Is Ceroc now just WCS in disguise ?

[stewart38]

I guess now that ceroc is promoting WCS and offering classes, with Utopia and other spin offs we have now a ‘brand’ that’s should be called 'ceroc’ . Bit like Virgin

Ceroc (the dance) should now be called ‘modern jive’ and the brand ‘ceroc’ can promote other dance styles ?.

I’m not against this, just interesting to see what happens in the next few years ?

WCS franchise anyone ? ,next door to ceroc franchsie , now that would be interesting and don’t pretend there different group of people who would attend ??

Has ceroc had its day as a dance style ?

[Andy McGregor]

I guess now that ceroc is promoting WCS and offering classes, with Utopia and other spin offs we have now a ‘brand’ that’s should be called 'ceroc’ . Bit like Virgin

Ceroc (the dance) should now be called ‘modern jive’ and the brand ‘ceroc’ can promote other dance styles ?.

I’m not against this, just interesting to see what happens in the next few years ?

WCS franchise anyone ? ,next door to ceroc franchsie , now that would be interesting and don’t pretend there different group of people who would attend ??

Has ceroc had its day as a dance style ?IMHO MJ will always be much more popular than WCS. The barriers to entry are so much lower.

Do I think Ceroc is disguised WCS? Most people know what I think of the dancers Ceroc produce. Nothing in their dancing says WCS to me :innocent:

[Spiky Steve]

Has ceroc had its day as a dance style ?

Ceroc is the the name , MJ is the dance.

WCS is smooth but there are no dips or drops, no aerials?, you don't get close like in Blues which is another a flavour of MJ.

MJ can also be styled for Latin and it can have double trouble. You can fake salsa and even WCS to a degree.

MJ is unlimited fun to unlimited music.

WCS doesn't come close for me although I would like to learn it one day.

Steve

[Sheepman]

WCS is smooth but there are no dips or drops, no aerials?, you don't get close like in Blues which is another a flavour of MJ.

MJ can also be styled for Latin and it can have double trouble. You can fake salsa and even WCS to a degree. WCS can include dips, drops aerials, (although usually only seen at showcase level) and plenty of UCP. I've often seen it done as double trouble, and it can adapt to include other dance styles (eg Swango).

For me, a great dance in WCS is rarer & harder to achieve than in MJ, but when I do get there, with the way it feels & the association between the music and dance, MJ doesn't come close.

Greg

[ducasi]

Loosely speaking, you might think of WCS as a strict subset of MJ, as pretty much everything you can do in WCS can be done in the framework of MJ.

That said, the extra rules that WCS add to the dance do tend to keep it smooth and sexy, which can't be said for all MJ dances and dancers.

Men (being the majority of leaders) don't need to learn WCS to be smooth and sexy - as leaders it's in their own control. Women (being the majority of followers), if they long for smooth and sexy, go and learn WCS but are then disappointed about the lack of men...

(All in my humble, but maybe slightly warped, opinion. :flower:)

[Gus]

WCS franchise anyone ? ,next door to ceroc franchsie , now that would be interesting and don’t pretend there different group of people who would attend ??Before Ceroc becomes WCS wouldn't Ceroc instructors have to learn how to teach tension & compression and the dancers learn how to apply it? :rolleyes: :devil:

[frodo]

Before Ceroc becomes WCS wouldn't Ceroc instructors have to learn how to teach tension & compression and the dancers learn how to apply it? :rolleyes: :devil:

Isn't that assuming WCS teachers know how to (successfully) teach tension and compression

That is without the advantage of a small deeply interested group of people to teach to.

[Gus]

Isn't that assuming WCS teachers know how to (successfully) teach tension and compression

That is without the advantage of a small deeply interested group of people to teach to.A fair number of the dancers Chris, our local instructor, has been teaching had little or no concept of T&C before he started. I'm not saying they all do now, but at least they are making progression. I've danced with many of these dancers before and the difference is notiable. None of the local MJ instrcutors have achieved this, including myslef ... unless its been through owrkshops. T&C may be mentioned by MJ instuctors but I've not seen any of them teach it adequately from stage ... and even the local instructors who claim they are should dance with their own studenst to know the truth of it. :rolleyes:

PS ... The points expressed above apply only to my home area. I can't make any comment for MJ instruction anywhere else in the UK.

[NZ Monkey]

IMHO MJ will always be much more popular than WCS. The barriers to entry are so much lower.

Do I think Ceroc is disguised WCS? Most people know what I think of the dancers Ceroc produce. Nothing in their dancing says WCS to me :innocent::yeah:


For me, a great dance in WCS is rarer & harder to achieve than in MJ, but when I do get there, with the way it feels & the association between the music and dance, MJ doesn't come close.I've found that after dancing WCS a while it was harder to have a really satisfying MJ dance - mainly because my bar had been raised regarding expectations. So I agree with you, and don't. All at the same time. Me...fickle? :innocent:


Isn't that assuming WCS teachers know how to (successfully) teach tension and compression

That is without the advantage of a small deeply interested group of people to teach to. What?! Assume that a teacher might need to know what they're doing?! Burn the heretic!

Seriously, you could teach WCS in the same kind of shoddy* manner that MJ is usually (not always, but usually) taught in. The problem then is that it would just be horribly confusing for the punter as they'd wind up with all of the tricky footwork in the patterns and none of the technique to make it easy. I don't think that would be very successful in the long term as MJ would have everything the WCS did and be easier, better established and better supported.

*Where shoddy is in comparison to dance styles that have a large number of professionals teaching at a social level. Or just having professionals at all for that matter....

[angelblue]

:yeah:

I've found that after dancing WCS a while it was harder to have a really satisfying MJ dance - mainly because my bar had been raised regarding expectations. So I agree with you, and don't. All at the same time. Me...fickle? :innocent:

What?! Assume that a teacher might need to know what they're doing?! Burn the heretic!

Seriously, you could teach WCS in the same kind of shoddy* manner that MJ is usually (not always, but usually) taught in. The problem then is that it would just be horribly confusing for the punter as they'd wind up with all of the tricky footwork in the patterns and none of the technique to make it easy. I don't think that would be very successful in the long term as MJ would have everything the WCS did and be easier, better established and better supported.

*Where shoddy is in comparison to dance styles that have a large number of professionals teaching at a social level. Or just having professionals at all for that matter....
Here Here!!

[stewart38]

I've found that after dancing WCS a while it was harder to have a really satisfying MJ dance - mainly because my bar had been raised regarding expectations. So I agree with you, and don't. All at the same time. Me...fickle? :innocent:




:Seriously, you could teach WCS in the same kind of shoddy* manner that MJ is usually (not always, but usually) taught in.

Why do we get this impression that WCS dancers fill superior :whistle:

Ceroc is successful because its easy to learn (relatively)

Remove that and your going to loose a large base of existing and future customers !

Im sorry Jivers cant give you a 'satisfying dance any more' some of us make a nice cup of tea :sad:

[David Bailey]

Why do we get this impression that WCS dancers fill superior :whistle:
I don't - he's just saying that he expects more from a dance now, as his bar has been raised.

WCS is not a "better" dance, but clearly is more difficult to master, so forces dancers, on the whole, to develop their skills more. So, a years' worth of learning WCS will develop your dance skills more than a year's worth of MJ, because you have to learn more. The same applies to other dance forms, salsa, tango, ballroom etc.

That's not to say that any one dance is "better" or even "easier" in general - just that some dances have steeper learning curves than others. That's hardly controversial.

But, having said that, I'd also like to know what parts of MJ teaching NZ Monkey thinks are "shoddy"? I wouldn't use that word - I'd say "basic", maybe, but the overall standard of teaching in MJ, largely thanks to Ceroc, isn't too bad.


Im sorry Jivers cant give you a 'satisfying dance any more' some of us make a nice cup of tea :sad:
I could do with one, coffee machine at work is :sick:

[angelblue]

Why do we get this impression that WCS dancers fill superior :whistle:

Ceroc is successful because its easy to learn (relatively)

Remove that and your going to loose a large base of existing and future customers !

Im sorry Jivers cant give you a 'satisfying dance any more' some of us make a nice cup of tea :sad:
Hey stewart i do WCS but i totally agree mj is easy to learn but Ive had some awesome mj dances (very bluesy ones i might add).

Now from a personal opinion whether im doing, wcs, mj,cha.tango,anything, what makes a great (or satisfying) dance for me is the hold/confidence/strength/connection of the lead. I think in many cases (but not all) this type of thing would not be taught in a mj class.
Once you have had that type of dance it does raise your 'bar' or expectations a little bit.

I will dance with anyone and everyone and im satisfied because im dancing full stop!

[Lory]

Why do we get this impression that WCS dancers fill superior :whistle:


No Stewart, you've got it entirely wrong... :rolleyes:


...we 'feel' superior! :devil: :wink:

[JiveLad]

Loosely speaking, you might think of WCS as a strict subset of MJ, as pretty much everything you can do in WCS can be done in the framework of MJ.

That said, the extra rules that WCS add to the dance do tend to keep it smooth and sexy, which can't be said for all MJ dances and dancers.

Men (being the majority of leaders) don't need to learn WCS to be smooth and sexy - as leaders it's in their own control. Women (being the majority of followers), if they long for smooth and sexy, go and learn WCS but are then disappointed about the lack of men...

(All in my humble, but maybe slightly warped, opinion. :flower:)

I'm inclined to agree (from very little knowledge of WCS) with all of this - in particular that WCS is a subset of MJ (which imho is the 'uber' dance - above ALL others). I love to watch WCS and a few months ago I did aspire to learning it - not so sure now.......it seems quite a big investment of time for little reward........versus 'going smooth within MJ'.

PS - Moderators - could you clean up the unnecessary posts in this interesting thread - ie the stuff about coffee/tea.......it's drivel....

[Chef]

Loosely speaking, you might think of WCS as a strict subset of MJ, as pretty much everything you can do in WCS can be done in the framework of MJ.

I would be very interested to get your opinion as to what the framework of MJ is (since everyone else on the thread is serving refreshments).

MJ doesn't seem to teach footwork, connection, frame, lead and follow, musicality, posture or anything that could be called an underlying technique that makes MJ uniquely MJ.

It seems to me that the complete lack of 'framework' is what make MJ able to import elements of other dance styles into itself, provided it strips out inconvenient elements of techinique from that dance style.

Lindy hop is often imported into MJ with the triple steps removed. Cha Cha is imported with the hip action removed. AT is often imported with the body and frame lead removed. WCS is often imported into MJ with the elasticty, compression, triple steps, slot, and musicality removed.

I am just waiting for the day when waltz is imported into MJ without the rise and fall.

So if anyone can actually tell me what 'framework' there is in MJ I would be glad to be properly informed.

[David Bailey]

I'm inclined to agree (from very little knowledge of WCS) with all of this - in particular that WCS is a subset of MJ (which imho is the 'uber' dance - above ALL others).
I know even less about WCS, but I'd definitely disagree on that one.

Firstly, WCS isn't a subset of MJ. WCS culture may be a subset of MJ culture, in the UK, but the dances are different. Cousins, at best - they both share some of the same roots (Lindy), but that's about it.

Remember, WCS has been going strong in the USA for quite some time now - up to 50 years, by some accounts.

Secondly, MJ is no more an "uber dance" than something like hustle is - it can adopt some parts of other dance techniques, sure, but that doesn't mean you can do WCS and call it "a bit of MJ".


I love to watch WCS and a few months ago I did aspire to learning it - not so sure now.......it seems quite a big investment of time for little reward........versus 'going smooth within MJ'.
Almost any dance takes more effort to learn than MJ - but you get more out of it. IMO, it's almost impossible to become a top-flight dancer through learning MJ alone - most of the great dancers you see in MJ will have done one or more other dance forms.

As always, it depends what you want to achieve.


PS - Moderators - could you clean up the unnecessary posts in this interesting thread - ie the stuff about coffee/tea.......it's drivel....
That'll be the drivel from myself, Lory and Tiggerbabe then? :innocent:

Besides, I'm thirsty. Hurry up, Stewart...

[Spiky Steve]

WCS can include dips, drops aerials
Greg

Didn't realise WCS could include dips and drops. I think Cat told me otherwise at one of her classes.


:yeah:

I've found that after dancing WCS a while it was harder to have a really satisfying MJ dance.

I have found that dancing with people who are learning WCS really messes up their follow in regards to MJ. It become hard and uncomfortable. It messes up the dance and some of my previously favourite dancers have become not so good to dance with at MJ. Still! there are loads more :nice:

Is it a case that you have to sacrifice a good MJ dance for a good WCS dance? :cool:

Steve

[NZ Monkey]

I don't - he's just saying that he expects more from a dance now, as his bar has been raised. :yeah:



But, having said that, I'd also like to know what parts of MJ teaching NZ Monkey thinks are "shoddy"? I wouldn't use that word - I'd say "basic", maybe, but the overall standard of teaching in MJ, largely thanks to Ceroc, isn't too bad. I did throw a couple of pretty significant qualifiers in there. I stand by the statement that much of the teaching in MJ comes across as being shoddy in comparison to long established dance forms with professionals teaching at a grass roots level. Case in point would be Southport, where two of the big names in WCS were bought in to teach dancers of all abilities. Similarly with Rebel Yell last year (Sarah and Kyle) and (I think) the previous Southport (Parker and Jessica).

I shudder every time I hear a teacher telling the leaders they need be strong and move the lady places. It encourages them to be rough when clear and decisive is what is really meant. When was the last time you heard a MJ teacher mention how to maintain a good frame and how to lead from the centre as much as possible(and when was the time before that)?

I don't think it's all rubbish. I didn't say that it is. I made a statement with a couple of serious qualifiers.


Why do we get this impression that WCS dancers fill superior Because you'll read into anything just far enough to hear what you want to justify your opinion and stop there? :whistle:



Ceroc is successful because its easy to learn (relatively)

Remove that and your going to loose a large base of existing and future customers !How, and this isn't just a rhetorical question, does this relate to anything I actually said?



Im sorry Jivers cant give you a 'satisfying dance any more' some of us make a nice cup of tea Where did I say they "can't" give me a satisfying dance Stewart? I said it was harder to have one now than before I started WCS. Those are hardly the same thing, and I know I'm not alone.

NZ Monkey gets up on his soap box, cracks his knuckles and assumes the ranting pose......the one where he keeps a banana hidden behind his back with his tail because he knows this will take a while and he might get hungry.

Limiting myself only to forumites (so that this might hold some meaning for you) I have had absolutely fantastic MJ dances that I can think of off the top of my head, at midnight here, in no particular order with:

Lory, Limpytimk, CeeCee, Cutey, Sparkles, LisaS, Spikeyblonde, MsFab, Tessalicious (still number one :flower:), Alice, Freya, Caro, Little Monkey, LilyB, Nina (ok, she isn't a forumite - but everyone knows her anyway), Tiggerbabe and angelblue. I'm sure there are more who will come to me after I click the submit button as well and they will hate me for not including their name. I apologise in advance.*please don't hurt me*

There's quite a few people there, and even that's just a limited sample. Here's the kicker though....all of these people, with the possible exception of Freya, have significant backgrounds with more formal dance training than plain old MJ. The only other common factor is that they're all women and I think we can disregard that for the purposes of this conversation. :na:

I find it very difficult to believe that this is just a coincidence. (the first part, not that they're all women...)

I know most of us say that we enjoy dancing with good dancers. I'll go a step further and say that I enjoy dancing with people who listen very closely to subtle signals in a lead, who don't anticipate, who don't travel in random directions needlessly, who keep an eye out for obstacles behind me, who can signal that they want control of the lead to play with something and give it back seamlessly when they're done. I enjoy dancing with people who are happy to hang out and grove for a bar so we can phrase ourselves to the music. I enjoy dancing with people who know what a musical phrase is. I enjoy dancing with people who maintain their own balance at all (practical) times and don't use me as a human handbreak, who keep their arms up in close turns so I can lead them from the body (and not risk breaking my nose with their elbows) and who do their part in maintaining a good physical and emotional connection with me throughout the dance. It's also nice if they smell like strawberries, and I'd quite like a pony too.

MJ is not great at teaching finer points like the ones I've just mentioned, but it's these finer points that add the real polish to dance which makes it feel and look great. I find dances that feels and look great more satisfying than those that don't most of the time. I know..... I'm selfish and should be punished for it.

At no point did I say that MJ'ers can't give me a satisfying dance. Plenty can, and to suggest otherwise is untrue garbage. The majority of the people who have done so in the past have learned the polish despite the way MJ is taught rather than because of it though.

If you feel that this makes me view MJ as an inferior dance then I won't sugar coat it - I do view it that way in some ways (as noted above).

What this doesn't mean is that I think there is no value in it. Plenty of people are in it for more social reasons than I am. Plenty of people don't want to push themselves into the more demanding aspects of technique, even if they are aware of some of the things out there. Lots of people just want the exercise and the fun. These are all entirely respectable goals and I there's more than enough room on the dance floor for everyone (unless it's fulham :devil:). MJ caters to a (very large) niche market and I only have one foot in the target demographic. I accept this happily.

It doesn't mean I don't dance with beginners. It doesn't mean I'll snob anyone who doesn't come up to some sort of imaginary standard. It doesn't mean I never have fun dancing with people who are not top dancers. It means I'm honest about what makes a dance extra special and satisfying to me.

NZ Monkey gets off his soapbox and puts the banana skin in the trash where it belongs

I know this post has gone significantly outside the strict topics that DavidJames and Stewart38 were referring too and so anything said on the soapbox should be considered a rant to the world at large rather than any individuals :flower:

[straycat]

No Stewart, you've got it entirely wrong... :rolleyes:


...we 'feel' superior! :devil: :wink:

Whereas Lindy and Tango people merely are superior :whistle: :devil:

Still waiting for that coffee....

[David Bailey]

I have found that dancing with people who are learning WCS really messes up their follow in regards to MJ.
I've encountered this too - not all WCS-ers, not even most of them, but occasionally.

[David Bailey]

I did throw a couple of pretty significant qualifiers in there. I stand by the statement that much of the teaching in MJ comes across as being shoddy in comparison to long established dance forms with professionals teaching at a grass roots level.
Mmm, still not convinced. Both salsa and AT teaching have more than their fair share of numpty teachers - much worse than you'd get at Ceroc, for example.

But it may be that WCS teaching in the UK is a higher standard, simply because only a few well-trained and gifted people are teaching it here (at the moment).


Where did I say they "can't" give me a satisfying dance Stewart? I said it was harder to have one now than before I started WCS. Those are hardly the same thing, and I know I'm not alone.
Ah, you're just an Evil Hotshot Snooty WCS-er, just accept it, OK? :na:


I find it very difficult to believe that this is just a coincidence. (the first part, not that they're all women...)
:rofl: Mental note, never read posts and drink coffee at the same time...


If you feel that this makes me view MJ as an inferior dance then I won't sugar coat it - I do view it that way in some ways (as noted above).
I don't think it's an "inferior" dance, but it certainly has a big tail of less-experienced dancers, and it doesn't take too much effort to become a Good Dancer in MJ.


I know this post has gone significantly outside the strict topics that DavidJames and Stewart38 were referring too
Yeah - you haven't even ordered your hot beverage of choice yet... :rolleyes:

[stewart38]

:yeah:



How, and this isn't just a rhetorical question, does this relate to anything I actually said?


I know this post has gone significantly outside the strict topics that DavidJames and Stewart38 were referring too and so anything said on the soapbox should be considered a rant to the world at large rather than any individuals :flower:


I’m allowed to say stuff that doesn’t relate to what you have said , well I have been doing so for the last 38 years

Obviously a ‘great’ dancer (and I say this generally) is probably going to find it ‘harder’ to get a good dance with anyone

Does Lorry get as much pleasure now from Jivers now she knows so many other dance styles, one reason why im wary of people like that, i.e. ill bore them so am reluctant to ask them to dance now

Anyway I’m just of the old school and don’t like people constantly knocking jive but if that’s the way of its so be it re ‘plain old jive’ :sad:

[Franck]

MJ doesn't seem to teach footwork, connection, frame, lead and follow, musicality, posture or anything that could be called an underlying technique that makes MJ uniquely MJ.This is a misrepresentation of MJ. All the above are taught in MJ. Not to beginners and not immediately, but they all belong within the framework (or lack thereof) of MJ.
The MJ approach is to teach less at the outset to keep more dancers interested (and not put off by complexity) but one of the benefits of that approach is that MJ dancers are not constrained by the artificial limits of each dance, for example you can choose to dance slotted in MJ or not, you can dance in a closed frame hold (as in Ballroom or Tango) or choose to dance from a short distance (as in WCS); you can include all sorts of footwork, from rondes, to triple steps (swing style or Chacha), you can dance all the above to a greater range of music than any other style, etc...
MJ teaching does however involve footwork, connection, lead & follow, musicality and much more, just not as early as other dances. It might also be argued that in the UK, there are more MJ workshops and classes teaching the above than WCS, based on sheer number of dancers retained.


So if anyone can actually tell me what 'framework' there is in MJ I would be glad to be properly informed.The MJ framework is as DavidB once succintly described:

Modern Jive is a Lead/Follow Partner Dance done to the music on the down-beat.Within that framework, we can add proper connection, style, footwork and moves gleaned from every possible styles (yes including the Waltz) without restrictions.

Secondly, MJ is no more an "uber dance" than something like hustle is - it can adopt some parts of other dance techniques, sure, but that doesn't mean you can do WCS and call it "a bit of MJ". I believe that MJ could be a kind of 'uber dance' might change the name to that :wink:

Of course WCS is not 'a bit of MJ' just that most dances that fit into the above definition can be included into MJ, completely if required, but I personally find that dancing only one type (be it WCS, AT, Chacha, rumba, etc...) is too limiting, and I prefer the flexibility of approach of MJ. None of the other dances would (by themselves) be sufficient now that I've experienced a range.

I appreciate all of the above doesn't apply to all MJ classes / teachers and dancers, as DavidJames said, MJ has a long tail of new / inexperienced or dancers who are happy with a few moves done fast with little connection or technique, but MJ is still fairly young in its development, and more and more MJ teachers are building the top dancers without having to resort to sending them to 'alternative' dances. I believe that once the number of MJ teachers who teach proper technique reaches critical mass, MJ will indeed become the 'Uber dance'.

[David Bailey]

I appreciate all of the above doesn't apply to all MJ classes / teachers and dancers, as DavidJames said, MJ has a long tail of new / inexperienced or dancers who are happy with a few moves done fast with little connection or technique, but MJ is still fairly young in its development, and more and more MJ teachers are building the top dancers without having to resort to sending them to 'alternative' dances. I believe that once the number of MJ teachers who teach proper technique reaches critical mass, MJ will indeed become the 'Uber dance'.
Personally, I don't think this will happen, simply because there's such a large tail of "social-only" dancers, who just want to go and have a bit of a bop.

Let me be absolutely clear - there's nothing wrong with that, and in fact that casual, friendly attitude is one of the best things about the MJ scene for me. I suspect that this was the case with ballroom dancing, back when the ballroom scene was ubiquitous.

But that also means that (IMO) a larger proportion of attendees simply won't care that much about getting better, compared to other dance forms. So there'll never be as much demand for advancement in MJ as there is in other forms. That doesn't mean that technique is irrelevant, or that it shouldn't be taught - but I think it means that, at the moment, there's not enough call from most MJ-ers for technique classes. And I can't see that changing much.

Having said that, MJ teaching is definitely improving - 10 years ago, it was almost impossible to find any technique-ased classes. But I doubt that it'll be able to compete with other dance forms in that way.

[ducasi]

I would be very interested to get your opinion as to what the framework of MJ is (since everyone else on the thread is serving refreshments).
Hmm... That's a difficult one... I think the key aspect of the "MJ framework" is that it is very loose. DJ recently quoted David B as saying that MJ is "Lead-and-follow dance, emphasis on the downbeat". Is that enough?

Can't remember from our discussions whether WCS was upbeat or downbeat, and whether that was about emphasis or something else, so maybe there's a difference, but otherwise I can't see anything in WCS that doesn't fit into this framework.


MJ doesn't seem to teach footwork, connection, frame, lead and follow, musicality, posture or anything that could be called an underlying technique that makes MJ uniquely MJ.
"MJ" is a dance and don't teach us anything. And while at most Ceroc and other MJ classes these concepts will not be explicitly taught, a huge number of MJ dancers seem to learn these things anyway.

Are you saying that MJ is devoid of technique?


It seems to me that the complete lack of 'framework' is what make MJ able to import elements of other dance styles into itself, provided it strips out inconvenient elements of techinique from that dance style.
Yes and no – it strips out the unnecessary ornamentation that some other dances have, but at the same time allows you to add it back in if you have the ability.


Lindy hop is often imported into MJ with the triple steps removed. Cha Cha is imported with the hip action removed. AT is often imported with the body and frame lead removed. WCS is often imported into MJ with the elasticty, compression, triple steps, slot, and musicality removed.
Let's look at it this way... I think that every WCS pattern I've seen can be imported into MJ, with much of the footwork and technique intact. There's probably exceptions... Some technique would have to be changed, such as the double-prep which tends to confuse MJ followers.

I also believe that there's many things in MJ that cannot directly be imported into WCS without some difficulty. This is why I said that WCS is a strict subset of MJ (as long as you are prepared to be a bit loose on how the technique is employed.)


Sorry if some of my thoughts are a bit messy – this is something I have just been musing on in the last week or so, and haven't fully cemented my thinking of the matter.

[ducasi]

Personally, I don't think this will happen, simply because there's such a large tail of "social-only" dancers, who just want to go and have a bit of a bop.
I'm curious... Ceroc claim to have 100,000 dancers in the UK – how many people dance WCS worldwide?

Does it also have a long tail of less-skilled "'social-only' dancers, who just want to go and have a bit of a bop."?

[David Bailey]

DJ recently quoted David B as saying that MJ is "Lead-and-follow dance, emphasis on the downbeat". Is that enough?
To be precise, from here (http://www.mjda.org/forum/showthread.php?p=4865#post4865):

Modern Jive is a Lead and Follow Partner dance where movements take multiples of two beats and finish on beats 1 and 3 of music written with 4 beats to the bar
I don't think it's enough, for purposes of development of the dance, but I do think it's the best definition I've seen.


Can't remember from our discussions whether WCS was upbeat or downbeat, and whether that was about emphasis or something else, so maybe there's a difference, but otherwise I can't see anything in WCS that doesn't fit into this framework.
I believe the expanded definition would exclude WCS.

[Lory]

Does Lorry get as much pleasure now from Jivers now she knows so many other dance styles, one reason why im wary of people like that, i.e. ill bore them so am reluctant to ask them to dance now


Yes I can, and some of the best dances I have nowadays are still MJ!;)

I love variety and if I had the choice, I'd probably choose the partner who's dancing IMO most suited the track playing at the time, which might not necessarily be WSC!

Most important to me, is dancing with people who have a good attitude. Who feel the music and really go for it... :clap:

And the great thing about MJ is ...whether its a funky R'n'B track, a smooth floaty Fred Astaire like number, a raunchy blues, a fun up-beat silly song, a latin track with a Cha cha beat or a Passionate Tango... you CAN use your MJ moves (for want of a better phrase) to create the mood of the dance..... :waycool:

But sadly what a lot of men do, is stick to their set routine of moves, with no regard for the music's thats playing whatsoever and I admit, this sometimes does bore me. :sad:

Someone once said on here (it might have been David B?) that if you turned the sound down, while watching a dancing video, you should be able to tell if a couple were dancing to different genres? Im talking emotion and attitude, not just Tempo here!

I firmly believe all the above totally achievable within the (I hesitate to use this word again) 'framework of MJ' but IMO there's simply not enough MJ leads who seem to be aware of the music at all and sadly, they're clueless as to how to produce a different 'feeling' :sad:

I suppose it comes down to that prickly little subject of musicality again!

[MartinHarper]

... I believe that there's many things in MJ that cannot directly be imported into WCS without some difficulty. This is why I said that WCS is a strict subset of MJ. ...

Here are some examples of things in WCS that cannot be directly imported into MJ without some difficulty:
* The strict slot and all the moves that are only leadable because of the strict slot.
* Leading the follower into arbitrary combinations of triple steps and step-steps in open.
* The extent to which followers can extend and alter patterns
* Anchor steps and holding in anchored position.

This does not make Modern Jive a subset of West Coast. They are two dances, with some similarities and some differences.


MJ dancers are not constrained by the artificial limits of each dance, for example you can choose to dance slotted in MJ or not, you can dance in a closed frame hold (as in Ballroom or Tango) or choose to dance from a short distance (as in WCS); you can include all sorts of footwork, from rondes, to triple steps (swing style or Chacha), you can dance all the above to a greater range of music than any other style, etc.

Nah, that's Lindy Hop.

[Chef]

Hmm... That's a difficult one... I think the key aspect of the "MJ framework" is that it is very loose. DJ recently quoted David B as saying that MJ is "Lead-and-follow dance, emphasis on the downbeat". Is that enough?.

In saying that the framework is very 'loose' seems to me that it is so loose as to not be present. I can understand Francks statement that technique is not taught early on and this brings in and retains big numbers of people who would otherwise not even start any dance related activity. This is the choice that MJ made that other dance forms have stayed away from, where you need to learn the foundation of technique in order to be able to do the dance.

This is what I understand as framework. It is something you need to learn in order to be able to do the activity. MJ is something you can do (up to a certain level) without learning any enabling skills. The need to learn them later is entirely optional.

As for Bavid B definition of MJ, I feel that while it may be entirely correct I just find it as useful as saying that a cow is an animal with 4 legs - True but there are thousands of animals with 4 legs that are not cows.





"MJ" is a dance and don't teach us anything. And while at most Ceroc and other MJ classes these concepts will not be explicitly taught, a huge number of MJ dancers seem to learn these things anyway.

Are you saying that MJ is devoid of technique?.

I am not saying that it is devoid of technique - I think Franck just said it when he pointed out that many tens of thousands of people are dancing MJ at this very moment and very few (in relative terms) have ever learnt technique of any description. If technique is not taught explicitly then it is not something that you need. If learning technique is entirely optional for MJ then it is not an essential part fo mass market MJ.



Yes and no – it strips out the unnecessary ornamentation that some other dances have, but at the same time allows you to add it back in if you have the ability..

You see I don't see technique as ornamentation. I see it as something essential that you need in order to be able to achieve something. With proper technique from both lead and follow you can lead a columbian and its variations. Without technique you have to say 'columbian' to your follower as she goes past you so that she will do it anyway irrespective of what you are doing. At point you are not leading and following you are merely moving in close proximity to each other.



Let's look at it this way... I think that every WCS pattern I've seen can be imported into MJ, with much of the footwork and technique intact. There's probably exceptions... Some technique would have to be changed, such as the double-prep which tends to confuse MJ followers..

The double prep confuses MJ followers because no one has required them to learn that they should follow their hand. Compression also confuses MJ followers so if you lead their hand towards them then their body stays where it is and their hand goes backwards. No one has taught them to follow their hand.




I also believe that there's many things in MJ that cannot directly be imported into WCS without some difficulty. This is why I said that WCS is a strict subset of MJ (as long as you are prepared to be a bit loose on how the technique is employed.).

It seems that we might be saying the same things. It is the lack of framework that allows som many elements of other dance styles to be imported.

[Franck]

This is what I understand as framework. It is something you need to learn in order to be able to do the activity. MJ is something you can do (up to a certain level) without learning any enabling skills. The need to learn them later is entirely optional.It is optional, but you're mistaken in your assumption that dancers are not "learning any enabling skills", Most MJ classes, whilst not perfect introduce enough elements of lead / follow, and basic stepping footwork. Many people have a surprising understanding and basic ability which allows them to pick-up the basics of the dance simply. Those same people get migraines and give up when you try to enforce a strict (and often artificial) footwork pattern.

As for Bavid B definition of MJ, I feel that while it may be entirely correct I just find it as useful as saying that a cow is an animal with 4 legs - True but there are thousands of animals with 4 legs that are not cows.That's not a suitable analogy. MJ is an animal with 4 legs that can change shape and adapt to its environment and terrain, including growing wings if required! In that sense, this is the closest definition we can get as MJ is the 'Uber Dance' because it is not 'just a cow'.


With proper technique from both lead and follow you can lead a columbian and its variations. Without technique you have to say 'columbian' to your follower as she goes past you so that she will do it anyway irrespective of what you are doing. At point you are not leading and following you are merely moving in close proximity to each other.This applies to all dances, irrespective of whether they try to teach 'proper' techniques or not. There are thousands of WCS dancers in the US (and in the UK) who dance patterns without proper technique, just following a choreographed routine as taught by their teachers. Yes, the better ones will try to pass on technique (though as discussed in another thread, not all WCS teachers would necessarily have a clue as to what connection is and how to teach it), thousands of Ballroom and Salsa dancers similarly "move in close proximity to each other" and call it dancing. The fact that we make a virtue of the fact, not only makes MJ easier to pick-up, but also makes most of its dancers more approachable.

[David Bailey]

That may be the approach that Ceroc take, but it's not the approach of all MJ. We teach footwork, posture, etc from day 1. I'm not in the business of letting people develop bad habits and then getting them to pay for workshops and private lessons to have them corrected.
Stop giving yourself airs and graces, Andy - you're a MJ teacher, not WCS remember? :na:

And I don't believe any successful MJ class focusses too much on technique; the business model just isn't geared up for it.

[JiveLad]

I know even less about WCS, but I'd definitely disagree on that one.

Firstly, WCS isn't a subset of MJ. WCS culture may be a subset of MJ culture, in the UK, but the dances are different. Cousins, at best - they both share some of the same roots (Lindy), but that's about it.

Remember, WCS has been going strong in the USA for quite some time now - up to 50 years, by some accounts.

Secondly, MJ is no more an "uber dance" than something like hustle is - it can adopt some parts of other dance techniques, sure, but that doesn't mean you can do WCS and call it "a bit of MJ".


Almost any dance takes more effort to learn than MJ - but you get more out of it. IMO, it's almost impossible to become a top-flight dancer through learning MJ alone - most of the great dancers you see in MJ will have done one or more other dance forms.

As always, it depends what you want to achieve.


That'll be the drivel from myself, Lory and Tiggerbabe then? :innocent:

Besides, I'm thirsty. Hurry up, Stewart...

Imvho and I bow to your vastly superior knowledge regarding dancing:
The 'uber' dance comment for me describes a dance form which is almost unrestricted and can evolve. Lindy for example is in a DNA back water - as is East Coast Swing. WCS is certainly more expansive however still constrained by certain conventions. In MJ there are few conventions to the form if you look at it in the round. (eg. when I asked one teacher about where he gets the moves from he referred to the 'Bible' then said - I threw that out ages ok - now I just make it up.....and he does it very well indeed).

Oh and 50 years........hmmm well does dance form age matter so much? Again, to use the DNA analogy, MJ has just mutated to survive and thrive - and it seems to have a faster evolutionary path than other dance forms - fruit fly versus elephant?. It is interesting to see (on another thread) some discussion about change/development - even just in the last 12 months.......

Yes - it depends what you want to achieve.......and how much you want to invest in that.

[straycat]

Imvho and I bow to your vastly superior knowledge regarding dancing:
The 'uber' dance comment for me describes a dance form which is almost unrestricted and can evolve. Lindy for example is in a DNA back water - as is East Coast Swing.

Interesting you should say that, and I'm very curious as to how you formed that conclusion.

I can't commend on ECS, never having even seen it, but having done MJ and Lindy for quite some years, my own feeling is quite the opposite. The sheer versatility and adaptability of Lindy is breathtaking, while these days, I find MJ to be far more limiting. Still a lot of fun, in the right circumstances, but lacking the building blocks / tools that I need to truly dance as freely as I'd like.

[FirstMove]

I don't know if any of you did the "UK Smooth" classes at Southport June 2007, but these taught moves and techniques that were all from WCS minus triple steps (MTS). The essence of the lessons seemed to be that if you want to get better at MJ, you should dance WCS(MTS), e.g. slotted, connected, smooth ... in which case good MJ is a subset of WCS.

[Gadget]

2c.

I expressed the opinion several years ago that MJ had the potential to be the "uber" dance style: no boundaries. The only rule is you don't injure your partner.

Personally I find any dance style that prescribes exact footwork and/or patterns to be limiting simply because you can't deviate from these.
If you are "good enough" to actually deviate from the patterns and footwork, then what's the difference between what you are doing when you deviate and an equally "good enough" person dancing MJ?

Is Ceroc WCS in disguise? Nope - Unless Salsa is too. And Waltz. And AT. If you flip your thinking, all the other dance styles are sub-sets of MJ :clap::
MJ is simply a lead and follow partner dance. As soon as you start imposing other definitions, music structure, footwork patterns, limiting to specific holds and movements, then it becomes another dance. (Ceroc being a subset of MJ too ;))

WCS is in my opinion very close to line dancing; set patterns to be selected as the music takes you. :na:

[JiveLad]

Interesting you should say that, and I'm very curious as to how you formed that conclusion.

I can't commend on ECS, never having even seen it, but having done MJ and Lindy for quite some years, my own feeling is quite the opposite. The sheer versatility and adaptability of Lindy is breathtaking, while these days, I find MJ to be far more limiting. Still a lot of fun, in the right circumstances, but lacking the building blocks / tools that I need to truly dance as freely as I'd like.

I formed this conclusion after experiences of Lindy/ECS in the USA and more recently in Sweden. It just seemed so limited: the music in both locations was of a certain stlye/genre and BPM - which provides the initial limitation. The next things I picked up quite rapidly was that even with experienced dancers there was just a subset of moves and 'styles' which could be applied.

Now - don't get me wrong - to watch great Lindy in action - as I did - including some mind blowing exhibition stuff, is amazing - and breathtaking at times - and sometimes wild (eg. in freestyle, using all the furniture in the dance hall - great stuff). Ultimately though, both in Sweden and the USA I felt it was stuck in a time warp - and never gong to evolve to enable you to dance to say a modern 130bpm track which might be standard fare at MJ.

Anyway, that's just my opinion right now - I'm sure it will change as my personal experience deepens.

[timbp]

Interesting you should say that, and I'm very curious as to how you formed that conclusion.

I can't commend on ECS, never having even seen it, but having done MJ and Lindy for quite some years, my own feeling is quite the opposite. The sheer versatility and adaptability of Lindy is breathtaking, while these days, I find MJ to be far more limiting. Still a lot of fun, in the right circumstances, but lacking the building blocks / tools that I need to truly dance as freely as I'd like.

I don't think I have ever seen ECS danced. The few times I have seen Lindy danced it has always been to music of a particular style and era, and the dancers have been dressed to that era.
(I accept that I was watching a performance, not a social; nevertheless, my reaction is to associate the dance with the costume and music when it was performed. When CMJ do performances at outside events, costume is "whatever you are comfortable dancing in" and music is 'current top40. and 'sometime in the past top40'. Overall impression: you can dance this to your favourite music wearing what you are now.)

But the comment about a "DNA back water" to me suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of biology.
Lindy may well have the adaptability to become the "uber-dance". Just because Lindy dancers prefer to perfect their skills in a limited environment does not mean they will not do well if drawn into a different environment.

Ever heard of rabbits? Cute furry animals that everyone loves.
Ever heard of rabbits in Australia: horrible creatures that everyone hates, because they are destroying both the natural Australian environment and the pastoral farming/grazing environment we have tried to introduce.

Rabbits are fine (and cute) where they belong. But elsewhere they take over and force everyone else out. And they bounce (kangaroos do not bounce -- they leap "along" where they are going).

[straycat]

I formed this conclusion after experiences of Lindy/ECS in the USA and more recently in Sweden. It just seemed so limited: the music in both locations was of a certain stlye/genre and BPM - which provides the initial limitation. The next things I picked up quite rapidly was that even with experienced dancers there was just a subset of moves and 'styles' which could be applied.


Again, speaking just for Lindy - I think I do see how the perception can be formed, but it is very misleading. Lindy is generally danced to swing, sure, but the speeds can vary from (at one extreme) 50BPM, or even slower, up to (at the other) 250 or more (if you're good enough).

'Subset' of moves... not really - the moves one can do are (within reason) only limited by ones imagination and dance ability - much like MJ (except that Lindy is much more geared towards improvisation & making moves up on the fly).


Ultimately though, both in Sweden and the USA I felt it was stuck in a time warp - and never gong to evolve to enable you to dance to say a modern 130bpm track which might be standard fare at MJ.

Mmmm. I think you can pretty much do Lindy to anything you could MJ to, and certainly the potential speed range is much much greater in Lindy. The question is whether you want to - I find comparatively little satisfaction these days in dancing to music that doesn't have at least some of the richness and complexity of good swing. Spoiled by too much good music - but that's a door which, once opened, can never be closed....

[JiveLad]

Again, speaking just for Lindy - I think I do see how the perception can be formed, but it is very misleading. Lindy is generally danced to swing, sure, but the speeds can vary from (at one extreme) 50BPM, or even slower, up to (at the other) 250 or more (if you're good enough).

'Subset' of moves... not really - the moves one can do are (within reason) only limited by ones imagination and dance ability - much like MJ (except that Lindy is much more geared towards improvisation & making moves up on the fly).


Mmmm. I think you can pretty much do Lindy to anything you could MJ to, and certainly the potential speed range is much much greater in Lindy. The question is whether you want to - I find comparatively little satisfaction these days in dancing to music that doesn't have at least some of the richness and complexity of good swing. Spoiled by too much good music - but that's a door which, once opened, can never be closed....

On reflection I think the route of it for me is the music. In both countries it was generally fast - 140BPM upwards - with an occasional slower track. And - the style of the music just took you back to the 1930's/40's - sometime 50's. It would have been unspeakable to dare to play anything from, say, the 1990's let alone - present day - even modern interpretations of swing (eg. my fav. Michael Bubbles) were off limits.

PS I am always interested to get recommendation for good/rich/complex swing based music. Let me know (PM if u have time) any of your favs.

[Gus]

Mmmm. I think you can pretty much do Lindy to anything you could MJ to, and certainly the potential speed range is much much greater in Lindy.Very true. Just watch what Nigel or simon Selmon do. They can Blues it with the best of them and then really turn up the heat for tracks like Zoot Suit Riot.

Nostalgia moment - THE point at which I decided I wanted to learn to dnace was around '97 at a Dance Crazy freestyle at Chiswick Town Hall. Andy & Nina and Nigel & Rena dancing like I'd never seen (before or since) .... messing about big time but at the same time showing superb technique and musical interpretation :worthy: :worthy: :waycool: