WCS- more "Connection" than MJ? [Archive]

Caro

31st-August-2007, 01:50 PM

I've noticed a few WCS folk comment (both on here and in the Real World) that you need more "connection" than in MJ.

As a WCS-near-newbie I'm interested to find out a bit more about this- what's different about WCS that means you need more "connection" and what form should it take?

Personally I have a shoulder that doesn't take too kindly to being subjected to too much force - so I want to apply as little tension or compression as I can get away with, and also protect myself from possible injuries from partners.

Ok, here are some reflections based on my current understanding of the topic...

The connection in WCS is different from MJ, in terms of 'force' (I don't like that word, I'd prefer tension), sometimes is it more, sometimes it is less.

First of all, the mean you use to convey the connection, most of the time this is the hand hold coupling, is different: in MJ most people seem to use their last 2 phalanges at most, whereas in WCS you are taught to use the whole length of the fingers (ask me at SP if you don't know what I'm talking about here), it's like being on a small path and then suddenly a motorway just opens up in front of you and there is so much more scope to communicate.

So that allows you to use in fact, less strength or force to communicate with your partner. (Hence Lory's comment). (yet the connection is more intense).

Also, there is very little connection remaining in the middle of the patterns (change of direction excluded). The reason is that once the direction is given, it is the follow's job to go to the end of the slot -the handhold is just there to maintain contact. That's an aspect with which we as MJ-ers struggle a lot, we almost always have too much residual connection in the middle of patterns. So in that part, there is way less tension involved.

Now for the bit where you probably perceive that more strength or force is required: resistance when anchoring. Yes usually at the end of an anchor there should be more resistance involved than in MJ. Now that resistance anchors not in your shoulder, but in your lats (the muscle on the bottom part and side of the shoulder blade). So if done properly, it shouldn't hurt the joint at all. Now when it comes to moving the follower forward: that shouldn't require any force at all. But it often does, because it's difficult for follows to anchor, create some stretch on 'and a' before the '1', and move forward without being heavy. It's also hard for MJ follows to commit their body completely to go to the end of the slot by '1'.
So while you'll find that the pros or Cat are as light as a dream, you're unlikely to find that with less experienced follows. It's all part of learning I'm afraid...

hope it helps! :flower:

Geordieed

31st-August-2007, 01:58 PM

Whatever the degree of experience in MJ you can begin to learn and become comfortable with WCS with what you know. As a lead or follow progresses their skills and knowledge of WCS connection can play a bigger part within the dance and some of the more expansive elements to the dance open up to you. Connection does not imply force. Better techinque will help to protect you from harm by the way.

Good connection is like being in love. You know it if you have it or not. You can try and fake it but it is not the same. And when you experience it for real then there is no other feeling like it.

I am continually learning about connection and trying to gain a deeper understanding of it. Connection has many dimensions. I can't see a time when this will ever stop. I remember one of my first ever dances with a top WCS dancer. She had such amazing connection I could actually feel the contact of her heels on the floor, even though she was grounded, with just the lightest of touch from our hand hold.

After spending alot of time and money on connection I would have to say that at a higher level of dance there is alot more connection in WCS than MJ and I dance both.

DavidY

31st-August-2007, 02:28 PM

First of all, the mean you use to convey the connection, most of the time this is the hand hold coupling, is different: in MJ most people seem to use their last 2 phalanges at most, whereas in WCS you are taught to use the whole length of the fingers (ask me at SP if you don't know what I'm talking about here), it's like being on a small path and then suddenly a motorway just opens up in front of you and there is so much more scope to communicate.
After spending alot of time and money on connection I would have to say that at a higher level of dance there is alot more connection in WCS than MJ and I dance both.Thanks for your answers:clap:, but I'm still puzzled by this question:
what's different about WCS that means you need more "connection"?Why couldn't you apply the WCS handhold to MJ, for example? If it's so much better, do any MJ teachers teach it? And why is it better to have a "more-fingers" hand hold (more points of contact I guess, but possibly more opportunity for them to conflict with each other)?

Thanks again...

robd

31st-August-2007, 02:41 PM

I've noticed a few WCS folk comment (both on here and in the Real World) that you need more "connection" than in MJ.

I'm not qualified to talk about the technical side of connection as I simply don't know enough about it but I can talk about what seems to work for me.
The handhold in particular differs for me. Many people view as little hand/finger to hand/finger contact as possible as the holy grail when they are MJ dancing. My style certainly used to be that of leading with one finger very often. In WCS I like a much 'fuller' contact with my follower's hand - this enables me to feel where she is in terms of anchoring particularly much better. However there's no reason why such a connection (in a purely physical sense) cannot work as well for MJ. In a private with Amir he suggested I stop leading with one finger and offer all of them for the follower simply because 'it feels nicer'. He then lead me through a few jango patterns, first with the one finger hold and subsequently with a fuller hold and I have to say I agree with his assessment.

Personally I have a shoulder that doesn't take too kindly to being subjected to too much force - so I want to apply as little tension or compression as I can get away with, and also protect myself from possible injuries from partners.

Tension/Compression need not be associated with excessive force. In a private with Paul W we spent quite a few minutes just dancing push breaks working on me building connection from 3 (not 4) and emphasised that it's a smooth and gradual process. I accept that beginner followers whom you are likely to mostly be dancing with will not have the following skills of Paul but the principle is the same.

One thing I see most frequently with new WCS followers is them selling themselves short on the push break and not allowing the compression to build. The whole purpose of a standard push break is to get that feel - in it's standard form it's not a flash move it's all about the feeling and when done right and with good connection it reminds me of why I enjoy dancing WCS so much.

robd

31st-August-2007, 02:49 PM

Thanks for your answers:clap:, but I'm still puzzled by this question:Why couldn't you apply the WCS handhold to MJ, for example? If it's so much better, do any MJ teachers teach it? And why is it better to have a "more-fingers" hand hold (more points of contact I guess, but possibly more opportunity for them to conflict with each other)?

Thanks again...

No reason why you couldn't apply a WCS handhold to MJ.

I think sometimes MJ beginners are told fewer fingers are better to assist with turning their partner - easier for a follower to turn under 1 or 2 of the leader's fingers than 4 of them - and then take this onward as they progress in the dance. If it works for them in MJ then why would they see a need to change it. Using fewer fingers also, I would guess, reduces the risk of excessive gripping from nervous beginners.

Geordieed

31st-August-2007, 03:25 PM

In a private with Paul W we spent quite a few minutes just dancing push breaks working on me building connection from 3 (not 4) and emphasised that it's a smooth and gradual process. I accept that beginner followers whom you are likely to mostly be dancing with will not have the following skills of Paul but the principle is the same.

Here's a question for you Rob just to illustrate what the answer implies. Do you think you would have arrived at this conclusion if you had not taken the private lesson from Paul.

I don't ask it as a promotional exercise for Paul. The reason that I ask it is because talking about compression especially on the forum can't adequately address the topic. Plus there is no substition for learning directly from classes and beyond. I generalise about the scenario but dancing without really learning what is occuring in the dance or deciding to learn without proper instruction doesn't do the dance justice and this is what we find from time to time.

It is great to see dancers with alot of ability still prepared to learn another dance really well and seek out others for that knowledge...

robd

31st-August-2007, 04:00 PM

Here's a question for you Rob just to illustrate what the answer implies. Do you think you would have arrived at this conclusion if you had not taken the private lesson from Paul.

Hmm, some of it. Possibly.

For sure, I'd always known that the building of compression and tension/leverage (are they the same?) should be gradual but starting to engage on 3 was new for me and, yes, I wholeheartedly agree with the main point you're making which is that compression is one of those things where a demonstration/feeling it is worth a thousand forum posts. Nonetheless I don't believe people should stop asking about it, just that they should understand that a written description is no match for teaching.

I generalise about the scenario but dancing without really learning what is occuring in the dance or deciding to learn without proper instruction doesn't do the dance justice and this is what we find from time to time.

I agree. Yes, there are people for whom classes are too distant/expensive and then you've got to debate whether learning imperfectly is better than not learning at all. Hopefully some standardisation of teaching in terms of content will happen but given the (relatively) low number of advanced WCS dancers in the country there's always going to be a struggle to provide a decent standard of teaching for everywhere that wants it. I think also newer dancers shouldn't interpret what you are saying as 'don't dance WCS until you've done X lessons with X' - it's about getting the basic knowledge from the right people. For this reason, I wish Paul or Cat (or the existing forumite WCS teachers) would chip in on some of these debates but then I guess they'd probably rather spend time dancing than talking about it :blush:

BTW I don't want people to think I have money to burn on private lessons given my post earlier. I've only had 2 which were those that I mentioned plus I was part of a group private with Jordan/Tatiana. I have to say the 1:1 sessions were much more useful to me than the group one.

Lory

31st-August-2007, 04:00 PM

Many people view as little hand/finger to hand/finger contact as possible as the holy grail when they are MJ dancing.

To the other extreme...

In accelerated moves, where the follow moves quickly and is relying on the lead to counter balance her momentum in order for her to stop. WCS teacher Lee, always said, aim to catch her on the wrist, that way you've got a second chance if you miss! :wink:

MartinHarper

31st-August-2007, 07:01 PM

Good connection is like being in love.

A simple and well-understood process hijacked by hippies and poets?

DavidY

31st-August-2007, 09:50 PM

there are people for whom classes are too distant/expensive and then you've got to debate whether learning imperfectly is better than not learning at all. :yeah: I think that's where I'm at - I wouldn't even know where to look to find a good private lesson and I have other commitments which often get in the way of doing workshops. Meanwhile I'm still going to classes and (potentially) reinforcing lots of bad habits that will would get harder and harder to shake off the more often I repeat them.
The reason that I ask it is because talking about compression especially on the forum can't adequately address the topic. Plus there is no substition for learning directly from classes and beyond. I can see that learning how to do compression/ tension properly is something that's best done in a class.

I'm still interested in why WCS is different though. For instance these seem to be part of the story...
In WCS I like a much 'fuller' contact with my follower's hand - this enables me to feel where she is in terms of anchoring particularly much better.
In accelerated moves, where the follow moves quickly and is relying on the lead to counter balance her momentum in order for her to stop. WCS teacher Lee, always said, aim to catch her on the wrist, that way you've got a second chance if you miss! :wink:From which I'm picking up that:
You need to know when/how (?) your partner is anchoring and more hand contact gives you more info on this WCS has more accelerated moves =people move faster than MJSound about right?

Mr Cool

2nd-September-2007, 03:54 PM

:Personally I always need to have the right conectoin.:wink:
It matters not what style of dance I am dancing.:waycool:
Without Positive conection i cannot lead the lady with the control I Desire. :D
This applies the same in WCS, MJ. Lindy. Tango. Blues, Balboa .Ballroom.Polka or Latin. just because its modern jive doesn't mean It requires less comitment.:flower:

:waycool::waycool::waycool:

Caro

2nd-September-2007, 04:22 PM

rubyred

2nd-September-2007, 11:58 PM

And another helpful post brought to you by Mr Cool :rolleyes:

Basically, just 'feel it', hey ? Dancing's so coooool :waycool::waycool::waycool:

Weeeeeellllll I think there is something to be said for feeling it, when I have danced with people who don't give me eye contact, give me the impression that their passion for the music is just between them and the fairies at the bottom of the garden, think they are Gods gift to whoever then I feel their intepretation of the music gets lost because of their ignorance around not wanting to share good stuff with me, their partner for three mins of the record, means to me that the musicality, passion and connection evapourates. :flower:

Thetruth

3rd-September-2007, 12:14 AM

rubyred

3rd-September-2007, 12:45 AM

Connection is just as important in MJ ............... and the lead in MJ is still evolving. :nice:
:yeah:BUT connection is so sexy and every dance style should be aware about this so called phenomenon :rolleyes:

Why don't we get rid of signals in MJ and resort to leading instead of looking out for signals..........:whistle:eye eye captain :flower::flower::flower: xxxx

fletch

3rd-September-2007, 01:12 AM

A good WCS follow, should be 'tuned in' and react to the most subtle of leads.:)

I have danced with lots of very good dancers, some 'do it' for me and some don't :what:

I can have a realy good dance one time and a bad dance the next, I do need to be 'tuned in' for any of my dances. :flower:

Whatever the degree of experience in MJ you can begin to learn and become comfortable with WCS with what you know.

Good connection is like being in love. You know it if you have it or not. You can try and fake it but it is not the same. And when you experience it for real then there is no other feeling like it.

looks like I need to learn WCS :rolleyes: I have been faking it for a while :sick: I need to be carfull I don't totaly loose my confidence, in asking any old body to dance :(

I was recently in a situation that reminded me of when I was at my biggest size. :(

I was stood with someone that regularly dances WCS and a third party joined us, virtually engorging me :mad: 'well what would I know about the subject' 'I don't WSC' :mad: I walked off,:sad: thinking of the times I had been engorged when 'the girls' were talking about shopping & make up, etc., as a fat person I wouldn't understand 'fat people don't know about fashion do they. :angry:

There's hope for us all then :confused::sad:

It is great to see dancers with alot of ability still prepared to learn another dance really well and seek out others for that knowledge...

OK guy's I need a helping hand :wink: any volunteers :cheers:

I think SP will be a good place to start :flower:

I carn't cope with the line up :tears:

:cheers:

Hmm, some of it. Possibly.

I agree. Yes, there are people for whom classes are too distant/expensive and then you've got to debate whether learning imperfectly is better than not learning at all. Hopefully some standardisation of teaching in terms of content will happen but given the (relatively) low number of advanced WCS dancers in the country there's always going to be a struggle to provide a decent standard of teaching for everywhere that wants it. I think also newer dancers shouldn't interpret what you are saying as 'don't dance WCS until you've done X lessons with X' - it's about getting the basic knowledge from the right people. For this reason, I wish Paul or Cat (or the existing forumite WCS teachers) would chip in on some of these debates but then I guess they'd probably rather spend time dancing than talking about it :blush:
.

I have to say i'm getting a bit miffed to say the least just recently, with constant comment's, like, well you don't WSC do you, or well you'll wan't jive won't you :angry: will I :confused: so is that what I do :(

I wan't to give my partners nice dances,:clap: weather its WCS, Lindy, Ceroc :flower: it appears that the group of people I stand with 'do' WCS so if I want to give them nice dances I need to learn to WCS, :what: but please don't put me in a box if I do, the only category i'm happy with is 'rebel' :waycool::D

:Personally I always need to have the right conectoin.:wink:
modern jive doesn't mean It requires less comitment.:flower:

:waycool::waycool::waycool:

So let me get this right :what: modern jiver's can be as commited as WCS'S just differn't :confused:

Now I am getting confussed, I was lead to belive WCS'S are far more committed and of cause much better dancers than Jiver's :confused::rolleyes:

:na::flower:

Minnie M

3rd-September-2007, 07:43 AM

..........Now I am getting confussed, I was lead to belive WCS'S are far more committed and of cause much better dancers than Jiver's :confused::rolleyes:

:whistle: (wrong thread)

Martin

3rd-September-2007, 07:59 AM

connection may well be taught more regularly in WCS. Top dancers in both WCS and MJ have good and varying connection.

I have taught a few mj connection workshops focusing on communication and the language of the dance. which works both ways, where connection firms up or becomes loose, to allow interpretation if wanted.

Mostly I like smooth and light, sometimes you need to mirror your partners firmer connection to support what they are doing. :D

ducasi

3rd-September-2007, 08:31 AM

MartinHarper

3rd-September-2007, 09:22 AM

From my experience there's nothing fundamentally different in connection between WCS and MJ.

I think the whole "1-beat lead" thing is different. Only leading around the "1" and "4", and substantially lightening the connection when not about to lead something. Or, as a friend of mine describes the experience of following West Coast:

F: "ok, I'll come forwards, and.... argh! where have you gone! help, someone, hel... oh, there you are. Don't leave me like tha... hey! come back and lead me, dang-it, you stinking unreliable leading type pers.... mmm, connection restored, oooh that feels good..."

Geordieed

3rd-September-2007, 09:40 AM

:yeah:

From my experience there's nothing fundamentally different in connection between WCS and MJ.

Can you describe this 'experience'...

Dreadful Scathe

3rd-September-2007, 09:50 AM

Can you describe this 'experience'...

I agree with him, there is no fundamental difference. However, in my experience, there is a big emphasis on connection in WCS classes but no emphasis at all in MJ classes (beginner level of course). Where people get a bit good and start dancing well, its generally because they have a very good connection - you can never get past "intermediate" without it. So whilst a beginner in WCS will generally have a better connection than a beginner in MJ, the principle is the same and as they get better they'll realise a good connection is THE most important thing in any partner dance.

Geordieed

3rd-September-2007, 09:59 AM

I agree with him, there is no fundamental difference. However, in my experience, there is a big emphasis on connection in WCS classes but no emphasis at all in MJ classes (beginner level of course). Where people get a bit good and start dancing well, its generally because they have a very good connection - you can never get past "intermediate" without it. So whilst a beginner in WCS will generally have a better connection than a beginner in MJ, the principle is the same and as they get better they'll realise a good connection is THE most important thing in any partner dance.

What do you think is the best way to describe the mechanics of connection and how it works...

David Bailey

3rd-September-2007, 09:59 AM

Can you describe this 'experience'...
Ooh, I can! :clap:

Experience: the observing, encountering, or undergoing of things generally as they occur in the course of time.

Hey, I'm here to help. :wink:

Caro

3rd-September-2007, 09:59 AM

From my experience there's nothing fundamentally different in connection between WCS and MJ.

In the same way that there's nothing fundamentally different in connection between salsa, ballroom, lindy, etc. Connection is the mean that allows the dance to happen, very much in the same way that language allows communication.

If you ask a Spanish speaker and an Italian speaker to communicate, they will find ways to do this at a basic level, using words, signs and body language. The same goes for dancing between an MJ dancer and a WCS one.
Now you may argue that this will be easier for MJ / WCS dancers than for MJ / AT or Waltz for example.

Conceptually, connection isn't different at all. Practically, it differs in some respects specific to each dance, as I and others have tried to explain above.

David Bailey

3rd-September-2007, 10:06 AM

In the same way that there's nothing fundamentally different in connection between salsa, ballroom, lindy, etc.
Yes - Wikipedia's got a good entry on this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connection_%28dance%29) - for example:

... connection is the primary means to communicate synchronized dance movement between the lead and follow.

Another interesting point is:

Connection can be used to transmit power and energy as well as information and signals - some dance forms (and some dancers) are at one extreme of pure power, and others will be at the other extreme of pure signalling, but most are probably a mixture of both.
I don't know where MJ or WCS fall in this spectrum...

Now you may argue that this will be easier for MJ / WCS dancers than for MJ / AT or Waltz for example.
I would guess that a good AT leader should find MJ easier than a good Waltz leader - but having said that, I've seen a good AT couple transform into the Beginners From Hell when trying MJ so I could be wrong.

Geordieed

3rd-September-2007, 10:13 AM

I don't know where MJ or WCS fall in this spectrum...

If you want to learn what WCS is about send me a PM and I can give you some links to places in London that you can come and learn a little...

David Bailey

3rd-September-2007, 10:18 AM

If you want to learn what WCS is about send me a PM and I can give you some links to places in London that you can come and learn a little...
Thanks, but my brain would explode if I tried to learn any more dances simultaneously, I've already had to suspend ballroom to focus on AT / salsa...

ducasi

3rd-September-2007, 10:47 AM

I think the whole "1-beat lead" thing is different. Only leading around the "1" and "4", and substantially lightening the connection when not about to lead something. Or, as a friend of mine describes the experience of following West Coast:

F: "ok, I'll come forwards, and.... argh! where have you gone! help, someone, hel... oh, there you are. Don't leave me like tha... hey! come back and lead me, dang-it, you stinking unreliable leading type pers.... mmm, connection restored, oooh that feels good..."
Absolutely, but that's the lead you're talking about, not the connection. Even when you are not actively leading in WCS there needs to be some sort of connection. Same as in MJ, though in MJ, the lead tends to be more continuous.

Amir

3rd-September-2007, 11:30 AM

Some people use the word 'connection' to mean how hard and how much you are pulling (or pushing) on your partner. If that is what you guys are talking about then how much connection you have depends on the dancer, not the dance.

If by connection you mean how much information you are communicating between the partnership in the same amount of time, then that depends on the movements you are leading. I would say that in WCS it is common to lead triple steps as well as single time steps, and even change direction midway through a triple step. This means that more information is being communicated between lead and follow in the same space of time.

In this sense, if comparing good wcs with good jive, there will be more 'connection' occurring in the wcs.

ducasi

3rd-September-2007, 11:33 AM

Can you describe this 'experience'...
Lots of MJ classes with one of the best teachers of connection in the UK over the last couple of years or so.

A fair number of WCS classes over the space of the last year or so, taking in most of the best teachers across the UK, and most who have been to Southport, etc., over the last couple of years. I don't do much WCS dancing, but I have studied it a fair amount.

They are different dances, but the fundamentals of the connection take in pretty much the same things – handhold, tension, compression, visual, flash-lighting, etc. – to a greater or lesser degree.

As I said above, there are differences in the lead, but I can't think of anything possible as far as WCS connection goes which isn't possible in MJ connection too.

TA Guy

3rd-September-2007, 12:08 PM

As I said above, there are differences in the lead, but I can't think of anything possible as far as WCS connection goes which isn't possible in MJ connection too.

That's along the lines I was thinking too.

Connection is about communicating. The more diverse your subject, the more diverse the communicating, the more communicating there has to be.

WCS has certain things that require that communication to be expanded, the anchoring, footwork, for example. WCS also has things that naturally lower the amount of communication required, the slotting restrictions, followers automatically heading for end of slot, for example.

Therefore, the intensity of the connection changes more in WCS, but overall more connection, very hard to justify that statement since as you mentioned, nothing is done by a WCS connection that couldn't be done by a MJ connection. And vice versa IMO.

Gadget

3rd-September-2007, 01:47 PM

From dancing with lots of MJ people and a few WCS people I find that the neutral 'hold' in WCS needs to have a constant tension within the connection. In comparison, MJ's neural 'hold' is a null with neither tension or compression, but the option to go either way.

This means that WCS followers can feel more 'in touch' with their partner because they are already supplying half of the connection and don't need to wait and see what connection the lead decides to impose.
(In MJ, the connection is normally dependant on the last movement and the follower moves behind the lead rather than with the lead.)

To me, this makes WCS harder work because I need to always be with the follower, giving them direction rather than letting them free-wheel and guiding them. In MJ it seems that I can play more and the follower can play more and we take our own initative to compliment each other. In WCS everything seems to be together more and trying to use the connection to agree on a unified movement.

Quite a subtle difference, and I doubt I've explained it very well, but I don't think that the method on how to lead is that different, just the what and when.

Mr Cool

3rd-September-2007, 06:08 PM

And another helpful post brought to you by Mr Cool :rolleyes:

Basically, just 'feel it', hey ? Dancing's so coooool :waycool::waycool::waycool:

Ouch:tears: your'e so beastly to me.:flower:

Hope we can agree to disgree.:whistle:
We both have a passion for dance:flower:

I hope you will Give me a dance soon.:yeah:

lets see how well we dance together I am sure it would be a dance full of Attitude, Musicality, Fun, connection, Smooth as snake Sh-t and of course cooooooooooooooooooooooooooool :rofl::cheers::cheers:

:waycool::waycool::waycool:

Amir

3rd-September-2007, 07:13 PM

I've noticed a few WCS folk comment (both on here and in the Real World) that you need more "connection" than in MJ.

As a WCS-near-newbie I'm interested to find out a bit more about this- what's different about WCS that means you need more "connection" and what form should it take?

Personally I have a shoulder that doesn't take too kindly to being subjected to too much force - so I want to apply as little tension or compression as I can get away with, and also protect myself from possible injuries from partners.

Just to remind people how this thread got started! People now seem to be debating as to if wcs connection is 'better' than mj connection. The original question seems to be about 'force'. I think the confused debate here is because, like I said, some people use the word connection to mean 'amount of tension/leverage/compression between partners’, and others use the word to mean the amount of communication. Some people are using the word to mean either depending on the context! Well whatever, here is my take on it:

1) Force
In WCS I find people tend to use more force. This is not required by the dance, but I still find that many women pull on your hand harder to move forward than they do when dancing modern jive. This is nothing to do with the dance, as you can dance wcs with miniscule force if you know how and if that is your goal. But if you are worried about your shoulder, the theory is irrelevant: what you may experience on the dance floor is followers pulling slightly harder. Having said that, I’m talking about a gradual pull, not a sudden yank, and you are more likely to feel it in your forearm than in your shoulder.

2) Amount of Communication
Like I said, in an average wcs dance more information is communicated than in an average mj dance. Some of you here are saying that there is nothing you can do in wcs that you can't in mj. That is because you are ignoring the footwork. (MJ dancers ignoring footwork! Who would have thought!) You can lead most of the same arm patterns, but you can't lead wcs footwork patterns in mj, unless you are dancing with someone who has learnt wcs in which case in what way is it still mj? Yes some couples are incorporating the odd wcs move complete with footwork into their mj, but that is not the norm on mj dance floors, and if you incorporate enough wcs moves with wcs footwork then how is it still mj?

3) Amount of Play
In wcs the structure of the dance (lots of 6 count moves and anchor steps) allows the follower more opportunities to play, like in Lindy Hop. You can remove the followers chance to play in wcs if you wanted to, and you can provide the follower more chances to play in mj (as you could in waltz, salsa etc) but that is in spite of the structure of those dances, not as a consequence of them. Anyway, the reality on the dance floor (which is a more practical concern than the theory of what one could do) is that in wcs followers are given more time to play.

TA Guy

3rd-September-2007, 10:08 PM

2) Amount of Communication
Like I said, in an average wcs dance more information is communicated than in an average mj dance. Some of you here are saying that there is nothing you can do in wcs that you can't in mj. That is because you are ignoring the footwork. (MJ dancers ignoring footwork! Who would have thought!) You can lead most of the same arm patterns, but you can't lead wcs footwork patterns in mj, unless you are dancing with someone who has learnt wcs in which case in what way is it still mj?

But WCS footwork is not freeform is it ?
As far as I know, WCS footwork has a rigid structure based around the 6/8 beat count and the anchor point. Sure, there are variations and improvisations, but no more than in MJ. And it's those variations and improvisations that require implicit extra communication down the connection rather than the 'muscle memory' led remembered triple step patterns.

I see as much of that truly led, improvised footwork at MJ as I do at WCS freestyles. At least at the level were talking about, which I've assumed for the sake of sanity is not the J&T level, but somewhere nearer weekender Chill out/WCS room level.

3) Amount of Play
In wcs the structure of the dance (lots of 6 count moves and anchor steps) allows the follower more opportunities to play, like in Lindy Hop. You can remove the followers chance to play in wcs if you wanted to, and you can provide the follower more chances to play in mj (as you could in waltz, salsa etc) but that is in spite of the structure of those dances, not as a consequence of them. Anyway, the reality on the dance floor (which is a more practical concern than the theory of what one could do) is that in wcs followers are given more time to play.

Again, not sure I agree with this. There is more 'play' in the average weekender MJ chill out room than any WCS freestyle I have seen anywhere.

And I agree, WCS is structured to actually allow play, but surely that just means MJ dancers require more communication thru the connection to setup MJ play time where none exists ? :) On a lighter note, practically miracle dancing I'd say :)

ducasi

3rd-September-2007, 11:37 PM

[...] Some of you here are saying that there is nothing you can do in wcs that you can't in mj. That is because you are ignoring the footwork. (MJ dancers ignoring footwork! Who would have thought!) You can lead most of the same arm patterns, but you can't lead wcs footwork patterns in mj, unless you are dancing with someone who has learnt wcs in which case in what way is it still mj? Yes some couples are incorporating the odd wcs move complete with footwork into their mj, but that is not the norm on mj dance floors, and if you incorporate enough wcs moves with wcs footwork then how is it still mj?
I thought that most WCS footwork is fixed into the standard 6 or 8-beat patterns, and the obvious extensions from there.

When it comes to syncopated triples, although I know they can be lead in WCS, how much is that done by the average dancer, and how much is just left for the individual follower (who is used to having the freedom to do her own syncopation anyway) to decide?

In MJ there are loads of times where footwork can be, and is, lead – triple-steps, grapevines, mambos, rondés, etc.

Amir

3rd-September-2007, 11:50 PM

But WCS footwork is not freeform is it ?
As far as I know, WCS footwork has a rigid structure based around the 6/8 beat count and the anchor point.

The footwork is not a rigid structure, but the way beginners are taught is fairly universal so it may appear to be. There is nothing rigid about the footwork as far as I understand, except the expectation that the follower will step forward on her right foot at the start of a new pattern. Everything else is open to variation, including the slot.

I see as much of that truly led, improvised footwork at MJ as I do at WCS freestyles.

I don't see people leading improvised triple steps in MJ, whereas in WCS it is common. A change of direction during a triple step involves twice as much communication in the same space of time. That is what makes wcs harder, in my opinion, since you have to think so much faster. If you eliminate triple steps the dance is hardly different from smooth slotted jive.

To take a personal example, I would rate my modern jive as much more advanced than my wcs. Even so, when I dance wcs I know I am forced to communicate much more information in smaller intervals of time to make the dance work.

And I agree, WCS is structured to actually allow play, but surely that just means MJ dancers require more communication thru the connection to setup MJ play time where none exists ?

I don't think it takes much communication to allow play time (- just stop leading.) That is what I meant when I said that you can allow followers play time in MJ despite the structure of the dance, whereas in WCS they receive play time because of the structure of the dance. You can allow play time in any dance in the world, I guess, but swing dances, with the open hold and the long basic, are conducive to it.

I'm not trying to make a judgment on these dances - there are things you can do in MJ that you can't in WCS. But to me it is obvious that:

WCS, even in its basic form, is more complex =>
You have to lead and follow that complexity =>
More communication is required in WCS.

This is from a technical point of view. From an emotional point of view you may feel intensely connected with someone in any style of dance.

(I have not yet decided which on average has more communication; tango or wcs – on the one hand wcs is harder because you have to lead complex stuff with just one hand. But then in tango close hold there is less room for error. Anyway, another thread for that one I think!)

NZ Monkey

4th-September-2007, 12:03 AM

But WCS footwork is not freeform is it ?
As far as I know, WCS footwork has a rigid structure based around the 6/8 beat count and the anchor point. Sure, there are variations and improvisations, but no more than in MJ. And it's those variations and improvisations that require implicit extra communication down the connection rather than the 'muscle memory' led remembered triple step patterns.It certainly looks that way when you start and probably for quite a while afterwards. All the basic patterns have a clearly defined footwork structure which mark it as “the” basic pattern, but in my totally unqualified opinion this is just because they cover a wide range of common WCS movements and teach the basic rhythm or 6 and 8 counts. Later patterns can turn much of these on their head as well as take more than the 6 or 8 counts that might normally be expected.

Really though, much of the footwork is leadable in the sense that once a follower can instinctively triple she will under certain conditions. I wouldn’t think of this as the lead saying “you will triple here” so much as the lead saying “you will go here” and the follower saying “the easiest/only way for me to do this is to triple now”. Turns and coupled pivots are a good example of lead triplesteps.

Other footwork is purely optional. Triple stepping in a basic pass for instance isn’t leadable. The follower does it because that’s what she wants to do (or because of muscle memory).

Sometimes footwork can be lead non–physically as well. Robert Royston has a good DVD on musical mapping where he touches on this. Other footwork can be led visually only. All this requires more experience than I’m laying any claim to, but I can see how it’s achieved even if I can’t perform it yet.

Edit: Cross posted with Amir.

Amir

4th-September-2007, 12:09 AM

I thought that most WCS footwork is fixed into the standard 6 or 8-beat patterns, and the obvious extensions from there.

This appears to be a common misunderstanding. If this was true, then how would wcs dancers ever hit breaks, which normally occur on odd numbers of phrase? You need to be able to lead a pass in 5 counts, a whip in 7 etc etc.

When it comes to syncopated triples, although I know they can be lead in WCS, how much is that done by the average dancer, and how much is just left for the individual follower (who is used to having the freedom to do her own syncopation anyway) to decide?
.

I am not sure what you mean by 'syncopated triple', but if by that you mean a triple step in a place that isn't normal, then I would say it is common. If you see a wcs dancer hit a break, then they will have had to change the basic pattern, as pointed out above. But be aware, it takes longer to become an 'average' wcs dancer than it does an average mj dancer!

In MJ there are loads of times where footwork can be, and is, lead – triple-steps, grapevines, mambos, rondés, etc.

These are not integral to MJ, whereas footwork is to WCS. Anyway, I have never seen a one hand led triple step in Modern Jive! Any clips of this would be genuinely appreciated!

MartinHarper

4th-September-2007, 12:45 AM

Really though, much of the footwork is leadable in the sense that once a follower can instinctively triple she will under certain conditions.

As it was told to me, a follower who is moving at a constant velocity will step-step, whereas a follower whose velocity is changing will triple-step. So an eight-beat West Coast move might be R-L- RLR- L-R- LRL- or it might be RLR- LRL- RLR- LRL-, depending on what is led in the upper half of the follower.

Whether that translates to more information being communicated, I can't say.

There is more 'play' in the average weekender MJ chill out room than any WCS freestyle I have seen anywhere.

Are you comparing like with like? The single West Coast weekender I've been on seemed to have a higher level of "play" than Modern Jive weekenders I've been on, on average. Not that I am a huge fan of such things.

You can allow play time in any dance in the world, I guess, but swing dances, with the open hold and the long basic, are conducive to it.

I agree, but I think there's more to it than that. West Coast is particularly suited to followers taking play time, more so than other swing dances. Between leads, the leader is supposed to reduce the connecting force substantially, making it easy for the follower to communicate a change of pace. Also, the culture (in Atlanta, at least) is very supporting of followers taking play time, to the extent that it seems almost mandatory.

I have never seen a one hand led triple step in Modern Jive! Any clips of this would be genuinely appreciated!

Have you seen that in West Coast?

Amir

4th-September-2007, 01:01 AM

Have you seen that in West Coast?

With my very own eyes! For example, at the end of any 6 count move where you can lead a coaster step instead of allowing her to do any anchor variation she wants.

NZ Monkey

4th-September-2007, 01:32 AM

As it was told to me, a follower who is moving at a constant velocity will step-step, whereas a follower whose velocity is changing will triple-step. So an eight-beat West Coast move might be R-L- RLR- L-R- LRL- or it might be RLR- LRL- RLR- LRL-, depending on what is led in the upper half of the follower.I remember reading an online discussion on this where somebody (DavidB on the Aussie forum if I remember correctly) said much the same thing. Tessa Cunningham then chimed in and, to paraphrase greatly, said it just wasn't that simple. I'd have to take her word on it there.

Strictly speaking it isn't true either. A follower needs to accelerate in the Walk-walk portion of a basic pattern or she's just standing still for instance. No triple there.

In all honesty though as a rule of thumb I don't see this as a bad assumption. If my follower is having to weave, turn or otherwise change direction I find that she is almost certainly triple stepping. Much of the time it's her only option.

Whether that translates to more information being communicated, I can't say.I think there is, it's just that the processing of that information is quicker/smoother. In other words - the "average" WCS dancer is probably more experienced than the "average" MJ one and has sharper movement skills because they've been practiced more.

Have you seen that in West Coast?Sure have. I do regularly in fact. You can lead a weave from one hand on the back of the shoulderblade for instance.

MartinHarper

4th-September-2007, 09:13 AM

Sure have. I do regularly in fact. You can lead a weave from one hand on the back of the shoulderblade for instance.

Oh, I kinda assumed Amir was talking about one-hand in open.

Amir

4th-September-2007, 09:17 AM

Oh, I kinda assumed Amir was talking about one-hand in open.

I was, that’s why the example I gave was a coaster step at the end of any 6 count move. I don't know why I said at the end of any 6 count move, since how many counts precede this are irrelevant. Anyway, you can do this with one hand.

Caro

4th-September-2007, 09:21 AM

Dreadful Scathe

4th-September-2007, 09:56 AM

Some people use the word 'connection' to mean how hard and how much you are pulling (or pushing) on your partner. If that is what you guys are talking about then how much connection you have depends on the dancer, not the dance.

Indeed - thats pretty much what i was meaning. Though "pushing and pulling" doesn't sound as good as "holding the perfect tension" which is more how i think of it. I was responding to the argument that WCS and MJ differed when it came to this tension and I don't think they do, but i would say that about practically any partner dance for the reasons you state - its not the dance its whether the person you're dancing with is able to get that perfect tension with you.

If by connection you mean how much information you are communicating between the partnership in the same amount of time, then that depends on the movements you are leading.

I would usually just call that "lead and follow" as its the act of dancing itself. Connection is what you always have even if you are standing still and about to dance. If you see what I mean. Doesn't mean I have a good use of terms - thats just how it works in my head :)

Amir

4th-September-2007, 10:08 AM

Even that is open to variations, there's nothing fundamentally wrong about stepping left and triple stepping to 'catch up'. As long as it remains a variation. .

True. In which case I can't think of any examples of rigid footwork in wcs.

I like that way of putting things... The absence of lead while the follows get to the end of the slot allows playtime. MJ has a more continuous lead...

I don't think the continuous lead is a factor; some people dance lindyhop with a similar 'continuous lead' but the followers still get extra time to play. It is because the shortest normal basic in swing is 6 counts (like in a right side pass) and not 4 counts (like in a MJ traveling return). The follower gets this extra time to play even from a beginner in a swing dance.

Amir

4th-September-2007, 10:24 AM

Though "pushing and pulling" doesn't sound as good as "holding the perfect tension" which is more how i think of it.

'push and pull' don't sound good, but at least it sounds less technical than 'compression and leverage'! I don't think the term 'holding the perfect tension' is great since you don't hold the tension - it is in constant flux. Sometimes zero, sometimes lots. In wcs the flux between zero to some is more frequent and common than in MJ. Some people dance MJ with a constant tension, but if you are dancing in a slot there is no reason to. Once you have sent the lady in that direction what is the tension for? If you are doing circular style moves than a constant pressure is likely in both MJ and WCS, since in a circle you are always modifying your direction.

The other difference is that the 'push' or 'compression' direction of tension is common and frequent in WCS, and less so in MJ. (If you avoid arm jives and push spins you can get through a whole dance without it.)

TA Guy

4th-September-2007, 10:47 AM

The footwork is not a rigid structure, but the way beginners are taught is fairly universal so it may appear to be. There is nothing rigid about the footwork as far as I understand, except the expectation that the follower will step forward on her right foot at the start of a new pattern. Everything else is open to variation, including the slot.

I don't see people leading improvised triple steps in MJ, whereas in WCS it is common. A change of direction during a triple step involves twice as much communication in the same space of time. That is what makes wcs harder, in my opinion, since you have to think so much faster. If you eliminate triple steps the dance is hardly different from smooth slotted jive.

I guess my point is;
If you change direction in WCS, or add abnormal (by abnormal I mean the standard triple step, but on an abnormal count, or a variation in pattern) footwork in WCS, how much information is transferred via the connection to deal with the actual foot placements of the triple step itself considering;
A) The follower has a role here.
B) The triple step itself will be in muscle memory, even if it's during a turn.

My answer is that as the footwork involved is triple steps over two-steps; it will make it more difficult, it will require a more precise lead, but doesn't actually require more information.

I don't think it takes much communication to allow play time (- just stop leading.) That is what I meant when I said that you can allow followers play time in MJ despite the structure of the dance, whereas in WCS they receive play time because of the structure of the dance. You can allow play time in any dance in the world, I guess, but swing dances, with the open hold and the long basic, are conducive to it.

In WCS, as you say, 'playtime' is built into the structure of the dance. The structure of the dance includes information to both partners about 'playtime' such as 'when', 'where' etc.

In MJ no such luxury exists, and whilst it's true, you could just stop leading at any point, that's more just leaving your partner hanging out to dry :) (Sure, some followers will deal with it, some regulars will know your going to do it, but I don't think it's the way to lead it :)).

The skill in MJ, at least as far as I understand it, is to take a dance that doesn't have 'playtime' built into it's structure, and change it so it does, in other words, create a time to play, allow the time to play and most importantly, offer it to the follower (a refusable invitation), don't just leave her hanging out to dry... all this when, unlike WCS, the follower doesn't even know it's there!

More information down the MJ connection is required to implement this than is required in WCS because the structure of WCS already supplies some of this information to the partners.

Dreadful Scathe

4th-September-2007, 11:06 AM

'push and pull' don't sound good, but at least it sounds less technical than 'compression and leverage'! I don't think the term 'holding the perfect tension' is great since you don't hold the tension

I agree, what I mean by "connection" is not always there. I really mean "perfect tension for that moment in time" which is sometimes none of course. Its that principle of "connection" i am saying is the same across all dances but its looking like an increasingly dubious definition and I wish i hadn't bothered now :)

Amir

4th-September-2007, 11:14 AM

... it will require a more precise lead, but doesn't actually require more information.

How can you be more precise without more information? Compare the following:
1. pick that up
2. pick up that red apple

The second statement is more precise because it contained more information.

TA Guy

4th-September-2007, 11:21 AM

How can you be more precise without more information? Compare the following:
1. pick that up
2. pick up that red apple

The second statement is more precise because it contained more information.

As one instructor said;
Pretend your a gunnery officer.
You can say: "right, right a bit, right a bit more, no, too far, left a tad, up a bit, up a bit more. FIRE!"
Or
You can say: "320 degrees by 80 degrees. FIRE!".

Not that there's a lot of shooting at either WCS or MJ :) They have that in common! :)

Amir

4th-September-2007, 11:23 AM

More information down the MJ connection is required to implement this than is required in WCS because the structure of WCS already supplies some of this information to the partners.

You have to learn how to lead that structure though! It is not automatic! The fact that you would have to work much harder to allow the same amount of play in MJ doesn't mean you are giving more information. You have to work harder to communicate on a bad telephone line too, (or on a dance forum!) but that doesn't mean you convey more info!

Amir

4th-September-2007, 11:28 AM

As one instructor said;
Pretend your a gunnery officer.
You can say: "right, right a bit, right a bit more, no, too far, left a tad, up a bit, up a bit more. FIRE!"
Or
You can say: "320 degrees by 80 degrees. FIRE!".

Not that there's a lot of shooting at either WCS or MJ :) They have that in common! :)

I think you are making my point. The second statement was more precise because it had more information in it. Contained within the statement '320 degrees' is the information 'and not any of the other 379 possibilities.' But you are relying on the listener to have learnt about degrees, which is what allows you to communicate more in less time. And in WCS you are relying on the follower to have learnt to follow WCS!

Rhythm King

4th-September-2007, 11:31 AM

Not that there's a lot of shooting at either WCS or MJ :) They have that in common! :)

And in WCS, you tend not to get rounds dropped short on you

oh sorry, are you a Gunner?

IN WCS YOU DON'T GET ROUNDS DROPPED SHORT ON YOU...

:devil::whistle:

David Franklin

4th-September-2007, 11:43 AM

Contained within the statement '320 degrees' is the information 'and not any of the other 379 possibilities.'I'm forced to wonder - do you always overturn your followers by 20 degrees?

TA Guy

4th-September-2007, 11:48 AM

You have to learn how to lead that structure though! It is not automatic! The fact that you would have to work much harder to allow the same amount of play in MJ doesn't mean you are giving more information. You have to work harder to communicate on a bad telephone line too, (or on a dance forum!) but that doesn't mean you convey more info!

Of course you have to learn it. I don't deny that. WCS is a harder dance, and has a steeper learning curve. Obviously, but presumably that structure evolved for a reason? Maybe to encourage and make it easier to do things like 'play'?..... how does it make it easier tho? By maybe reducing the amount of communication needed thru the connection ?
OK, lot of assumptions in those statements, I have no idea 'why' WCS evolved the way it did, but it sounds feasable :)

Whether in MJ it's a case of working harder rather than communicating more to achieve the same effect probably depends on the partners. Probably a bit of both.

timbp

4th-September-2007, 12:07 PM

As one instructor said;
Pretend your a gunnery officer.
You can say: "right, right a bit, right a bit more, no, too far, left a tad, up a bit, up a bit more. FIRE!"
Or
You can say: "320 degrees by 80 degrees. FIRE!".

How about, "Sergeant, hit that target".?
Probably more successful, and if not, at least there is someone else to blame.

straycat

4th-September-2007, 12:23 PM

Obviously, but presumably that structure evolved for a reason? Maybe to encourage and make it easier to do things like 'play'?..... how does it make it easier tho? By maybe reducing the amount of communication needed thru the connection ?

My understanding is that WCS structure comes from Lindy, so I think this is appropriate... in Lindy (from which WCS allegedly evolved), certainly, to make it easier to 'play', you need more communication through the connection - not less. From watching the many WCS clips, and the nature of the playing that goes on, I'd guess that the same is true of WCS.

TA Guy

4th-September-2007, 12:24 PM

I think you are making my point. The second statement was more precise because it had more information in it. Contained within the statement '320 degrees' is the information 'and not any of the other 379 possibilities.' But you are relying on the listener to have learnt about degrees, which is what allows you to communicate more in less time. And in WCS you are relying on the follower to have learnt to follow WCS!

The second statement didn't have 'and not any of the other 379 possibilities' in it. That wasn't actually communicated. The follower knows to discard those possibilities by her knowledge of 'degrees'. Just as you say, and is kinda my point...

...I fully agree the listener has to know about 'degrees'. That knowledge allows you to communicate less content (pass less information) and achieve the same outcome.
E.G. The WCS follower has to know how to do a triple step, and doesn't actually need information passed thru the connection to instruct her how to do that. The MJ follower has to know how to walk etc. :)

ducasi

4th-September-2007, 12:42 PM

With my very own eyes! For example, at the end of any 6 count move where you can lead a coaster step instead of allowing her to do any anchor variation she wants.
So in WCS you can lead one kind of triple step, rather than another. That can't be so hard when the follower is already wanting to do a triple.

These are not integral to MJ, whereas footwork is to WCS.
When does a common footwork pattern become integral to a dance?

Leading triples must be easier in WCS as the follower is expecting them pretty much every other beat. Leading any footwork variation in MJ has to be harder.

I don't see people leading improvised triple steps in MJ, whereas in WCS it is common.
I do.

The footwork is not a rigid structure, but the way beginners are taught is fairly universal so it may appear to be. There is nothing rigid about the footwork as far as I understand, except the expectation that the follower will step forward on her right foot at the start of a new pattern. Everything else is open to variation, including the slot.Even that is open to variations, there's nothing fundamentally wrong about stepping left and triple stepping to 'catch up'. As long as it remains a variation.
Is it possible to lead a WCS follower to step left from a normal anchor step?

Caro

4th-September-2007, 12:58 PM

Is it possible to lead a WCS follower to step left from a normal anchor step?

this might be posting before thinking kinda thing, but from a normal anchor step , assuming the footwork jut before that anchor step was regular too, I think the only way you could get me to step forward on left would be to lead me (pull in fact, as I would resist that) offtime.

Now you can lead me to step to the side (or forward but that'd be a little weird and it wouldn't be anchoring anymore) on left, but on 6 (during the anchor step, not after).

The only way I can think of to make a follow step on left on 1 would be to completely control her footwork just before and during the anchor step (so that she doesn't go into her regular LRL). I'm sure this can be done though (I'm thinking about leading a combination of steps to the side for example).

timbp

4th-September-2007, 01:08 PM

Is it possible to lead a WCS follower to step left from a normal anchor step?
How do you define "step left"?

In the classes I have been to, followers are taught to step forward right on 1.
Followers are also taught various syncopations.
And followers are taught if they are on the wrong foot when the guy starts the next pattern then they should do a ball change or some other sycopation so they land on the right foot on 1 (or at least land on the correct foot on 2).

I am confused about all this discussion about leading follower footwork, as my understanding from my WCS classes has always been the follower is responsible for her footwork, the leader is responsible for the pattern. I do realise the leader can lead followers footwork, but I thought that was a rarity, not normality.

NZ Monkey

4th-September-2007, 01:41 PM

...I fully agree the listener has to know about 'degrees'. That knowledge allows you to communicate less content (pass less information) and achieve the same outcome.Actually this is just more efficient communication of information. You can use either method to hit the target, but one will take a lot longer than the other.

Another way you can look at it is as information density. If you are able to communicate information more efficiently then you can communicate more in a fixed amount of time (say, two musical beats). This allows you to communicate more information through your lead.

I am confused about all this discussion about leading follower footwork, as my understanding from my WCS classes has always been the follower is responsible for her footwork, the leader is responsible for the pattern. I do realise the leader can lead followers footwork, but I thought that was a rarity, not normality. She is responsible for her own footwork. That means she needs to know the difference between when you're leading her some way specifically or when she has free reign. I think most reasonably experienced followers are pretty good at doing this instinctively (with good leads) though and probably don't give it a lot of thought.

As to which is more common...... I guess that depends on the leaders tastes and temperment. I'm reasonably certain I could make it difficult for a partner to play in a WCS dance if I really put my mind to it. Any kind of 6 count pattern would have to be ditched immediately of course. Nothing short of 14 count patterns for me*! :devil:

*I think I know two of those. It wouldn't be a very interesting dance :na:

Amir

4th-September-2007, 11:48 PM

...I fully agree the listener has to know about 'degrees'. That knowledge allows you to communicate less content (pass less information) and achieve the same outcome.
. :)

I think you are confusing 'amount of words' with amount of information. If I wrote 156 in roman numerals it would take up more space and more time, but I would not have conveyed more information. Talking to someone who knows about degrees (like David Franklin) means you can convey more information with less words.

E.G. The WCS follower has to know how to do a triple step, and doesn't actually need information passed thru the connection to instruct her how to do that.

Well of course you don't convey 'how to do a triple step' through your lead any more than you convey 'how to step back' in MJ. If someone doesn't know how to step back you can't lead it. You could push someone through it, I guess, but that is not lead and follow, that is push and be pushed. (please if anyone wants to debate that start a new thread this one is too messy already!)
What you do lead is when to triple, where to triple and in what shape to triple. You lead these things often, which is why you need to convey more information in a wcs lead, if you share my understanding of 'information.'

Amir

5th-September-2007, 12:12 AM

So in WCS you can lead one kind of triple step, rather than another. That can't be so hard when the follower is already wanting to do a triple.

First of all, what is hard got to do with it? We are talking about how much information is conveyed, not how hard it is! Talking on the phone is easier than using smoke signals, but you still convey more information in less time on the phone.

Second, it isn't hard when you know how. But learning how does take time since you have to... (turn up volume on broken record) ...convey more information in less time than you will be used to in MJ!

Finally, you don't have to lead triple steps where she is 'already wanting to do a triple.' You can lead them where it is more common to not triple. Either way, leading someone in a triple step variation requires more information conveyed than leading someone in a single time step variation. (Within the context of my opinion that precision inherently contains more information.)

When does a common footwork pattern become integral to a dance?

I don't know. I guess it depends on general consensus. I think you could dance MJ without leading any grapevines, rondes or triple steps and it would not be considered unusual. If you didn't do any triple steps in wcs, any ochos in tango or any side together sides in cha cha I think most people would think it very unusual.

I do. [See people leading improvised triple steps in MJ]

Part of me suspects you mean something else to me by triple step, since I don't ever remember seeing anyone lead improvised triple steps or teach them, (except for a polka like chasse step I don't know the name for, and is always danced in the same pattern whenever I see it.) Would love to see a clip or be given an example of where this is common.

Is it possible to lead a WCS follower to step left from a normal anchor step?

Don't know.

MartinHarper

5th-September-2007, 12:42 AM

Part of me suspects you mean something else to me by triple step...

Could you clarify the difference between a "polka like chasse step" and a "triple step"?

(aside from Polka being way cool, that is)

You don't have to lead triple steps where she is 'already wanting to do a triple.' You can lead them where it is more common to not triple.

Certainly - it's easy to omit the R-L- walking steps at the start of a West Coast pattern, for example. To do so, I have to accelerate my partner into the pattern, so that she naturally triples, rather than have her coast into it normally. It doesn't seem possible (at my level) to lead my partner to come forward at her normal leisurely pace, but with a triple instead of walking steps. It also doesn't seem possible to lead my partner to accelerate into the pattern, but still using walking steps.

Right now, I don't see this as an example of me communicating more information in West Coast than in Modern Jive. In both dances I can choose to lead an acceleration. In West Coast doing so has a side effect of putting my follower on a different foot. Similarly, in Modern Jive, leading a comb has a side effect of my follower waving her bum around. That doesn't mean that I have advanced backside-leading skills: it's just that Modern Jive followers have ants in their pants. Similarly, West Coast followers triple-step at the slightest provocation.

spindr

5th-September-2007, 12:59 AM

Part of me suspects you mean something else to me by triple step, since I don't ever remember seeing anyone lead improvised triple steps or teach them, (except for a polka like chasse step I don't know the name for, and is always danced in the same pattern whenever I see it.) Would love to see a clip or be given an example of where this is common.
I've seen MJ classes where the (followers') teacher has explained that it's easier for a follower to travel further by tripling (taking three running steps instead of a single one -- rather than a precise 1 a 2 syncopation). I don't think there was an explicit lead, other than "please travel a long way".

I think the reason that WCS feels more connected (in its basic form) than MJ* is that you generally spend 25-33% of the dance making and re-making that connection, i.e. squeezing the gaps out of the handhold during the anchor step -- no wonder you feel more "connected"** :)

SpinDr

* and possibly lindy, as then you'll probably be concentrating on the movement in the back-rock footwork, rather than noticing that it's also squeezing the gaps out of the handhold :)

** in MJ I guess the typical (basic) connection might be ~14 or 28% connection during a first move -- depending on whether you can reconnect fully at the end of the top-turn, or only at the end of the return, or just concentrating on moving?

Amir

5th-September-2007, 01:08 AM

Could you clarify the difference between a "polka like chasse step" and a "triple step"?

(aside from Polka being way cool, that is)

No difference. That is why I said it was the exception to the 'don't see people leading triple steps in MJ' rule. Still, a chasse doesn't change direction mid chasse, whereas triple steps in wcs often change direction mid triple, which, oh why bother, you all know what I'm going to say by now!

Look, does everyone at least agree that leading in WCS requires more precision? That you can get away with dancing MJ with a lot less precision? That is my experience anyway. If it is not yours, are you sure we are talking about the same dance!?!

For me, precision is practically synonymous with 'more information'. You might disagree with that, but that is probably more a case of us using different words to describe the same thing.

MartinHarper

5th-September-2007, 01:30 AM

No difference. That is why I said it was the exception to the 'don't see people leading triple steps in MJ' rule.

Ahh, gotcha. In which case, I understand that the move in question is in the Ceroc Bible as "First Move Triple Steps" and the "lead" is a frame-breaking signal with the girl's right hand (guy's left). And yeah, I don't see many lead triple steps outside that move.

Look, does everyone at least agree that leading in WCS requires more precision? That you can get away with dancing MJ with a lot less precision?

To be honest, I'd say that a Modern Jive travelling return and a West Coast right-side underarm pass require precisely the same amount of precision. Possibly the Modern Jive version requires more precision, because the leader needs to indicate where the follower should end up, whereas in the West Coast version the follower already knows that she should try to get to the other end of the slot.

TA Guy

5th-September-2007, 02:44 AM

I think you are confusing 'amount of words' with amount of information. If I wrote 156 in roman numerals it would take up more space and more time, but I would not have conveyed more information. Talking to someone who knows about degrees (like David Franklin) means you can convey more information with less words.

Heh :) Actually, I thought you were confusing 'the end result' with 'amount of information sent'.
Why would the words not be the information ? The leader sends some information, in this case, either the 'right a bit, up a bit' stuff, or 'some degrees'. The follower receives that information, decyphers it, and presumably does a triple step :) The triple step is not the information, that's the result. The 'right a bit...' or 'degrees' is the information.

Or a straight (if a little simplistic and crass) comparison;
The leader applies some compression to the shoulder and to the hand (the words), and the follower (after following/decyphering that lead/the words) does a triple step (the result).
But that's inefficient :)
Lets say the leader applies some compression to the shoulder, but doesn't need to add compression to the hand. (less words), and the follower because she is rather more skilled (at following/decyphering) does a triple step. (the result).
In the second example, less information passed thru the connection, but the end result was the same.

Getting back to the degrees example.... Efficiency is using less to achieve more. You can send all that 'right a bit, up a bit' stuff, which we'll call a lot. Or you can send the degrees, which we'll call a little. The end result is the same, but because the degrees is a 'little', it's more efficient. In other words, the more efficient connection passes less to achieve the same result.

As you pointed out in the original example, the receiver/follower has to understand about 'degrees' for the whole thing to work. But that's a mettyphor (Pratchett anyone? :)) for the skill level of the lead/follow in relation to the connection.

There is a huge assumption behind all this, and that is that the steep learning curve and attention to technique which appears more prevalent when WCS is taught (compared to MJ) actually does produce an 'on-average' better, or more efficient use of the connection. Perhaps it doesn't. :)
And I only put this forward as an example of how just because WCS appears more complex, it doesn't necessarily follow that more information passes thru the connection, not saying it's the answer to life, the universe and everything :) PM me for that :)

TA Guy

5th-September-2007, 02:47 AM

Well of course you don't convey 'how to do a triple step' through your lead any more than you convey 'how to step back' in MJ. If someone doesn't know how to step back you can't lead it. You could push someone through it, I guess, but that is not lead and follow, that is push and be pushed. (please if anyone wants to debate that start a new thread this one is too messy already!)
What you do lead is when to triple, where to triple and in what shape to triple. You lead these things often, which is why you need to convey more information in a wcs lead, if you share my understanding of 'information.'

I defer to Martin Harpers reply above which is essentially the point I was trying to make.

Amir

5th-September-2007, 09:07 AM

To be honest, I'd say that a Modern Jive travelling return and a West Coast right-side underarm pass require precisely the same amount of precision.

They don't. Which is why it takes longer for someone to learn WCS.

Possibly the Modern Jive version requires more precision, because the leader needs to indicate where the follower should end up, whereas in the West Coast version the follower already knows that she should try to get to the other end of the slot.

The wcs follower doesn't know where she is going to end up. Unless you tell her in advance that she is about to do a right side pass, and which of the hundreds of variations of right side pass she is about to do, then how would she know where she needs to end up? You need to lead it.

The basic right side pass in WCS is lead.
The basic right side pass is more complex than a basic traveling return.
= More information/precision is required when leading a right side pass.

If a right side pass didn't involve more precision, then how come it takes longer to learn?
(and don't say 'because of the footwork' since the footwork is only there to place your body in the right place, which is part of the lead. MJ is the only dance where this is not taught. Any other form I have learnt understands that where you place your body (=footwork) is the most important part of the lead, not what you do with your arms.)

Amir

5th-September-2007, 09:40 AM

Getting back to the degrees example.... Efficiency is using less to achieve more. You can send all that 'right a bit, up a bit' stuff, which we'll call a lot. Or you can send the degrees, which we'll call a little. The end result is the same, but because the degrees is a 'little', it's more efficient. In other words, the more efficient connection passes less to achieve the same result.

I don't agree with your distinctions but you still arrive at the conclusion that wcs has a more efficient connection. I think from what you have said that you would also agree that efficiency requires more precision.

There is a huge assumption behind all this, and that is that the steep learning curve and attention to technique which appears more prevalent when WCS is taught (compared to MJ) actually does produce an 'on-average' better, or more efficient use of the connection.

This makes it sound like you don't dance wcs.

Look, people out there are leading wcs. The moves are more complicated that in MJ. If they are not leading with either more precision, efficiency or what ever, how are they doing it?

Leading a more complicated move requires more precision.

Does anyone disagree with that?

(I already wish I hadn't asked.)

Franck

5th-September-2007, 09:44 AM

If a right side pass didn't involve more precision, then how come it takes longer to learn?
(and don't say 'because of the footwork' since the footwork is only there to place your body in the right place, which is part of the lead. MJ is the only dance where this is not taught. Any other form I have learnt understands that where you place your body (=footwork) is the most important part of the lead, not what you do with your arms.)Oh come on Amir :rolleyes: you're over egging the cake now. The right-side pass is not that difficult to learn in WCS and it is the footwork that makes it appear more difficult, not the footwork by itself, but learning the footwork, remembering to maintain the connection, body positioning and lead, all added to trying to maintain the basic footwork pattern at the same time.
It is information overload that makes WCS appear more difficult.

At the week-end, I was teaching variations on the travelling return and all the components above were included in the teach: Body positioning, using a body lead instead of arm lead, weight transfers, good inner connection and proper connection with your partner, conserving her momentum, etc.
The result was impressive from all the dancers present, but none felt it was frustratingly difficult because I didn't try to make them follow a strict footwork pattern. Had I asked them to concentrate on 'step, step, triple step, triple step' their available attention would have shifted away from the real technique to concentrate on the footwork and I believe would have made them worse dancers.

I also would dispute that
where you place your body (=footwork). Body positioning is important, but it does not equal footwork. If you use body positioning as a form of body lead and visual cues for your partner to follow more confidently, your feet will fall under your centre. Choosing a particular footwork only matters for style and musicality.

Franck

5th-September-2007, 09:50 AM

Leading a more complicated move requires more precision.

Does anyone disagree with that? I think everybody agrees with that. The only disagreement is that there is necessarily more complexity (of moves or leading skills) in WCS than in MJ.

I find that I need more and more precision, even to lead very simple moves properly in MJ. I find the same principles in WCS, Tango, Lindy and Ballroom... All have different conventions, different preferred lead techniques and some have footwork patterns that were designed to fit the music they were created for / from, but all of them require good technique, precision and connection when danced at a competent level.

David Franklin

5th-September-2007, 10:10 AM

They don't. Which is why it takes longer for someone to learn WCS.Sorry, but I'm with Martin here - a right side pass isn't particularly difficult to lead. Probably more relevantly, you can have a lot of "slop" in the way you lead a right side pass and still find it works 95% of the time (the follower may embellish, but I count that as working).

The wcs follower doesn't know where she is going to end up. Unless you tell her in advance that she is about to do a right side pass, and which of the hundreds of variations of right side pass she is about to do, then how would she know where she needs to end up?Surely, "if in doubt, keep moving down the slot in the direction you're going until something stops you" covers this well enough? (There's all kinds of things it doesn't cover, but I don't think the basic right side pass is one of them).

The basic right side pass is more complex than a basic traveling return.
= More information/precision is required when leading a right side pass.Just because something is more complex, or more precise, doesn't mean more information/precision is required to lead it. More information is only required if you actually need to distinguish between possibilities. (To take the gunnery example, if the sergeant knows to "fire a time-on-target salvo at the enemy position with coordinates (123.456, 78.90) 15 seconds after I raise my left arm", but to "fire for effect at the enemy position with coordinates (111.222, 77.88) 20 seconds after I raise my right arm", then I can signal an action that is both complex and precise even though the signal itself is nothing of the kind).

From an information theory point of view, it doesn't take much information to signal something that the follower expects is going to happen anyway. As a consequence, leading the "default" variation of moves is usually not a problem.

On the other hand, I agree with something else you said. Compared to MJ, I find it amazing how many variations you can put on even the simplest move in WCS, and how quickly you have to do everything. And I think that does take a lot more precision of lead (particularly as regards timing).

It is of course a long time since I've danced WCS, and I was never particularly good at it. Whether this makes me well or poorly qualified to comment on how hard it is to lead basic moves is an interesting question...

Amir

5th-September-2007, 10:16 AM

The only disagreement is that there is necessarily more complexity (of moves or leading skills) in WCS than in MJ.

I genuinely thought that much was obvious. If WCS (or tango, or salsa etc) were not more complex than MJ than why do they take longer to learn?

Amir

5th-September-2007, 10:19 AM

... then I can signal an action that is both complex and precise even though the signal itself is nothing of the kind).

which is the difference between a signal and a lead.

Franck

5th-September-2007, 10:24 AM

I genuinely thought that much was obvious. If WCS (or tango, or salsa etc) were not more complex than MJ than why do they take longer to learn?Which is why I put necessarily. Both (all?) dances are potentially as complex as any other. The main difference with MJ is that the teaching focuses on simplicity and making it easy to learn so that more people continue learning and you can get almost instant gratification / pleasure in freestyle dancing.

To reach a competent level however, takes much longer in MJ than a few months. By competent, I don't mean becoming an 'intermediate' dancer, but learning proper technique of lead / follow, connection, style, musicality and footwork... MJ in that sense is a bottomless pit of dancing, easy to fall in, but a long fall...

MartinHarper

5th-September-2007, 10:28 AM

The wcs follower doesn't know where she is going to end up. Unless you tell her in advance that she is about to do a right side pass, and which of the hundreds of variations of right side pass she is about to do, then how would she know where she needs to end up?

Well, it's either going to be point A, at one end of the slot, or point B, at the other end of the slot. Except she starts at point A, so she's aiming for point B. Ok, the slot can move around a fair amount, but only if explicitly lead. And the leader can redirect the follower back to point A, but only if he explicitly leads that. In the very basic form of the right side pass, he's not doing those things, so he doesn't have to communicate much information. It's pretty much "come here" on "1", and then not doing anything for five beats.
Though I guess the information transfer in a travelling return can be pretty minimal too. It doesn't have to be precise - "go 180°". It can just be "eh, move a bit".
Though this doesn't say anything about the complexity of the dances in a bigger scale, so I'm not sure why I'm even posting at this point.

Amir

5th-September-2007, 10:28 AM

Sorry, but I'm with Martin here - a right side pass isn't particularly difficult to lead. Probably more relevantly, you can have a lot of "slop" in the way you lead a right side pass and still find it works 95% of the time (the follower may embellish, but I count that as working).
...

I didn't say it was difficult. Just that it is more difficult that a travelling return.

you can have a lot of "slop" in the way you lead a right side pass and still find it works 95% of the time (the follower may embellish, but I count that as working).
...

You can have some slop. But you can get away with more 'slop' in a MJ traveling return.

Anyway, I think you are overestimating how much slop you can have in a right side pass. Too much and the follower is doing a right side pass because she knows that is what you wanted and just wants to get through the dance, not because that is what you led.

David Franklin

5th-September-2007, 10:33 AM

which is the difference between a signal and a lead.I absolutely agree, but you were talking about information transfer ("more information/precision is required when leading a right side pass") and from the point of view of information transfer, there's no difference between a signal and a lead.

Bringing scientific definitions into discussions about dance always seems to end in tears, but I do think information theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory) has some relevance to discussions of leading. I was particularly struck by a discussion with Bryony where she was saying a move had to be in her "decision tree" of possibilities if she was to be able to follow it easily (where the decision tree can change depending on the lead). To me, the resemblance with various compression codes (that attempt to find the minimal amount of signal data required to convey a set of information reliably) was striking.

Amir

5th-September-2007, 10:39 AM

Both (all?) dances are potentially as complex as any other.

I don't think so. Unless Modern Jive incorporates a vast vocabulary of movement from other dances it will never be as complex as wcs, lindy or tango, or any other dance where you routinely lead fast footwork.

To reach a competent level however, takes much longer in MJ than a few months. By competent, I don't mean becoming an 'intermediate' dancer, but learning proper technique of lead / follow, connection, style, musicality and footwork... MJ in that sense is a bottomless pit of dancing, easy to fall in, but a long fall...

I agree to become that good at MJ does take time. But it still takes less time than it does in WCS.

Another indication of this is that you can take a competent WCS dancer and teach them to be competent in MJ in a couple of weeks. The other way around still takes months. That is because MJ is simpler.

(By the way, just to clarify, when I say MJ I mean Michael Jackson. I hope none of you thought I meant Modern Jive, God forbid.)

Franck

5th-September-2007, 10:50 AM

I don't think so. Unless Modern Jive incorporates a vast vocabulary of movement from other dances it will never be as complex as wcs, lindy or tango, or any other dance where you routinely lead fast footwork. I kind of agree, but MJ does incorporate the vast vocabulary from other dances, not always properly, but more and more technique and patterns are absorbed by modern jive very successfully. As a result, MJ is becoming deeper and more complex. It does however maintain its ease of learning at the early stages so that the dance appears simple for beginners.

I agree to become that good at MJ does take time. But it still takes less time than it does in WCS. I see that as a testament to the teaching approach MJ classes take. By gradually adding complexity, students are neither put off or frustrated and can absorb the information faster. Throwing all the complexity at the outset only serves to sort the men from the boys but doesn't create more dancers.

Another indication of this is that you can take a competent WCS dancer and teach them to be competent in MJ in a couple of weeks. The other way around still takes months. That is because MJ is simpler.You've changed the meaning of competent in that last sentence. To take a competent MJ dancer (as I defined a couple of posts back) and teach them WCS wouldn't take that much longer than introducing a competent WCS dancer to the variety of patterns and connection types we use in MJ.

David Bailey

5th-September-2007, 10:52 AM

If WCS (or tango, or salsa etc) were not more complex than MJ than why do they take longer to learn?
I'm not sure if (for example) salsa is more or less "complex" than MJ, but I think that the way most dances are taught means that they have a steeper initial learning curve - sometimes much steeper - than MJ.

The problem with MJ, for people getting past a certain level, is that it's much more difficult to catch up - we have to learn theory and technique after we've been happily dancing for years already. So a lot of people simply don't bother.

I think of it this way:

David Bailey

5th-September-2007, 11:01 AM

Whilst I agree with Franck about relative complexity (in a theoretical sense), and about the initial learning curve, I disagree with him about the benefits of such an approach.

I see that as a testament to the teaching approach MJ classes take. By gradually adding complexity, students are neither put off or frustrated and can absorb the information faster. Throwing all the complexity at the outset only serves to sort the men from the boys but doesn't create more dancers.
The problem is, this "complexity" (technique, I'd call it) is essential at some point, and I'm not convinced that intermediate-MJ dancers are more eager to learn technique than beginners - if you've been teaching them moves, moves and more moves for 2 years, they'll want to learn, well, moves.

So the result is that MJ as a whole is "bottom-heavy", and the top MJ dancers as a whole aren't as good as the top dancers in other disciplines (which is obvious, because we keep trying to poach dancers from other disciplines as our gurus).

Hmmm, I feel another thread split coming on...

David Franklin

5th-September-2007, 11:03 AM

Here's an addendum to my post #90 (I wanted to edit it, but took longer than the 15 mins allowed so it won't let me).

(*) Edit: upon rereading, this doesn't really say what I meant it to say, and it sounds a bit like weaseling. I'm struggling to say what I mean to, so let me just say that I think from an information point of view, there's still a large 'signal' element in what we as dancers are happy to call a lead.

Amir

5th-September-2007, 11:07 AM

To take a competent MJ dancer (as I defined a couple of posts back) and teach them WCS wouldn't take that much longer than introducing a competent WCS dancer to the variety of patterns and connection types we use in MJ.

It does though. I am comparing from experience. There are several competent (competition winning Modern Jive teachers with lots of musicality, footwork and style) who are taking a lot longer to learn WCS than it takes their equivelents in WCS to become competent in Modern Jive.

Or to use myself as an example, I consider myself competent at both MJ, Tango and WCS, but even though I learnt MJ first (and had no dance knowledge at the time) it took me much longer to become competent in WCS and Tango, even though I was already competent in other dances by that time.

However you compare the dances

what is taught in classes
what is danced by the average dancer
what is danced by the top professionals

Tango and WCS are more complex than Salsa, all of which are more complex than MJ. You could say it is possible to incorporate all that complexity into MJ, but that is a theoretical 'could happen in the future' discussion, it is definitely not the case now.

Franck

5th-September-2007, 11:12 AM

The problem is, this "complexity" (technique, I'd call it) is essential at some point, and I'm not convinced that intermediate-MJ dancers are more eager to learn technique than beginners - if you've been teaching them moves, moves and more moves for 2 years, they'll want to learn, well, moves.

So the result is that MJ as a whole is "bottom-heavy", and the top MJ dancers as a whole aren't as good as the top dancers in other disciplines (which is obvious, because we keep trying to poach dancers from other disciplines as our gurus).I just think that other dances filter their dancers from the outset. If you're not prepared to work hard and learn all the complexities and technical elements of the dance (Tango is a good example) then give up and leave the dance floor space to those that are dedicated enough.
What you call 'bottom-heavy' I call successfully introducing the pleasure of dancing to thousands. It is perfectly possible to enjoy dancing without any significant degree of competence and I believe this is a good thing.

Whether MJ dancers are willing to learn technique later on, once they've discovered dancing is fun and not beyond the realm of their abilities is an interesting question. I have been teaching technique for a few years now and the evidence is that people are willing to learn it and learn it very quickly indeed. There are some hard-core move monsters who have been dancing for years and won't change their ways, but most people who have been enjoying Ceroc for a year or so are very keen to learn technique properly and by the evidence of the last Focus Week-end found it a lot less frustrating than having to start another dance.

Amir

5th-September-2007, 11:15 AM

there's still a large 'signal' element in what we as dancers are happy to call a lead.

I think I agree with that, and I would say that in WCS these signals require more precise timing. If you change direction half way through a triple step the signal/lead has to be a quarter of the way through the count. This is common in swing and rare in MJ, which is why the timing (hence the lead) of swing dances has to be more precise.

Franck

5th-September-2007, 11:24 AM

Or to use myself as an example, I consider myself competent at both MJ, Tango and WCS, but even though I learnt MJ first (and had no dance knowledge at the time) it took me much longer to become competent in WCS and Tango, even though I was already competent in other dances by that time. Absolutely, and nobody would dispute your competence in any of the above. It does take more time to move into Tango or WCS, but not because of any intrinsic complexity, but because of the artificial (or musical constraints) conventions each dance demand. There are more strict conventions in WCS, you dance in the slot, the anchor step, built-in improvisation for followers, standard footwork patterns and 6/8 counts and to get your brain to absorb all those conventions at once when you're used to a free form of dancing requires more concentration and time to build the necessary instincts. MJ has very few required conventions, you can create them in your dancing and adapt them as the music or the competence of your partner requires, so it's marginally easier for a competent dancer of WCS to forego conventions (especially as he can keep most of them providing he can lead them). From my experience though, many great Tango dancers struggle to adapt to the freedom of MJ and the much more common arm leads.

Tango and WCS are more complex than Salsa, all of which are more complex than MJ. You could say it is possible to incorporate all that complexity into MJ, but that is a theoretical 'could happen in the future' discussion, it is definitely not the case now.Theoretical in the sense that MJ doesn't yet have dancers of Jordan & Tatiana standard, but the evidence of progress is there and I can see it every week.

Amir

5th-September-2007, 11:24 AM

I just think that other dances filter their dancers from the outset. If you're not prepared to work hard and learn all the complexities and technical elements of the dance (Tango is a good example) then give up and leave the dance floor space to those that are dedicated enough.

I think that is unfair on tango. It is hard to teach without any technique. You can not skip footwork for example. You are in an embrace, so you can't not talk about frame etc because then people will step on each other and it won't be fun at all. Walking forward with someone right infront of you is a more complicated activity than lifting your hand and turning them past you. A sugar push and a whip involve more complicated timing than any of the jive basics, and since they are among the most common moves you can't avoid them for very long.

You can miss out teaching technique to start with in jive, and there are benefits to that approach. (It isn't the approach I would take, but then I'm not running a large successful dance teaching company.) I think its great that in Scotland you organize all the extra technique workshops and I think the results show.

David Franklin

5th-September-2007, 11:28 AM

I think I agree with that, and I would say that in WCS these signals require more precise timing. If you change direction half way through a triple step the signal/lead has to be a quarter of the way through the count. This is common in swing and rare in MJ, which is why the timing (hence the lead) of swing dances has to be more precise.I agree with that, but note that in a basic right side pass, you don't change direction half way through a triple step, so in that case the precision isn't required. Again, this all makes sense from an information theory point of view: the common events should be very easy to signal - it's when you want to signal unusual ones that the quality of the communcation channel becomes critical.

In my experience, it's only once you start worrying about leading all the possible variations that the greater information density of WCS becomes apparent. If all you know are the 4 basic moves, it's not going to feel very different from MJ.

Amir

5th-September-2007, 11:30 AM

Theoretical in the sense that MJ doesn't yet have dancers of Jordan & Tatiana standard, but the evidence of progress is there and I can see it every week.

Not talking about standard. I am not saying Mj will never have dancers as good as in WCS. Just that it will be great dancers dancing a less complex dance.

For example, if Jordan and Tatiana learnt Modern Jive then there would be J&T standard dancers dancing modern jive. But it would be J&T dancing a less complex dance.

When I dance MJ I dance at a higher standard then when I dance WCS, but it is still less complex, and requires less precision in my lead.

Franck

5th-September-2007, 11:34 AM

I think that is unfair on tango. It is hard to teach without any technique. You can not skip footwork for example. You are in an embrace, so you can't not talk about frame etc because then people will step on each other and it won't be fun at all. Walking forward with someone right infront of you is a more complicated activity than lifting your hand and turning them past you. A sugar push and a whip involve more complicated timing than any of the jive basics, and since they are among the most common moves you can't avoid them for very long. You're right, maybe Tango was not a good example, but I didn't want to keep picking on WCS.
In Tango the technique is really necessary, as you say to avoid injury to your partner and to other couples on the dance floor. Conversely, many WCS conventions are arbitrary and do create an un-necessary barrier to entry. Though I don't believe this is always the case as many WCS classes in the US are much more relaxed in their teaching, especially for beginners and manage to create good dancers with very busy social classes, using an approach not dissimilar to Ceroc in the UK. I was reminded of that when a visiting family from the US came to the Stirling WCS week-end we had in June, and their approach to WCS was very relaxed and flexible, they were able to dance to any tempo and seemed puzzled that we tried to incorporate so much technique in our classes workshops.

Amir

5th-September-2007, 11:49 AM

... many WCS classes in the US are much more relaxed in their teaching, especially for beginners ....

I think this is true also for tango - many classes in Buenos Aires are more relaxed than classes here, probably in Cuba many salsa classes are more relaxed on technique than here. But if you go to the top tango teachers or top wcs teachers (Gustavo, Jordan etc) they cover a lot of technique even in beginner classes (in my experience anyway.) I agree this might not suit the normal social dancer just starting out.

Amir

5th-September-2007, 11:50 AM

Well it was fun (if perhaps pointless? I'm getting that sinking feeling of having spent a lot of time convincing no one but myself!) debating but gotta go dance! Which is a pity since talking about it takes so much less effort!

My concluding summary is that, in my opinion and experience;

WCS is more complex (because you lead and follow footwork) and allows more options, which means the leading requires more precision.

BUT:

If you dance MJ you don't have to feel bad about that. If you love dancing MJ then who cares if another dance is more complex?

If you want to learn WCS (or tango etc) you don't have to worry about that. The complexity is what allows the freedom of expression, and if you love the dance you will love learning it.

Either way, you can always get better at what you do.

Chau for now
x
Amir

David Bailey

5th-September-2007, 11:51 AM

You can miss out teaching technique to start with in jive, and there are benefits to that approach. (It isn't the approach I would take, but then I'm not running a large successful dance teaching company.)
Yeah, it's probably not likely you'll get a Ceroc teacher saying "Actually, the way we teach Ceroc is totally wrong" :grin:

I think its great that in Scotland you organize all the extra technique workshops and I think the results show.
:yeah:
FWIW, I believe Franck's approach is the best possible given the constraints of MJ, in that he at least makes every effort to teach technique, at the appropriate time.

I didn't want to keep picking on WCS.
Oh go on, you know you want to... :devil:

Franck

5th-September-2007, 11:53 AM

Not talking about standard. I am not saying Mj will never have dancers as good as in WCS. Just that it will be great dancers dancing a less complex dance.

For example, if Jordan and Tatiana learnt Modern Jive then there would be J&T standard dancers dancing modern jive. But it would be J&T dancing a less complex dance.

When I dance MJ I dance at a higher standard then when I dance WCS, but it is still less complex, and requires less precision in my lead.You're right, we've both strayed too far into the theoretical. :nice: Whilst I have studied WCS technique in depth, I haven't experienced the full complexity of WCS so can't measure it or compare it to the potential of MJ. I can see that MJ has potential for incredible complexity for those that seek it, and strive to make it happen, but I don't know if MJ will run out of potential complexity before WCS does... I don't see why it should, but you're asserting that currently WCS is a more complex dance on average, than MJ (as it stands) and I can't truly disagree with you. I just separate the current actuality from the potential of the dance.

robd

5th-September-2007, 12:09 PM

I just separate the current actuality from the potential of the dance.

But will that potential ever be reached?

I know this discussion's been had here (and also over at MJDA) before in terms of looking at the top level of MJ compared to the top level of other dances and what is stopping MJ from currently being at that level and, more importantly, what needs to happen for MJ to get to that level.

Without role models of the likes of Jordan & Tatiana, Darren & Lilia in MJ will there not always be a drain away of talented, aspirational dancers to other styles where those role models and (maybe - I'm no expert on this) the teaching structures to support that development do exist?

TA Guy

5th-September-2007, 12:36 PM

This makes it sound like you don't dance wcs.

Just covering my ass :)
True tho, or 'don't dance WCS anymore' would be more precise :)
Although 'dont dance WCS' would be more efficient :)

I don't agree with your distinctions but you still arrive at the conclusion that wcs has a more efficient connection. I think from what you have said that you would also agree that efficiency requires more precision.

Look, people out there are leading wcs. The moves are more complicated that in MJ. If they are not leading with either more precision, efficiency or what ever, how are they doing it?

I don't understand ?
I've been arguing all along that WCS dancers dance with a more efficient connection (on average). You seem to be agreeing now.

You were the one who set the terms of reference; quote: "If by connection you mean how much information you are communicating between the partnership in the same amount of time".

It's a discussion about how much information flows along the connection, a more efficient connection means less information flows along the connection. I mean, that the very definition of efficency, doing more with less.

The discussion seems to have moved on now, so I'll bow out gracefully here :)

Franck

5th-September-2007, 04:55 PM

But will that potential ever be reached?

I know this discussion's been had here (and also over at MJDA) before in terms of looking at the top level of MJ compared to the top level of other dances and what is stopping MJ from currently being at that level and, more importantly, what needs to happen for MJ to get to that level.

Without role models of the likes of Jordan & Tatiana, Darren & Lilia in MJ will there not always be a drain away of talented, aspirational dancers to other styles where those role models and (maybe - I'm no expert on this) the teaching structures to support that development do exist?I'm not sure it will either. I can see it happen when I look ahead, and it might take years... Of course the 'talent drain' you mention is a problem, though many dancers return to MJ once they have learnt other dances and inspire more progress...

I would like to see a better teaching structure for Ceroc to develop the potential of MJ and I'm working on creating it nationally, but in the meantime, I'm working on what I can change and a few dancers at a time...

TA Guy

5th-September-2007, 06:39 PM

But will that potential ever be reached?

I know this discussion's been had here (and also over at MJDA) before in terms of looking at the top level of MJ compared to the top level of other dances and what is stopping MJ from currently being at that level and, more importantly, what needs to happen for MJ to get to that level.

Without role models of the likes of Jordan & Tatiana, Darren & Lilia in MJ will there not always be a drain away of talented, aspirational dancers to other styles where those role models and (maybe - I'm no expert on this) the teaching structures to support that development do exist?

I agree that the lack of role models, especially those exposed to the MJ population at large is probably the largest single factor holding the development of MJ back.

This might be only my experience, but back in the days when Lindy Hop was 'the second dance', there didn't seem to be that many Lindy 'superstars' who appealed to large numbers of MJ dancers. Don't get me wrong, lots of MJ dancers went on to try Lindy, but there didn't seem to be that role model thing.
This is one of the big differences IMO in the WCS invasion that taking place. We have no WCS down here, but already I see people with stylings obviously copied from J&T. WCS is doing a lot for MJ, or more correctly, the WCS role models seem to be being accepted by lots of MJ dancers as inspirational. Maybe it's just YouTube type sites and the accessability thing, but whatever it is... things are moving faster now than I can remember for a while :)

NZ Monkey

5th-September-2007, 09:57 PM

I'm not sure it will either. I can see it happen when I look ahead, and it might take years... Of course the 'talent drain' you mention is a problem, though many dancers return to MJ once they have learnt other dances and inspire more progress...
One thing that bothers me slightly, and that nobody has mentioned so far, is the effect that being “bottom heavy” has on the development of MJ.

As I see it, the inclusive and bottom heavy ethos of MJ is detrimental to the development of talent such as the often mentioned J&T. If the culture heavily endorses a lack of criticism then it also heavily endorses a lack of constructive criticism. I’m not a great dancer, but I’d like to think I’m not bad either. In either case I know that I wouldn’t be nearly as good as I am without the likes of Amir teaching me technique in more formal class environment. By teaching me technique I really mean “Telling me what is wrong with what I’m doing, why it’s wrong and how to do it better. Then showing me what better looks like”. Without that kind of consistent development I find it difficult to see major leaps and bounds occurring in the foreseeable future.

On a more practical issue practice on a social dance floor is vital to getting good. It is difficult to practice good technique when most of your partners have no idea what it is and you have to constantly compensate to dance. This isn’t all bad – you learn to adjust your lead to your partner. It isn’t conductive to perfecting “good” technique though and many bad habits designed to protect yourself from other bad habits can become ingrained. Maintaining a centered posture for instance is next to impossible if your partner steps back three feet with a substantial yank every few beats. I’m not arguing that it isn’t important to dance with a wide variety of skill levels to develop - just that if the pool of available dancers is very bottom heavy then you’ll spend much more time learning to protect yourself than perfect yourself. This does not develop great dancers.

Even given that the potential for MJ is just as deep as these other dances (and I think it is…theoretically) then you still have the issue of developing people to that standard in a reasonable time. If the structures are already in place for them to reach the level their aiming for in another dance, which they like, then most will take that option. They may then come back to MJ and be brilliant at it, but it will be because of their other experience. Even if they pass on their knowledge in a MJ context they will still be seen to be from another style so perception that the other dances have more depth may continue. It may even be reinforced…..