - too much focus on how many shiny new long words you can learn with no training in how to put them together most comprehensibly and effectively.

Beowulf
23rd-May-2007, 10:38 AM
To me the moves are the plot and the vocabulary, and are what keeps my interest. How well they are done is the spelling and the grammar, and I have never bought a book for the quality of its spelling and grammar (though errors do make a text less enjoyable).


Good analogy, but I would put it the other way around, actually. IMO, the beginners' moves are the basic structure of the dance language - the grammar if you will. How they are put together forms the 'plot' - so yes, a certain number of moves are needed to create sufficient plot. Style and variations are the vocabulary that add interest to the plot.

I have never bought a book for the quality of its spelling and grammar either. But the structure of those may make it unenjoyable.

Hmm.. "feersum enjin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feersum_Endjinn)" anyone? :wink:

I have a limited vocabulary, and I sometimes spell things wrong or put things in the wrong order. But generally I get my sentence across and occasionally do a little dance floor haiku .. Small ... but perfectly formed. However those times are rare.. more often than not I'm the dance floor equivalent of Professor Stanley Unwin (http://www.stanleyunwin.com/) .. amusingly incomprehensible :)

David Franklin
23rd-May-2007, 10:39 AM
I have not seen the CerocX finals video, and I am sure that the dancers in them would inspire me, but I cannot believe that I would want to watch them 10 times. There are many of the great and the good that post here saying that it is not how many moves that you know, but how well you do them. To me the moves are the plot and the vocabulary, and are what keeps my interest. How well they are done is the spelling and the grammar, and I have never bought a book for the quality of its spelling and grammar (though errors do make a text less enjoyable).I don't know how it breaks down for other people, but I'd guess 90% of my dancing uses less than 20 moves (as I think Ducasi said somewhere: travelling return = greatest move ever). Then there are a lot of other moves that make up the 10%. Those other moves are disproportionately important, as they are the ones that add highlights and interest. But at the end of the day, you can manage without them. Whereas 90% of the time, people will be looking at (or experiencing) your basics. If they suck, then so does the dance.

To continue the analogy about vocabulary, in SF fandom, there's a hugely famous story "The Eye of Argon" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Eye_of_Argon). Famous, for being really, really bad, unfortunately. And one of the main complaints is that the author clearly overused a thesaurus without actually understanding what many of the words actually meant. Of course, you can take it in many ways: in some ways the story has been a huge success. It's been read by thousands, it has a place in SF folklore. And part of that is that it's not really that bad. It's reasonably plotted and coherent (for fanfic). But it's the poorly used vocabulary that damns it.

bigdjiver
23rd-May-2007, 11:01 AM
Hmm.. "feersum enjin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feersum_Endjinn)" anyone? :wink: ...


Feersum Endjinn is a science fiction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_fiction) novel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novel) by Scottish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotland) writer Iain M. Banks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iain_M._Banks), first published in 1994. It won a British Science Fiction Association Award (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSFA_award) in 1994.
It won an award - my case rests.

Ghost
23rd-May-2007, 11:09 AM
I think it's just that different people want different things. I know one lady who'd rather follow lots of different "interesting" moves poorly led, than a few simple moves well led. And I know a lady who'd much rather follow a few simple moves well led than lots of different "interesting" moves poorly led. And I know another lady who's somewhere in between. I love dancing with all of them (I just need to remember which is which :wink: )

Lou
23rd-May-2007, 12:19 PM
I know one lady who'd rather follow lots of different "interesting" moves poorly led
I'd like to learn from this lady. I need to work on following a poor lead...

(Seriously - I bet she backleads & anticipates!)

ducasi
23rd-May-2007, 12:45 PM
... (as I think Ducasi said somewhere: travelling return = greatest move ever) ...
To give credit where it's due, I think it was Franck that first pointed this out to me.

About "moves"...

In MJ, bits of moves can usually be broken down into what you might term "syllables" and reformed in different ways, with the resultant "new" move should be understandable by a competent follower, assuming the move is well-formed.

Rather than focussing on complete moves, I think classes should instead focus more on the syllables of dancing, allowing people to build up their own moves on the spot which fit with the music, rather than be limited to the number of moves they have been taught. Working with smaller units of movement can also improve the "flow" of a leader's dancing – the gaps between moves tend to disappear as the syllables of movement blend into one another.

That's not to say that there isn't a place for standard, taught, moves in MJ – much of my dancing is based on standard moves like the first move, yoyo, basket, etc... (Though my yoyo, first move, etc., tend not to look especially like the one taught to beginners.)

Usually though, especially when I am dancing with a follower who is in tune with me, I try to break out of the straight-jacket of moves and allow myself greater expression using the syllables of this dance language that I know to do something a little bit more special.

Ghost
23rd-May-2007, 01:20 PM
I'd like to learn from this lady. I need to work on following a poor lead...
Try asking someone who can dance well (ie no yanking, jerking etc) to lead moves they're still working on

(Seriously - I bet she backleads & anticipates!)

Nup - she can follow Jango moves she doesn't know at full Ceroc speed :respect:

Bear in mind I barely know some of the stuff I've lead on her, so there's no way she's going to be able to recognise / backlead / anticipate it.

Gadget
23rd-May-2007, 01:28 PM
Rather than focussing on complete moves, I think classes should instead focus more on the syllables of dancing, ~Hmmm..... :whistle: ... moves, moves, moves (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/intermediate-corner/4742-online-workshop-moves-moves-moves-post106345.html#post106345)


That's not to say that there isn't a place for standard, taught, moves in MJ...
I think that the selection of standard, taught, beginner, moves are very good: each puts five or six syllables together to give a move. Five or six different syllables. And that's the most important bit - each move contains unique elements with perhaps a couple of shared ones.

They have common syllables like stepping back and stepping in. They give structure of hand levels and orientations you can use to build your own 'words' within. They show how to join syllables together with contact, connection, pressure and tension.

By mixing up these elements you get the "intermediate" moves. Any 'syllable' within an intermediate move that is not a 'syllable' in a basic move somewhere is normally some form of styling*.

The beginner class is not really about teaching the beginner moves; it should be about teaching the movements within the moves. By removing a couple of the returns from the classes (which was one of the identifying features of "ceroc"), the boundaries between moves are being broken down. Attendees of beginner classes are being shown that one move need not 'end' with X or 'start' with Y - this is the start of wondering exactly where moves can be started and when you can say a move has finished.

(*There are a few exceptions - dip/seducer, elbow roll, duck under, hip block, shoulder block.)


Most of my dancing 'exploration' has been in this feild - many, many, many hours(years :rolleyes: ) of thought, practice, trial and error have gone into it. I'm still discovering new ways to join various elements.


Usually though, especially when I am dancing with a follower who is in tune with me, I try to break out of the straight-jacket of moves and allow myself greater expression using the syllables of this dance language that I know to do something a little bit more special.
What can I say? I'm special! :rofl:
Dancing like this is the main reason that I no longer consider myself to dance "ceroc", but dance "Modern Jive" - Ceroc have taught me all the elements, but I'm not using them in the way that Ceroc teaches. {Taught?... is this changing?...}

Lou
23rd-May-2007, 01:41 PM
Try asking someone who can dance well (ie no yanking, jerking etc) to lead moves they're still working on
:rofl: Oh, I'd happily dance with someone who leads well, but is working on moves. That's fine.

It's just you'd said "poorly led", which indicated to me a "moves monster" - you know - the type who'll just put every move he knows into a routine, regardless of the music or ability to do the move well. I couldn't imagine any reasonable woman prefering that! :eek:

Beowulf
23rd-May-2007, 01:45 PM
Hmmm..... :whistle: ... moves, moves, moves (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/intermediate-corner/4742-online-workshop-moves-moves-moves-post106345.html#post106345)

Seen that before but once again :respect: :worthy: :respect:

Having read that again it actually makes more sense to me now than it did the first time I read it. Have to stick that onto my IPAQ for reading on the move (Printing things off is soooo last year you know daaaahlings! :wink: )

ducasi
23rd-May-2007, 01:52 PM
... Have to stick that onto my IPAQ for reading on the move (Printing things off is soooo last year you know daaaahlings! :wink: )
Can't you put it on your phone? Having a mobile phone and a PDA is so 5 years ago... ;)

Ghost
23rd-May-2007, 02:14 PM
:rofl: Oh, I'd happily dance with someone who leads well, but is working on moves. That's fine.

It's just you'd said "poorly led", which indicated to me a "moves monster" - you know - the type who'll just put every move he knows into a routine, regardless of the music or ability to do the move well. I couldn't imagine any reasonable woman prefering that! :eek:
:wink: there's a definite range of preference though about following moves that are being worked on. Some like it, some don't. Happy to oblige both. :flower:

Also thinking about it, in my experience there's also a spectrum of preference from:

Likes to follow pure motion (pretty much free-form dance)
to
Likes to follow movements (Gadgetised dancing)
to
Likes to follow moves

Again I'm happy to dance the way the follow wishes.

Jhutch
23rd-May-2007, 02:24 PM
:wink: there's a definite range of preference though about following moves that are being worked on. Some like it, some don't. Happy to oblige both. :flower:



Should you feel you have to oblige both? Isn't it a bit selfish of someone to only want the finished article and not help along the way?:)

*Well, ok, if someone is happy to help with following moves then maybe it isnt that selfish perhaps but why should they rely on someone else to do the harder work?:)

Twirly
23rd-May-2007, 02:49 PM
Again I'm happy to dance the way the follow wishes.

How do you know what your follow wishes though? Particularly if it's someone whom you've never danced with before?

Ghost
23rd-May-2007, 03:17 PM
Should you feel you have to oblige both?
It's a personal choice on my part. I'm quite comfortable and happy dancing in all the ways I mentioned so it makes more sense to match the follow.


Isn't it a bit selfish of someone to only want the finished article and not help along the way?:)
It's a hobby. They're not teachers. They may well have helped others earlier in their dancing career.


How do you know what your follow wishes though? Particularly if it's someone whom you've never danced with before?
I'm considering getting ladies to fill in some kind of form detailing their preferences, injuries, areas of expertise etc :whistle:

With ladies I know, I ask. :flower: With ladies I don't know then it's educated guesswork. It usually only a preference on their part anyway, so it's not the end of the world if I'm dancing in a different style to the way they'd ideally like.

TA Guy
31st-May-2007, 09:01 AM
There is nothing wrong with knowing lots of moves. There is nothing wrong with being a 'move monster'. 'Move monster' has unfortunately, and wrongly, achieved a slightly derogatory emphasize on this forum.

What people mean when they use 'move monster' in a derogatory sense is something you'd have to ask them, but in most instances on this forum, what they seem to mean is 'I wish people were smoother dancers'. That is not the same thing as 'I wish they knew fewer moves'.

Wanting to learn lots of moves is a phase. It's a natural progression of the teaching method employed at 99.99% of MJ venues which revolves around learning moves. Virtually every lead goes thru this phase. It is also an essential part of the road to becoming a good dancer. Why? because it's the dipping of the toe into many waters out of which comes your own style, your own preferences and greater experience.

Later, as the lead gets more experienced, at least two things start to happen. One, they start to refine their own style, and along with this comes a natural filtering of their moves to suit that style. Usually this involved dropping some moves. And two, they start to realise which moves they are good at executing, and which moves they are bad at executing. Knowing their own limitations in other words, which also usually results in some moves being dropped.
So the natural progression, after the 'move monster' phase, is to reduce the number of moves a lead uses. However, even after this progression, if you start from a high enough number of known moves, it is still possible to have a huge repertoire, to be a 'move monster'. It is a relative thing.

So, all in all, I sometimes find the way 'move monster' is used on this forum to be similar to the way 'bouncers' and other slightly derogatory phrases are sometimes used. I.E Not very intelligently and with a dose of hotshot'edness thrown in for good measure.



As well as learning good technique and smoothness, when it comes to moves, variety is the spice of life. Don't let some move-challenged hotshots on here put you off! :)

robd
31st-May-2007, 09:05 AM
There is nothing wrong with knowing lots of moves. There is nothing wrong with being a 'move monster'. 'Move monster' has unfortunately, and wrongly, achieved a slightly derogatory emphasize on this forum.

What people mean when they use 'move monster' in a derogatory sense is something you'd have to ask them, but in most instances on this forum, what they seem to mean is 'I wish people were smoother dancers'. That is not the same thing as 'I wish they knew fewer moves'.


A big :yeah:

I wish I knew more moves and could execute them smoothly - it would stop me getting bored with my own dancing.

Gojive
31st-May-2007, 09:12 AM
...eminently sensible post...



I have to confess I've used the term 'move monster' before - this post has certainly made me think twice about it now :cheers:

straycat
31st-May-2007, 09:30 AM
There is nothing wrong with knowing lots of moves. There is nothing wrong with being a 'move monster'. 'Move monster' has unfortunately, and wrongly, achieved a slightly derogatory emphasize on this forum.

What people mean when they use 'move monster' in a derogatory sense is something you'd have to ask them, but in most instances on this forum, what they seem to mean is 'I wish people were smoother dancers'. That is not the same thing as 'I wish they knew fewer moves'.

Agreed - there's nothing wrong with knowing loads of moves. As for being a move monster - not that I've ever used the term before, but it's a fitting one - I would see it as someone who focusses completely on moves, at the expense of any dance, connection or lead / follow techniques. In other words, a bad dancer who can do a lot of moves. Badly. Is there something wrong with this? I'll leave that decision to the eye of the beholder.



Wanting to learn lots of moves is a phase. It's a natural progression of the teaching method employed at 99.99% of MJ venues which revolves around learning moves. Virtually every lead goes thru this phase. It is also an essential part of the road to becoming a good dancer. Why? because it's the dipping of the toe into many waters out of which comes your own style, your own preferences and greater experience.

For some people maybe, possibly, not really, and no. I know quite a few excellent dancers who've never been through that phase - there are many routes to becoming a good dancer, and this 'phase' doesn't have to be any part of it. Unless you define a 'good dancer' as 'someone who knows lots of moves'.



Later, as the lead gets more experienced, at least two things start to happen. One, they start to refine their own style, and along with this comes a natural filtering of their moves to suit that style. Usually this involved dropping some moves. And two, they start to realise which moves they are good at executing, and which moves they are bad at executing. Knowing their own limitations in other words, which also usually results in some moves being dropped.

To me, it makes more sense to think that as ones style changes, so does the manner in which one executes moves. As ones basic technique improves, moves that were earlier hard or awkward to execute become easier to do well. Which would mean expanding ones repertoire, rather than dropping things.



So the natural progression, after the 'move monster' phase, is to reduce the number of moves a lead uses. However, even after this progression, if you start from a high enough number of known moves, it is still possible to have a huge repertoire, to be a 'move monster'. It is a relative thing.

On the technique side - here's one simple theory. The better your basic dance technique, the easier it is to learn (or invent) new moves.

Technique is a lot more than just 'smoothness' - it's the core on which everything else is built. If you neglect it, and just focus on moves, you are building your repertoire on very shaky foundations. Ever wondered why someone like Amir can do the simplest move in the world** and look ten times better than most people doing something complex? It's down to technique***.



As well as learning good technique and smoothness, when it comes to moves, variety is the spice of life. Don't let some move-challenged hotshots on here put you off! :)

There's nothing wrong with learning moves, and yes, of course they're a crucial part of the dance. If you want to learn to do them properly though, neglecting technique is a Bad Idea™

Stray move-challenged hotshot extraordinaire

Stray
**As an aside, what is the simplest move in the world?
***And a good hair-stylist.

Gadget
31st-May-2007, 01:32 PM
Technique is a lot more than just 'smoothness' - it's the core on which everything else is built. If you neglect it, and just focus on moves, you are building your repertoire on very shaky foundations.

But by focusing on "moves" are you not having to learn the technique to actually execute them?

straycat
31st-May-2007, 01:39 PM
But by focusing on "moves" are you not having to learn the technique to actually execute them?

Not really, no. Hence the danger.

robd
31st-May-2007, 02:08 PM
But by focusing on "moves" are you not having to learn the technique to actually execute them?

Execute them? Possibly. Execute them well? Maybe. Lead them? Possibly not.

MartinHarper
31st-May-2007, 03:22 PM
Execute them? Possibly. Execute them well? Maybe. Lead them? Possibly not.

As an example, it's possible to execute many moves by having the leader run round the follower, without learning the technique to lead/follow around the floor.

Gadget
1st-June-2007, 01:10 PM
As an example, it's possible to execute many moves by having the leader run round the follower, without learning the technique to lead/follow around the floor.
:blush: erm.... :blush: ... This takes technique too you know :sulk:

It depends on what you consider "getting a move to work" actually entails:
I would say that if my partner moves where I intended, when I intended, then I have lead the move well. If they have moved where they intended* or when they intended*, then I have not led the move well.

* by this I mean without any input from me and/or by miss-reading (/ignoring)any input from me

I don't beleive you can learn lots of moves (and how to get the follower to move through them) without building up a technique of how. It may be rhudimentary, it may be a bit rough, it may not look very pretty or smooth, but it will work. People can still get some lessons in how to smooth it and lead it properly - and will probably get more from these lessons than someone who only has four moves to apply the teaching to.

Lots of moves will also build an understanding of differing paths into/out of moves (what you can do within moves) and what move can be used to 'rescue' you when something screws up.

Beowulf
1st-June-2007, 01:23 PM
rhudimentary

< Fat comic book guy mode engaged>

Best Spelling mistake ever!!

< Fat comic book guy mode Disengaged>

rheum - Watery discharge from nose or eyes, or a Hotel suite spoken in a Inspector Clouseau accent.

rhudimentary - Basic, Elementary ...and slightly sticky.

straycat
1st-June-2007, 01:58 PM
:blush: erm.... :blush: ... This takes technique too you know :sulk:

It depends on what you consider "getting a move to work" actually entails:
I would say that if my partner moves where I intended, when I intended, then I have lead the move well. If they have moved where they intended* or when they intended*, then I have not led the move well.


Different yardsticks. Different yards, maybe.

I'm struggling slightly for how to phrase this, but I'll give it a go.

If I lead a move, and my partner goes where I intended, when I intended it, I imagine I did something right.

As far as I'm concerned though, my lead is an invitation.

If, for example, I lead a move, and the connection we have allows my partner to extennnnnddddd a portion of the move, building up a rubber-band like tension between us that she can then use to accelerate the last portion of the move in a beautiful dramatic moment... and I'm able to pick up on this, follow her in what she's doing, give her the support and connection she needs, then adapt it into something new that neither of us had originally anticipated.... and this call comes from our connection between ourselves, the music and the floor....

Then yeah. Then I'm leading pretty well. Must be a good day :innocent:



I don't beleive you can learn lots of moves (and how to get the follower to move through them) without building up a technique of how. It may be rhudimentary, it may be a bit rough, it may not look very pretty or smooth, but it will work. People can still get some lessons in how to smooth it and lead it properly - and will probably get more from these lessons than someone who only has four moves to apply the teaching to.


How to walk through them, maybe. How to dance them well and lead them in a way that the follower will truly enjoy... is much harder to learn without good initial technique. And if you then want to gain said technique, you'll have to learn to do them a second time, in a whole new way. Of course it's possible to learn like this - most of us do. I did - but the amount of time I've since spent unlearning and relearning does make me wish I had had a lot more of the basic grounding earlier on. Actually - I could still do with a whole lot more of it now.

Unfortunately, this train of thought does open up a potential whole new can of worms: identifying the true MJ basics. A lot of what people use as such actually comes from other dances - the core of my MJ nowadays revolves around the connection work I've got from Lindy - while I've danced with quite a few followers who've brought some wonderful WCS basic technique into the mix...
The MJ basics though - do we actually have 'em?

MartinHarper
1st-June-2007, 04:35 PM
I don't believe you can learn lots of moves (and how to get the follower to move through them) without building up a technique of how.

True. The question is whether it's a good technique. Much like golf: it's possible to create a golf swing that works because its multiple pieces of bad technique cancel out (most of the time) and do more or less the right thing. However, this won't give you as good results as a golf swing with good technique. It's an easy way to hit a plateau, in both golf and dancing.


The MJ basics though - do we actually have 'em?

Good question.
Maybe MJ is still too young for such things?

spindr
3rd-June-2007, 11:05 PM
True. The question is whether it's a good technique. Much like golf: it's possible to create a golf swing that works because its multiple pieces of bad technique cancel out (most of the time) and do more or less the right thing. However, this won't give you as good results as a golf swing with good technique. It's an easy way to hit a plateau, in both golf and dancing.
Even worse -- correct one bad habit and it'll no longer cancel the other one -- and you'll dance worse by getting better :devil:
SpinDr

Gadget
4th-June-2007, 12:09 AM
~If, for example, I lead a move, ~

Then yeah. Then I'm leading pretty well. Must be a good day :innocent: But this is beyond "getting a move to work" - which is all that is really required in the 'move monster' mentality.
You are no longer leading moves to dance, you are dancing while leading moves. It's about prioritys. IMHO.


And if you then want to gain said technique, you'll have to learn to do them a second time, in a whole new way. Of course it's possible to learn like this - most of us do. I did - but the amount of time I've since spent unlearning and relearning does make me wish I had had a lot more of the basic grounding earlier on. Actually - I could still do with a whole lot more of it now.
yes, and no... you don't really have to learn the moves again, just the movements you were doing in order to actualy execute the moves.
It's similar to the way Amir teaches: This is what you do - go do it. Now this is what will make it work better - go do it. Now this will make it smoother - go do it. Start with a rough shape, then refine it.
This is the easiest partner dance form to get up and dancing with - and this is the reason for it. And the reason for it's apeal to new people. You only need these basic outlines to be able to actually get up and dance with a partner. The rest is just refinement, polish and taking off the rough edges.


True. The question is whether it's a good technique
Why does it matter at the beginner stage? It can be refined later.
There is so much precision and technique that could be introduced into every count of a move that it is concevable to spend a whole class on simply stepping back: when, the connection to lead it, how to follow it, how to get the partner stepping on the foot you want, how far to step, when to move the hand, when to move the foot, how to move it, where to place it, when to transfer weight, posture, how to prepare for the next movement, when does the movement start, when does it stop, how and when to lengthen it or shorten it, how to time parts of it to the music, ... As a beginner I would say "right, I've stepped back, now what?" I wouldn't want to spend half an hour with someone telling me in minute detail how I should step back - I've been walking on two feet for years: I know how to step forward and back.

I think every beginner class is an excercise in working out exactly what/how much 'technique' as the teacher can put in while keeping it to a minimum.


The MJ basics though - do we actually have 'em?
Yes -
The attitude. {social and moral ettiquete on and off the floor}
The hand connection. {no gripping, low hand blocks, high hand turns, followers follow hand}
The beginner moves. {each teaches specific movements}
The stepping in and out. {timeing and elasticity of movement}

MartinHarper
4th-June-2007, 04:15 PM
Why does it matter at the beginner stage?

I wasn't talking about beginners in particular. We're in "intermediate corner", after all.

Gus
4th-June-2007, 10:45 PM
There is nothing wrong with knowing lots of moves.Agree.


There is nothing wrong with being a 'move monster'. 'Move monster' has unfortunately, and wrongly, achieved a slightly derogatory emphasize on this forum.Totaly disagree.

Move monster is a phrase going aoens back to describe people who substituted moves for dancing, i.e. "why bother listenining to the music or the real beat when I can just throw every move I know AND the kitchen sink at it".

The monster part relates not to the knowledge but the the lack of control of that knowledge .... e.g. having Maserati = GOOD thing ... driving it through 30 mph zone and pedestians at 150 mph =- BAD thing. OK ... I know I'm labouring the point (possibly due to post-SP fatigue) but do you catch my point-of-view?

TA Guy
5th-June-2007, 02:14 AM
Totaly disagree.

Move monster is a phrase going aoens back to describe people who substituted moves for dancing, i.e. "why bother listenining to the music or the real beat when I can just throw every move I know AND the kitchen sink at it".



Last time I heard it used was about a year and a bit ago I think. I remember it because it involved a guy who could apparently lead ochos. Something I was trying to get right... still am. LOL. Anyways. Very good lady dancer who loves latin dancing comes and uses the 'Move Monster' phrase in relation to the number of pure latin moves a guy did to a latiny song. Imagine.... 'hung like a horse' in it's place and you get the happy picture of the message she was trying to get across :)

I have actually never heard it used in a derogatory manner until this forum.
Maybe it's a regional thing. Like one dance or two dances. My area is one of a very few left who seem to do two dances as normal, perhaps we're the 'Move Monster' innocents as well.


On another note...
Why I personally think it's slightly wrong to use it in a derogatory sense, unless your very careful how you use it, is it creates an implied association between being a bad dancer and knowing lots of moves. Which in my mind is just as bad as suggesting you need to know lots of moves to be a good dancer.

David Bailey
5th-June-2007, 11:23 AM
I have actually never heard it used in a derogatory manner until this forum.
Probably because Ceroc has 2 billion moves, and only (mostly) teaches those moves.

I've been thinking about this area recently in relation to learning Tango, and I've come round to the viewpoint, as expressed very well by TA guy (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/intermediate-corner/12671-defence-moves.html#post377197), that


There is nothing wrong with knowing lots of moves. There is nothing wrong with being a 'move monster'.
....
Wanting to learn lots of moves is a phase. It's a natural progression of the teaching method employed at 99.99% of MJ venues which revolves around learning moves.
To an extent, this applies to all dances. The only fault with knowing lots of moves is that people think it's all about moves.

Using the language analogy, then moves = the vocabulary, technique = grammar and spelling, style and musicality = how you put them together to create poetry. And Shakespeare was a "word monster", but that didn't mean he was a bad writer.

whitetiger1518
5th-June-2007, 03:20 PM
Using the language analogy, then moves = the vocabulary, technique = grammar and spelling, style and musicality = how you put them together to create poetry. And Shakespeare was a "word monster", but that didn't mean he was a bad writer.

Not only was Shakespeare a word monster and A No Bad Writer :waycool: he actually created some words that have since become old favourites within English. He also had a hand in stabilising the English Language itself!See under William Shakespeare Later Influences (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakespear#Influences)

Cheers

Whitetiger