West Coast and Modern Jive - which do you find easier to dance musically?

[MartinHarper]

We were trying to discuss whether it is easier for a student of Modern Jive to dance musical Modern Jive, or if it is easier for a student of West Coast to dance musical West Coast. TA Guy claimed that initially the West Coast student has it easier, citing the additional space in West Coast patterns and the slower music. Then he said:


Once you start talking about the more advanced dancers tho.....

I think it's a much harder discussion when we talk about more advanced dancers. Firstly, most of them know lots of dances, so it's hard to say where the musicality we see comes from. Secondly, there's an issue of cause and effect. Did the dance create more musical dancers, and allow more musical dancing, or did the dance attract and retain the more musical dancers? Thirdly, the more advanced dancers in one dance may have more experience than those in another.

One way to do the comparison is to talk to folks who dance Modern Jive and West Coast a similar amount. You can see which of their dances are more musical, and ask them which dance they find easier for musicality. This still doesn't tell us which dance and dance culture is better at teaching musicality, but it might tell us which is better at expressing musicality once it has been taught.

This poll is an attempt to do that thing.

[Lory]

I dance quite a few different styles and I've experienced the same difficulty, whilst learning all of them (not that i've stopped learning)

When a dance is new to me, I have so many things to think about and as a follow, my main concern is to 'follow' precisely :innocent:

For me, this takes all my concentration and my ability to interpret the music AND follow well, goes out of the window. :rolleyes:

But as the patterns and flow of the dance become more and more familiar, one seems to gain more time to think, muscle memory starts to kick in and I'm able to relax.

Once this has happened, I find much more 'thinking time', the music speaks louder to me and I'm able to react faster and 'things' start to happen! :clap:

It doesn't happen over night and I'm still better at finding ways to interpret the music in MJ than any other dance but I can see a day, not to far in the future, when i'll feel as much at ease with WCS as I do with MJ.

Its the same with adding embellishments whilst doing Argentine Tango or 'flares' in Salsa etc.

[ducasi]

It's a shame the poll doesn't differentiate between leaders and followers.

I'd genuinely be interested in hearing why the west-coasters feel they can dance musically easier in WCS.

[robd]

I'd like an option

I dance both WCS and MJ and I find difficult to dance either style musically

[Lory]

I'd like an option

I dance both WCS and MJ and I find difficult to dance either style musically

I've added it for you Rob :na:

[Lee Bartholomew]

It could also have something to do with the music.

Most MJ music is pretty dull with what you can do with it musically(of course unless you go to blues rooms etc) where as WCS music in general allows more musicallity.

WCS normal songs are cocaine, Monday Woman etc etc

MJ norm songs are now I can dance and the Bongo song !!

[mikeyr]

{Off topic} Just thought I would qualify my "I dance West Coast, but I can't really dance Modern Jive", yes it was me:what:

For the first time in nearly 8 months at Blaze I tried to Jive, It felt very uncomfortable two Main reasons. 1. There is just too much space in the MJ style not to do something with my feet:what: 2. I just couldnt get used to a dance that is mainly based on leverage going around in circles (however hard I tried to lead in a straight line):eek:

Now to qualify point 2. Most other circular dances like Salsa, Tango, Rhumba etc work mostly on compression. {End Off topic}

Back on topic I really do find Structured Dance forms easier to be more musical because of the ease of re-entering the structure,

However All 4/4 time dances will allow for any break from the structure in multiples of 2 beats (lowest multiple)

[Dreadful Scathe]

It could also have something to do with the music.

Most MJ music is pretty dull with what you can do with it musically


Nonsense - the range of music is ridiculously wide. You must got to dodgily Dj'ed events. :)

[johnnyman]

West Coast has become easier to me now that I know the rules of the dance.

My Jive has become my fluid because of the West Coast.

Here's something to contemplate

I bought Miles and Tessa's 'Seven Habits of Highly Effective Swing Dancing' and watched it the other night.

Interestingly in one of the chapters, they actively encouraged you to borrow from other styles but maintaining the six and eight count structure (without changing the dance style in the process!!)

best
johnnyman

[johnnyman]

....I meant to say 'MORE FLUID'

:mad::rofl:

[ducasi]

It could also have something to do with the music.

Most MJ music is pretty dull with what you can do with it musically(of course unless you go to blues rooms etc) where as WCS music in general allows more musicallity.

WCS normal songs are cocaine, Monday Woman etc etc

MJ norm songs are now I can dance and the Bongo song !!
Had a fab MJ dance to Cocaine last night. (And to "4 Minutes" – my #1 favourite at the moment.)

But I agree. You can feel more musical when there's more obvious stuff in the music to be musical to. That's why I usually find it easier to be musical to (and prefer dancing to) "WCS music" than "MJ music".

[Gadget]

If you're dancing with musicality, does the style matter?

It is easier to do many things in dancing when the music is slower, inserting elements of musicality being one of them. It is easier to do many things when you are familiar with the dance style. It is easier when you can switch off thoughts of moves/patterns and simply move with the music where the muse takes you.

So whichever one is your preference to dance will be the one you tic the box against. Can anyone prove me wrong on that?

[Geordieed]

WCS can help alot because it gives more tools to work with for leaders and followers. Of course you can be musical in both. With a greater vocabulary the communication that is possible increases. I have danced MJ alot longer than WCS but have learnt a great deal more about musicality through WCS. The dance is quite rightly promoted as a dance that has musicality as one of its' strengths over many other dances. Before learning WCS I did attend workshops specifically aimed at musicality from a MJ perspective since then I have been in workshops on the same subject taught from a WCS perspective so can compare the two.


Because of the structure and history of WCS the level and skill that can be found in the teachers is so much higher. I am not saying that MJ teachers aren't good, just that the teaching level, for many reasons reaches greater heights with WCS teachers.

There is so much to enjoy with MJ and WCS it all depends on what you fundamentally want out of your dancing...

[NZ Monkey]

{Off topic}
Back on topic I really do find Structured Dance forms easier to be more musical because of the ease of re-entering the structure,
:yeah: This is a point I've argued several times before, and is one of the reasons I'm an advocate of the Australian step footwork.

I find that when you have a definite framework to hang your musicality on you can do a lot more without it causing disruption, and that everyone stays "on the same page" through the dance much more easily.

Firstly, having a structure based (in this case anyway) on a slot, and 6 and 8 count patterns means I can very quickly get a feel for where in a pattern I am relative to the music. From there it's an easy step to learn how to change the pattern in two beat increments to match the music. The slot and anchoring provide a constant that both dancers can rely on.

As a comparison to MJ - who can honestly put their hand up right now and say they know how many beats a first move, ceroc spin, octopus, basket and yo-yo are without walking through the steps in their mind? Are you aware where the two beat pairings are in the moves? Do you know where you can adjust them if necessary? Is there anything that you can rely on your partner doing at some point?

It isn't that doing any of this is impossible in MJ, just that the lack of consistency makes it extraordinarily difficult. If you wish to dance musically, this is a significant design flaw....


I bought Miles and Tessa's 'Seven Habits of Highly Effective Swing Dancing' and watched it the other night.

Interestingly in one of the chapters, they actively encouraged you to borrow from other styles but maintaining the six and eight count structure (without changing the dance style in the process!!)Interestingly enough, when teaching about musicality every teacher I've seen has strongly recommended keeping it simple with 6 and 8 count patterns. I propose that this is because of the point's I've mentioned above in that the relationship between patterns and music is most familiar to us in that context. Also that we don't have as much to worry about leading/following wise if we stick to those. For the most part they stick to their own rules as well.

[ChrisB]

Seems like I've been posting in a very similar thread. Bottom line structure and rules make it easier, they're tried and tested. But anything with less is more creative; its just harder to achieve well. I'll exaggerate the example and strictness of rules for effect but ask two beginning musicians to write a song asking that the first only uses chords I, IV, V as they generally work together well and you'll probably get a better result from them. Ask the same of two more advanced people and you have to side with number two, he can always elect to follow said rules if he wishes. With musicality being so inherently about personal expression, enforcing too many rules only stifles that. If the music requests it, I can do more with my feet, dance out of slot and pattern. That may be harder to do well but the real winners are those that define rules, not follow them. Why attack something which doesn't enforce as many, both have their own role to play.

[TA Guy]

Firstly, having a structure based (in this case anyway) on a slot, and 6 and 8 count patterns means I can very quickly get a feel for where in a pattern I am relative to the music. From there it's an easy step to learn how to change the pattern in two beat increments to match the music. The slot and anchoring provide a constant that both dancers can rely on.

As a comparison to MJ - who can honestly put their hand up right now and say they know how many beats a first move, ceroc spin, octopus, basket and yo-yo are without walking through the steps in their mind? Are you aware where the two beat pairings are in the moves? Do you know where you can adjust them if necessary? Is there anything that you can rely on your partner doing at some point?

It isn't that doing any of this is impossible in MJ, just that the lack of consistency makes it extraordinarily difficult. If you wish to dance musically, this is a significant design flaw....


I agree the structure of WCS, particular the anchor for WCS beginners is a great encouragement to musicality.

So I am not disagreeing with you here.

However, I don't think it is a design flaw in MJ, I think it's simply that MJ doesn't lend itself as well musicality-wise as WCS to beginners. Um, 'MJ intermediates' as well prolly :)

Where I disagree is when it comes to the more advanced dancers. There is no significant design flaw as you put it, you can do anything!!! If anything there is an 'enabling freedom'.

Other dances, including WCS, yearn for this 'enabling freedom' :) Certain US pro's drive a horse and cart thru the 'structure' of WCS to get that freedom. That's not bad, it has become accepted in WCS over recent history, but that freedom already exists in MJ !!!

So I don't think MJ has any 'significant design flaws'. It simply doesn't make it as easy for beginners to add on musicality because of it's structure (or lack of it), because of the way it's taught, and because of the generally higher paced music at lesson nights.

However, that is no excuse for advanced dancers. If a MJ dancer has a problem adding musicality, the problem lies with them, not with the structure of MJ.

[Lee Bartholomew]

Nonsense - the range of music is ridiculously wide. You must got to dodgily Dj'ed events. :)

Not really. If we talk about the 'standard' MJ songs, or as Ceroc call it 'Ceroc Classics' then there is not really that much of a range. Most songs are the plod along basic stuff. Yeah this are different in Blues rooms and tea dances etc, but if we are talking about standard MJ classes then nope, music is norm pretty samey.

I think this is mainly due to the fact most MJ organisitions aim at getting numbers through the door rather than developing dancers.

Personally I am trying something different with my class. I run the first class as beginners moves. In the second beginners class, with the taxi's, they go over hand holds, counts, slot, tension/compression, conectivity and styling.

I don't know if any other MJ org does this but it has been sucsessful for me so far in that the dancers are not overly struggling with it and seem to be comming through as fairly good dancers.

The downside of doing this is the dancers that have been dancing awhile will find it harder to adapt.

I belive that there should be basics taught in MJ, just as they are in WCS. It is only then can dancers move on to develop their musicality.

[ChrisB]

I agree the structure of WCS, particular the anchor for WCS beginners is a great encouragement to musicality.

So I am not disagreeing with you here.

However, I don't think it is a design flaw in MJ, I think it's simply that MJ doesn't lend itself as well musicality-wise as WCS to beginners. Um, 'MJ intermediates' as well prolly :)

Where I disagree is when it comes to the more advanced dancers. There is no significant design flaw as you put it, you can do anything!!! If anything there is an 'enabling freedom'.

Other dances, including WCS, yearn for this 'enabling freedom' :) Certain US pro's drive a horse and cart thru the 'structure' of WCS to get that freedom. That's not bad, it has become accepted in WCS over recent history, but that freedom already exists in MJ !!!

So I don't think MJ has any 'significant design flaws'. It simply doesn't make it as easy for beginners to add on musicality because of it's structure (or lack of it), because of the way it's taught, and because of the generally higher paced music at lesson nights.

However, that is no excuse for advanced dancers. If a MJ dancer has a problem adding musicality, the problem lies with them, not with the structure of MJ.

:yeah: everyone knows that MJ is all about retention and not confusing/scaring beginners with these things. They know that those that wish to seek it will do so.

I think with regards to musicality, some need to step back and remove dancing from the equation and think about music; how to hear music and about song structure. And if you have to count to perform the latter, you're not doing it right unfortunately! I may attempt to write about this whilst trying to avoid theory as much as possible. But this can be helped by listening to music, lots of music, dancing it in your head as if you have unlimited ability; surely we've all done that at least :D. If you do this and still don't think that person is being musical enough, you need to put that right. I'm not saying that combining the two isn't a challenge in itself but I think its less of one. You can still be very musical with little experience and a limited repertoire.

[SPROGGS]

It could also have something to do with the music.

Most MJ music is pretty dull with what you can do with it musically.


MJ norm songs are now I can dance and the Bongo song !!

What a lot of old TOSH you are talking here...you have obviously have not been to a Modern Jive class/dance for a while....

Sadly you appear to spend most of your time critisising MJ if favour of banging your own drum on how you and you alone are changing the MJ scene in Hastings.... Most dancers in Hastings have never heard of you (well not for dancing anyway)

There is a lot of very good music around from all eras...you should get out more.

Locally (Hastings) Organisers are changing the way they teach to enable dancers develope their individual style by expanding the variety and style of music they play in their classes.....e.g. James in Battle & Ken in Bexhill.

There are also dancers that request music that you would not consider playing......What do you say if one of your dancers request the Bongo Song "Sod off I don't like it so I am not playing it"? but you can have so Justin Timberlake instead.:rolleyes:

I have never been to a class where the "Bongo Song" (as you call it) is used to teach moves - here are just a few examples of some tracks used by organisers recently well the ones I can remember........... & Not a Bongo in sight!

Bananarama Move In My Direction
Timbaland The Way I Are
Angie Stone Wish I Didn't Miss You
Girls Aloud Can't Speak French
Bananarama Venus
Nat King Cole Let there be Love
Cameo Word Up
Touch & Go Straight to No.1
Santana Corazon Espando
Gabrila Cilimi Sweet about me
Michael Buble Everything
Gotan Project Santa Maria
311 Porter Surround me with your love
Justin Timberlake Sexy Back

Plus there are a number of mixes around one example
Police vs Snow patrol
& The Passenger vs Fever..

Just a few example to show there is more to MJ than Trashy Women & Bongos

SPROGGY SPROGGS

[Lee Bartholomew]

{snip}

Been to loads of MJ classes recently. Prob 3 or so a week.

Yeah there are one or two good standard Modern Jive songs for musically but they are in the minority. At least that is my opinion.

What would happen if someone asked for "The Bongo song"? The same if someone asked if any DJ for a song they dont have I would expect. "sorry I dont have that" would prob be my response.

Sproggs, Have you ever been exposed to WCS or WCS music? Ever gone to a Utopia or danced in a decent Blues room? Maybe you have attended SP? Or have you just danced in / Around Hastings?

As for people not knowing who I am. Funny that my classes are becoming more popular with the better dancers around Hastings due to the way classes are taught and the music that is played. Class numbers are picking up big time.

If ever you want a private lesson Sproggs in musicality or the such so you can join in debates on the topic properly, then please let me know. Would be happy do give you a few hours for free.

I can see what James is doing with his classes in Style etc, but would like to hear what Ken is doing in Bexhill with Style and musicality.



Back to thread........

[Gadget]

As a comparison to MJ - who can honestly put their hand up right now and say they know how many beats a first move, ceroc spin, octopus, basket and yo-yo are without walking through the steps in their mind? Me :cool:
Answer: however many beats I want them to take up. I want it longer, I extend the move. I want it shorter I double-time a segment or simply abandon it for something else.

Why does it matter how many beats a move takes? Musical 'flourishes' are much easier to add in the middle of a move rather than at the ends.

Are you aware where the two beat pairings are in the moves?Count 1 and 2, or 2 and 3 or 3 and 4... they are wherever I decide to make them.

Do you know where you can adjust them if necessary? Yup: on any count. Literally. I have practised this deliberately and I can vary any move on any count with at least ten variations. (Do you want me to list them?)

Is there anything that you can rely on your partner doing at some point?Following my lead?

The "difficulty" in MJ lies not in what to do, but recognising things in the music in enough time to get the when to do it. But that's true of any dance form musicality.


Interestingly enough, when teaching about musicality every teacher I've seen has strongly recommended keeping it simple with 6 and 8 count patterns.With a couple of notable exceptions, every musicality workshop has talked about 8 or 16 count patterns. Others simply count between features in the track: if it took 16 counts between the last break and this, then there is a good chance that the next break is in another 16 counts.

For me, I find that I only need two counts notice to add a flourish or change a movement - one to set up the lead into it and one to actually lead into into it. Normally the musicians/artists give you at least this notice.


Not really. If we talk about the 'standard' MJ songs, or as Ceroc call it 'Ceroc Classics' then there is not really that much of a range. Most songs are the plod along basic stuff. Yeah this are different in Blues rooms and tea dances etc, but if we are talking about standard MJ classes then nope, music is norm pretty samey.
That's because the tracks played in classes are selected to have a constant rhythm with definitive, repetitive counts. So that it's easier to teach: so that there is some consistency in every repetition of the movements. So that the dancers/punters find it easier to learn and easier to dance to.

Once you are in freestyle, the music should slowly ramp up in musicality; constant beats and tracks that it's easy to find the beat and count with being aired in the first half merging with stuff to play with in the latter half. I try to end with a particularly "dramatic" or "interpretive" track; last night's was "All that jazz".
Sometimes I screw up and play something that (I would consider) too challenging for beginners when I shouldn't (Sometimes I drop the mouse and accidentally change tracks four chords in :blush: ) But this is the formula I try and follow.

[Lee Bartholomew]

{snip}

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Oh Sproggs, You sound more and more like Andy McGreggor every post you make.

[mikeyr]

Firstly, having a structure based (in this case anyway) on a slot, and 6 and 8 count patterns means I can very quickly get a feel for where in a pattern I am relative to the music. From there it's an easy step to learn how to change the pattern in two beat increments to match the music. The slot and anchoring provide a constant that both dancers can rely on.

:yeah:


:
It isn't that doing any of this is impossible in MJ, just that the lack of consistency makes it extraordinarily difficult. If you wish to dance musically, this is a significant design flaw.....
:yeah: Again

[mikeyr]

The "difficulty" in MJ lies not in what to do, but recognising things in the music in enough time to get the when to do it. But that's true of any dance form musicality.

Clue, Musical Structure! Guaranteed all the music we dance to has it, why not take a little time to understand it:wink:



With a couple of notable exceptions, every musicality workshop has talked about 8 or 16 count patterns. Others simply count between features in the track: if it took 16 counts between the last break and this, then there is a good chance that the next break is in another 16 counts.

If you Just want to highlight the Breaks in tunes that have breaks thats ok. certainly most of the contemporary music thats played doesnt have Breaks as such. Phrase changes, yes. With this approach it seems to me that you'll be missing most of the stuff, most of the time.



For me, I find that I only need two counts notice to add a flourish or change a movement - one to set up the lead into it and one to actually lead into into it. Normally the musicians/artists give you at least this notice.


A 2 beat notice period for movement change, Ouch that sounds like it could cause a conflict of interest with your follower a lot of the time. However I cant follow so I cant comment. Are there followers out there that dance with Gadget that would care to comment on the success and wisdom of this strategy ???

[mikeyr]

Firstly, having a structure based (in this case anyway) on a slot, and 6 and 8 count patterns means I can very quickly get a feel for where in a pattern I am relative to the music. From there it's an easy step to learn how to change the pattern in two beat increments to match the music. The slot and anchoring provide a constant that both dancers can rely on.

:yeah:


:
It isn't that doing any of this is impossible in MJ, just that the lack of consistency makes it extraordinarily difficult. If you wish to dance musically, this is a significant design flaw.....
:yeah: Again

[MartinHarper]

A 2 beat notice period for movement change, Ouch that sounds like it could cause a conflict of interest with your follower a lot of the time. However I cant follow so I cant comment. Are there followers out there that dance with Gadget that would care to comment on the success and wisdom of this strategy ???

He said 2 "counts", so I expect he meant 4 beats.

[Chef]

He said 2 "counts", so I expect he meant 4 beats.

It all gets quite confusing doesn't it. If he was talking about WCS I would assume he was talking about beats of music.

I can't think of any dance except MJ where 1 count = 2 musical beats. When the teachers count you into a routine with the music they do count you in on the beat with 5,6,7,8 (although not always on those beats within an 8 beat measure) then immediately start counting in MJ counts (where 1 MJ count = 2 musical beats).

I found it very odd last night when our teacher counted us into the routine at the beginning of a break.

You don't find that confusing?

It's just me then.

[Lee Bartholomew]

It all gets quite confusing doesn't it. If he was talking about WCS I would assume he was talking about beats of music.

I can't think of any dance except MJ where 1 count = 2 musical beats. When the teachers count you into a routine with the music they do count you in on the beat with 5,6,7,8 (although not always on those beats within an 8 beat measure) then immediately start counting in MJ counts (where 1 MJ count = 2 musical beats).

I found it very odd last night when our teacher counted us into the routine at the beginning of a break.

You don't find that confusing?

It's just me then.


I have tried teaching MJ using beats instead of MJ count's, it just doesn't work. Have settled for teaching MJ counts as two beats, i.e. explaining it.

Notice how MJ (should) always start on a down beat though? I try teaching that too.

[Caro]

Back to the thread title - I find there's a little flaw in the question... how many of us are as experienced WCS dancers as we are MJ dancers ?

I tend to dance much more WCS than MJ since I moved down to London, and while I tend to find almost equal scope to dance musically in both dances (to me it just depends on how inspired I am by the tune and my leader), when I dance 'musically' in MJ (i.e. I don't just walk walk anymore, I add footwork and various other things, mostly within the lead), most of the time my leader will say: 'sorry, I can't do WCS'... When I really am not doing WCS at all. I'm still MJ-ing, no anchors, no wcs-type connection, just more footwork and body movement. I respect the timing , the direction of the lead, the shape of the move and everything (mostly).

Does it mean that MJ is not supposed to be danced musically that way ? :confused:

If so, then what is dancing musically in MJ ? :confused:


Mind you it might just mean I can't dance MJ anymore (not sure if I should :tears: or :clap: here :devil: )

[Lory]

I tend to find almost equal scope to dance musically in both dances (to me it just depends on how inspired I am by the tune and my leader), when I dance 'musically' in MJ (i.e. I don't just walk walk anymore, I add footwork and various other things, mostly within the lead), most of the time my leader will say: 'sorry, I can't do WCS'... When I really am not doing WCS at all. I'm still MJ-ing, no anchors, no wcs-type connection, just more footwork and body movement. I respect the timing , the direction of the lead, the shape of the move and everything (mostly).

Mind you it might just mean I can't dance MJ anymore (not sure if I should :tears: or :clap: here :devil: ):yeah: to all of the above! Especially the bit in bold!

[mikeyr]

He said 2 "counts", so I expect he meant 4 beats.

Sorry:blush:, bin awhile since ive MJed. I feel better now though, it doesnt seem so violent.....:wink:

[Gadget]

Sorry:blush:, bin awhile since ive MJed. I feel better now though, it doesnt seem so violent.....:wink:
I sometimes change what I'm doing only a couple of beats ahead of the music, but only when providing a crisp contrast or reacting to my follower.

Since there is constantly something happening in the music, the "two count" thing normally means that I am always thinking/planning two counts ahead of what I am currently doing: where/how I want to move and how to convey it to my partner. I have a constant connection and constant lead that I change as a response to both the music and my partner.

Thinking ahead of what you are currently doing in this count to the next count was first explained to me on the very first beginner's workshop I went to (hosted by Franck). In terms of leading, it took me a few years to realise what this involved and how to do it - to become familiar enough with the beginner moves that I could dismiss the current count's action and focus on the next count. In terms of applying it to music/musicality I am still learning. Normally it involves having an idea of some sort of movement/pose/pattern I want to hook onto a specific bit of the track, then planning on how to get there in the intervening counts.

This is how I work musicality into my MJ dancing - do WCS people do it differently?

[StokeBloke]

I find this whole thread to be quite confusing.. harder/easier... surely when you dance musically you just dance musically. Why should dancing MJ/WCS/Tango/Blues/Lindy/whatever have any bearing on it?

Confused :confused:

[Agente Secreto]

I find this whole thread to be quite confusing.. harder/easier... surely when you dance musically you just dance musically. Why should dancing MJ/WCS/Tango/Blues/Lindy/whatever have any bearing on it?

Confused :confused:
I'm with Stokie - even although I don't WCS.

I always try to dance musically at MJ and Blues :waycool: although sometimes despite my best efforts I'm challenged:eek:. I'm a novice at Tango, and little more than that at Salsa but in both these I positively strive to dance musically with the pitifully few moves I have. I don't find this harder in any particular dance form and at my Salsa class I do note that many seem not to bother to flow with the music.

What we might observe from the sides is that WCS looks more musical because it does seem to attract the more accomplished dancers (and I'm not inviting a lot of cr*p from people doing MJ that are equally accomplished in suggesting this). In doing so the chances are that these people might just be a little more familiar with the concepts of musicality to start with so dancing 'musically' might come a tad easier than it does to the average MJ'r.:cool:

[NZ Monkey]

In doing so the chances are that these people might just be a little more familiar with the concepts of musicality to start with so dancing 'musically' might come a tad easier than it does to the average MJ'r.:cool:Except that - as evidenced by comments and the results of the poll so far - almost all those "accomplished" dancers dance both WCS and MJ. The large majority also find it easier to dance WCS musically.

If your hypothesis was correct you would expect them to find dancing musically to be just as easy or difficult in both dances.


Me
Answer: however many beats I want them to take up. I want it longer, I extend the move. I want it shorter I double-time a segment or simply abandon it for something else.

Why does it matter how many beats a move takes? Musical 'flourishes' are much easier to add in the middle of a move rather than at the ends. I'll take that as a "no" then. It's one thing to adjust the length of a pattern to suit the music - but it's an adjustment. You wouldn't vary the length of a yo-yo every time you did it for instance. Do you know how many beats that is?

The length matters so you can have an idea of whether your going to hit something in the music on a current pattern or on the next one, and where you'll do it. Once you know that you can then decide howyou're going to do it.

[Caro]

Except that - as evidenced by comments and the results of the poll so far - almost all those "accomplished" dancers dance both WCS and MJ. The large majority also find it easier to dance WCS musically.


the only reasons I can think about which could significantly explain that are:

- because of the structure of WCS there is more time where little (or what seems to be little) is happening: anchors, and simple patterns where we just move from one end of the slot to the other (or push breaks etc). Once the walk, walk, triple, triple is engrained that frees up our brain to try and replace that footwork with something that matches the music. In MJ we're always 'on the move' so there is little time to do something without disrupting the lead.

- more role models - how many hours do we spend watching youtube and dissecting every footwork, body movement or patterns that fit the music beautifully ? Also from those role models we take it that it is expected to do things musically in the dance and that followers are expected to contribute to this - which isn't so common in MJ.

[Lynn]

I can't think of any dance except MJ where 1 count = 2 musical beats. When the teachers count you into a routine with the music they do count you in on the beat with 5,6,7,8 (although not always on those beats within an 8 beat measure) then immediately start counting in MJ counts (where 1 MJ count = 2 musical beats).
Surely never on those beats within an 8 beat measure because an MJ count is two beats. The 5,6,7,8 count is 1, 3, 5, 7 of an 8 count measure.


I found it very odd last night when our teacher counted us into the routine at the beginning of a break. To start the routine at the beginning of a break? (Ie counting 5,6,7,8 in the 3rd set of 8 in most songs a break hits somewhere in the 4th bar.) At best the teacher is distracted and not thinking, at worst they simply don't understand musical structure. Which yes, would be a bit worrying when they are supposed to be teaching people how to dance!

Counting the 5,6,7,8 through the break? That would mean starting the routine at the start of the first set of 8 - which to me would indicate the teacher knew what they were doing.

[DavidY]

I find this whole thread to be quite confusing.. harder/easier... surely when you dance musically you just dance musically. Why should dancing MJ/WCS/Tango/Blues/Lindy/whatever have any bearing on it?

Confused :confused:Because they're not the same dance.

Each dance has their own rules and characteristics, and it's those which make a dance easier or harder to dance musically. In particular, if you have standard patterns/moves/steps associated with a particular dance, these make it easier or harder to fit into music.

If I invented my own dance style, with a series of fixed steps, all of which are exactly 7 beats long, I think it would be quite hard to dance musically.

For instance I've danced a fair bit of ballroom, and in several years of lessons (including several private ones) I've never been taught anything about how to respond to the music, which is generally fairly strict tempo at a fairly exact bpm. It seems to be more about fixed patterns of steps which you can't alter to fit the music. It did my head in the other day, when we were doing a dance (Foxtrot, I think) and the teacher played "All that Jazz" - but I had to dance right through all the breaks.

I don't know very much about WCS - but the few patterns that get taught in the early stages seem to be 6- or 8- counts long.

If the rule was that you must stick to those counts, and you can't break up a pattern, then WCS seems hard to dance musically (especially 6 count patterns which don't fit most music which tends to have phrases that are powers of two).

I suspect that in fact this isn't an unbreakable rule at all, but it's not at all clear to me how many rules you can break in WCS before it stops being WCS (and you may find you're dancing MJ again :wink:).

(And I think you need to know what the defining characteristics of WCS are before this discussion makes sense - does anyone actually have a handy definition of what makes WCS WCS?)

Some of the best dancers in MJ don't dance moves, they just seem to be able to make it up as they go along, almost on a count-by-count basis.

[Minnie M]

I find this whole thread to be quite confusing.. harder/easier... surely when you dance musically you just dance musically. Why should dancing MJ/WCS/Tango/Blues/Lindy/whatever have any bearing on it?

Confused :confused:

:yeah:
I agree
:rolleyes:

[Zuhal]

As we become more familiar with the dance I believe that we become more able to be musical. Here is where I am.

Percentage of brain needed to devote to various factors

MJ

15% Moving Leading the patterns of the dance
25% Floorcraft
50% Musicality
10% General Entertainment
8/10 Ability to help less experienced Follow


WCS

74% Moving Leading the patterns of the dance
5 % Floorcraft (less needed)
20% Musicality
1% General Entertainment
0/10 Ability to help less experienced Follow


Partner can help by interpreting occasional Musical Highlight:nice:
If the partner does her own thing throughout then I can never get anywhere.:sick:

Zuhal

[MartinHarper]

I find this whole thread to be quite confusing.. harder/easier... surely when you dance musically you just dance musically. Why should dancing MJ/WCS/Tango/Blues/Lindy/whatever have any bearing on it?

For the reasons given in this thread?

If you don't want to think about which is easier, think about how different dances give different musical options. For example, in Modern Jive, it is possible to dance cross-phrase. Thus it is possible to go in and out of phrase. Some other dances don't have that possibility. Similarly there are things other dances make possible that are not possible within Modern Jive.

[straycat]

I find this whole thread to be quite confusing.. harder/easier... surely when you dance musically you just dance musically. Why should dancing MJ/WCS/Tango/Blues/Lindy/whatever have any bearing on it?

:yeah:
I'd say that it's got a lot less to do with the actual dance form than it has to do with who is dancing, how good they are at that dance form, how they were taught it...

[straycat]

example, in Modern Jive, it is possible to dance cross-phrase. Thus it is possible to go in and out of phrase. Some other dances don't have that possibility.

Out of interest, which dances don't have that possibility?

[MartinHarper]

Out of interest, which dances don't have that possibility?

I was thinking of Waltz, Salsa, Cha-cha, and Nightclub Two-step. This may indicate my lack of experience with those dances.

[Andy McGregor]

Oh Sproggs, You sound more and more like Andy McGreggor every post you make.Sproggs and I do not "sound" anything. This forum is in the written medium. Therefore it makes no sound at all. Possibly Sproggs' keyboard and mine make a similar sound but I can't see why Lee would comment on that.

Lee is obviously trying to deride Sproggs and me. But he's not really saying what he thinks is wrong with us. I've no idea who Sproggs is, I don't even know his/her sex. Come on Lee tell us what "sounds" we're making that are so similar? And, while you're at it, my name only has two "g"s.

[StokeBloke]

Sproggs and I do not "sound" anything. This forum is... <snip>


“Any fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius-and a lot of courage-to move in the opposite direction.” Albert Einstein

Andy, is there any possibility that you could display a touch of genius and a lot of courage and move the big, complex and violent feud that you have with Lee in the opposite direction? This cheap pedantic snippery is beneath your wit sir.

Love, peace and cheesecake... Stokie :hug:

[Agente Secreto]

:eek:

Not sure that we're answering the question here.

On one hand we seem to have a school of thought that says rigid patterns (presumably WCS has the edge in this) helps people to track where they are in the music, allowing them to start a pattern with a known count at just the right time for its conclusion to coincide with some 'event' in the music. All I can say is that this level of forward planning seems elusive to many of us, me included.

On the other hand, there is the implication that the dance gods like Jordan Frisbee :respect: disregard the rules and patterns anyway, in effect doing things on the fly (which by extension is what I draw from Gadget's posts on how he changes the moves at will). Again this degree of spontaneity is elusive to many but I guess looking at my own dancing it is how I try to dance musically myself and how I strive to support my partner in doing her thing musically too (not for a minute putting myself in the same category as Jordan of course :worthy:)

I don't yet WCS, I intend to do the classes this weekend at Southport and aim to change that over the next few months, therefore I can't make an informed comparison between the two myself. What I've observed watching WCS is that the music itself seems inherently more open to 'lyrical interpretation' than the thumping beat found at many (not all admittedly) Ceroc/MJ venues. Some venues I've been to seem more like the gym than dancing such is the repetitve nature of the DJ'ing. That and my impression (all it can be just now) that WCS seems to rely on better connection between the dancers thus also helping aid collaborative musical interpretation, essential if the pairing is to dance musically together.

So I might be prone to make an educated guess that WCS might be easier to dance to musically, had I not been at the Jive Nites Mariachi at Oakham on Saturday night and been lucky to have joined many other forumites and 'unknowns' in some of the most musical dancing that I've ever seen.

I remained unconvinced that it's the style of dancing that makes the real difference to many of us. I don't believe that I have a particular challenge dancing musically in MJ (waits now for comments from a flurry of ladies contradicting me:blush:) and don't expect to have any challenge doing so in WCS once I've mastered the basics (which I'll then promptly ignore as I see fit in my quest to interpret the music through my dance).

Still agree with the sentiments of Stokie's message

surely when you dance musically you just dance musically. Why should dancing MJ/WCS/Tango/Blues/Lindy/whatever have any bearing on it?

[Gadget]

I'll take that as a "no" then. It's one thing to adjust the length of a pattern to suit the music - but it's an adjustment. You wouldn't vary the length of a yo-yo every time you did it for instance. Do you know how many beats that is?

The length matters so you can have an idea of whether your going to hit something in the music on a current pattern or on the next one, and where you'll do it. Once you know that you can then decide howyou're going to do it.It's not a "no"; it's a "yes, but I think it's immaterial"

And yes, I probably do vary the length of every move I do. (Not that I have studied it to find out)
From the step back a yo-yo is six counts (one and six being a step back). It doesn't matter if it's a first move (also six counts), comb (four counts on the short version), catapult (eight counts with a return), or anything else. If anyone can point out the last time I danced a "normal" beginner's move from start to finish, then it was either a coincidence or I was in a class: I don't count the music and I don't have fixed count moves. In MJ I don't have to worry about if the hit in the music is on a current pattern or on the next.

As I have said before, length of the move/pattern doesn't matter: If I know the music I can decide the "what", then work out the "how" from my current position. No matter what count it's on or what move it's in, in two more counts I can lead it. If the musical emphasis I want is only in one more count, all it does is limit my options to how/what to lead to mark it.

[NZ Monkey]

And yes, I probably do vary the length of every move I do. (Not that I have studied it to find out)Every time though? Do you stay in time? Any of the followers out there care to answer that question? :devil:



From the step back a yo-yo is six counts (one and six being a step back). It doesn't matter if it's a first move (also six counts), comb (four counts on the short version), catapult (eight counts with a return), or anything else. To rephrase then: there is a general lack of consistency.

I'll also note that these moves take a hell of a long time to do! Even a comb in MJ takes an entire 8 beat phrase all on it's own. No wonder so many people comment that it feels like a plodding dance....


I don't count the music and I don't have fixed count moves.You'd be doing better than Jordan in that case. This time though - I think I'll trust his credentials....

Even those countless variations of J&T (and the other WCS pros too of course) still tend to follow the exact same priciples as the basics with regards to their length. You'd never be able to tell unless you're counting through them of course - but that's the point.


In MJ I don't have to worry about if the hit in the music is on a current pattern or on the next.Then I doubt you're in much of a position to comment about musicality. It'd kind of suck not being sure you were going to make that Big Hit with a drop or the comb you were going to do after it.... one of then is likely to look just a tad more dramatic than the other.


As I have said before, length of the move/pattern doesn't matter: If I know the music I can decide the "what", then work out the "how" from my current position. No matter what count it's on or what move it's in, in two more counts I can lead it. If the musical emphasis I want is only in one more count, all it does is limit my options to how/what to lead to mark it.And preparation allows you to set things up more appropriately again. That's one of the difference between the greats and us.

In principle I agree with what you're saying here. You don't necessarily want to plan the dance ahead very far. However, by developing a very good "gut feel" for where you will be and the things you might be able to do from there you free yourself up to concentrate on other matters such as style or some other subtlety. MJ is much more difficult than WCS in this regard because of it's lack of consistency.

[MartinHarper]

We seem to have a school of thought that says rigid patterns (presumably WCS has the edge in this) helps people to track where they are in the music.

I'm not sure I would agree that West Coast has the edge in having more rigid patterns. There are many Whip variations and many First Move variations. It does tend to have shorter patterns, which might be what you're talking about?

[mikeyr]

I'll also note that these moves take a hell of a long time to do! Even a comb in MJ takes an entire 8 beat phrase all on it's own. No wonder so many people comment that it feels like a plodding dance....

MJ! The good ole days:devil: really as I remember it (5 yrs dancing MJ) I would really only really try to hit something on the Major Phrase changes (verse to chorus changes in 32 or 48 beat music), Dya know I really did forget it was 2 beats to the count......ohmygod I used to teach it as well. :blush:

While it was relatively easy (level of connection withstanding) to dance MJ lyrically or the leadline, it was a very hard to pick out things like hooks, rhythmn and phrase changes all because it is basically doesnt take very much account musical structure (4/4 time).




Even those countless variations of J&T (and the other WCS pros too of course) still tend to follow the exact same priciples as the basics with regards to their length. You'd never be able to tell unless you're counting through them of course - but that's the point.

:yeah:Jordan will be observing the principles of the dance(see above) because that is how he will be judged in competion (Lead/Follow) and thats how the follow knows what is happening on the social dance floor. If you dont know what youre looking for, you dont know what youre looking at:devil:

note:You'll find Mr Frisbee is usually only castigated on pushing the bounds on what it termed "Swing Content" - Does R'n'B swing:what:




In principle I agree with what you're saying here. You don't necessarily want to plan the dance ahead very far. However, by developing a very good "gut feel" for where you will be and the things you might be able to do from there you free yourself up to concentrate on other matters such as style or some other subtlety. MJ is much more difficult than WCS in this regard because of it's lack of consistency.

Again:yeah:If rules of the music are pretty much standard and the dance form has clearly defined rules/principles it is possible to be musical. The more closely they are aligned the easier that possibilty is, surely.

[Gadget]

I'll also note that these moves take a hell of a long time to do! Even a comb in MJ takes an entire 8 beat phrase all on it's own. No wonder so many people comment that it feels like a plodding dance....:confused: the comb action takes one beat. But you stay there for one beat, slide out on one beat, catch on one beat. That's two count's worth of action. And there is another four beats worth of preparation: to get the hand in a position to comb, you need to have a high hand; to get a high hand, easiest is from turning the follower; (you need to wait a beat while they are turning); to get them to turn you need to get them to step onto the turning foot; to get them to step onto that foot you need them first to take a step back.

The "plodding" is because there is a weight change every count. MJ is a 'plodding' dance just as WCS is a "skippity" dance.


You'd be doing better than Jordan in that case. This time though - I think I'll trust his credentials....And DavidB. And a few other notable names/teachers. I don't count the music: I listen to it. I understand the count, I could count, but I only have so much processing power in my head - When dancing I would rather listen to the ebb and flow of the music than the look at the bars and stanzas used to create it. When practising and learning it's handy to know, but for me it would diminish the enjoyment.


Even those countless variations of J&T (and the other WCS pros too of course) still tend to follow the exact same priciples as the basics with regards to their length. You'd never be able to tell unless you're counting through them of course - but that's the point.It is the point - that's (part of) what makes it WCS and not MJ. However it is not part of what makes a dance contain any more "musicality" than any other. It is how to add musicality while keeping dancing WCS, but in MJ we don't need to keep this structure.


Then I doubt you're in much of a position to comment about musicality. It'd kind of suck not being sure you were going to make that Big Hit with a drop or the comb you were going to do after it.... one of then is likely to look just a tad more dramatic than the other.{Have you seen Franck dance? :wink:} As I've said - give me two counts and I'll make the big hit with a drop, dramatic stop, or some other show-boating. Give me one count and I'll hit it with a pose, embrace, or something smaller that requires less preparation. The key to making that "big hit" is not the move; it's the contrast - and that can be achieved in a relatively short time-frame.


In principle I agree with what you're saying here. You don't necessarily want to plan the dance ahead very far. However, by developing a very good "gut feel" for where you will be and the things you might be able to do from there you free yourself up to concentrate on other matters such as style or some other subtlety. MJ is much more difficult than WCS in this regard because of it's lack of consistency.Probably. I don't know: I think that's what this thread is trying to determine. Personally I think that MJ is the easiest dance form to learn, but probably the hardest to master.

[NZ Monkey]

:confused: the comb action takes one beat. But you stay there for one beat, slide out on one beat, catch on one beat. That's two count's worth of action. And there is another four beats worth of preparation: to get the hand in a position to comb, you need to have a high hand; to get a high hand, easiest is from turning the follower; (you need to wait a beat while they are turning); to get them to turn you need to get them to step onto the turning foot; to get them to step onto that foot you need them first to take a step back. Thats right: 2"counts" + four beats = 8 beats, where 1"count"= 2 beats. Here concludes the math’s lesson.



And DavidB. And a few other notable names/teachers.With all due respect to DavidB, because I am in no way trying to put him or the others teachers you're refering to down here - I will take the advice of J&T or Robert Royston every time regarding musicality, based on their track record. Granted that their dance is different, but if your case that musicality is independent of dance is true then I'm still more prepared to take their lessons on board.



I don't count the music: I listen to it. I understand the count, I could count, but I only have so much processing power in my head - When dancing I would rather listen to the ebb and flow of the music than the look at the bars and stanzas used to create it. When practising and learning it's handy to know....This is where I'm going to try and make a very subtle point that I hope comes across clearly:

If you can pick up where you are in a phrase and how far you are from any accents or hits - you're counting. Subconsciously perhaps (which what you really want to be able to do - see my earlier posts) but what do you think "listen to the music"* actually means?

Since we're name dropping here I'll paraphrase Amir - I've yet to meet a dancer who is worse off for knowing this stuff.


....but for me it would diminish the enjoyment. That’s a fair point, but I dare say that without putting quite a bit of work into understanding the relationship between music and dance someone is unlikely to learn how to dance very musically**.


It is the point - that's (part of) what makes it WCS and not MJ. However it is not part of what makes a dance contain any more "musicality" than any other. It is how to add musicality while keeping dancing WCS, but in MJ we don't need to keep this structure.No, it's that the dance maintains a structure complementary to the music and therefore makes musicality easier than in MJ.


{Have you seen Franck dance? :wink:} As I've said - give me two counts and I'll make the big hit with a drop, dramatic stop, or some other show-boating. Give me one count and I'll hit it with a pose, embrace, or something smaller that requires less preparation. The key to making that "big hit" is not the move; it's the contrast - and that can be achieved in a relatively short time-frame. And can be achieved better with more preparation to do the same. Again, see my earlier posts.....


Probably. I don't know: I think that's what this thread is trying to determine. Personally I think that MJ is the easiest dance form to learn, but probably the hardest to master.I'll give you that :wink:

**Incidentally, I consider this to be down there with the worst pieces of advice commonly available in dance. If someone was listening to the music they wouldn't need you to tell them to. If they're not listening to the music they almost certainly need help in understanding how to; which is where all this talk of bars, mini- and major- phrases etc comes into it.

**You know....the subject of the thread?

[ducasi]

If you can pick up where you are in a phrase and how far you are from any accents or hits - you're counting. Subconsciously perhaps (which what you really want to be able to do - see my earlier posts) but what do you think "listen to the music"* actually means?
Suddenly I'm counting!

I'm curious how many people when told to count actually think they are being told to count. :confused:

[MartinHarper]

To be honest I'm a little lost on this entire sub-thread. It seems that NZ Monkey is saying that Jordan and Tatiana consciously count the music while dancing, and this helps them be musical. That surprises me, because I assumed counting was subconscious for them. Perhaps I've misunderstood?

[NZ Monkey]

To be honest I'm a little lost on this entire sub-thread. It seems that NZ Monkey is saying that Jordan and Tatiana consciously count the music while dancing, and this helps them be musical. That surprises me, because I assumed counting was subconscious for them. Perhaps I've misunderstood?Well, Jordan claims that he does count and that counting helps everyone dance better than they would otherwise. I have no reason to doubt him, but yes – it surprised me too. Robert Royston advocates the same thing on his DVD series so I don’t think it’s just Jordan having the computational power of Deep Blue.

I wasn't too clear here unfortunately - doing it deliberately helps, and they advise keeping it simple when you start out for obvious reasons.

What I mean about doing it subconsciously is that if you’re hearing the subtle shifts in the music and can tell where that puts you in a phrase plus the other information I mentioned earlier then part of your mind is doing that work already. That doesn’t necessarily mean you can make all the connections required to utilize it in the dance however. You probably have a head-start though.

[MartinHarper]

Well, Jordan claims that he does count and that counting helps everyone dance better than they would otherwise. I have no reason to doubt him, but yes – it surprised me too. Robert Royston advocates the same thing on his DVD series so I don’t think it’s just Jordan having the computational power of Deep Blue.

What confuses me is that I did a workshop with Robert and Nicola Royston this weekend, and Robert seemed to be saying that he didn't consciously count when dancing. Indeed, he parodied the idea, showing what it would be like to count to 32 in order to match the various parts of a 32-beat phrase (the names of which I have irritatingly already forgotten - I think "tone" may have been one).

[NZ Monkey]

What confuses me is that I did a workshop with Robert and Nicola Royston this weekend, and Robert seemed to be saying that he didn't consciously count when dancing. Indeed, he parodied the idea, showing what it would be like to count to 32 in order to match the various parts of a 32-beat phrase (the names of which I have irritatingly already forgotten - I think "tone" may have been one).What can I say......?

Disclaimer: I’d like to point out that the following is pure speculation on my part. I don’t have any great insight here and I’m certainly not claiming I can do it myself.

What I think is happening is that through counting a phrase through deliberately while dancing constantly is training the dancers to pick up on important signal in the musical structure, and give them a framework to apply it to their dancing. After a while, I imagine that count becomes automatic and quiet, just ticking away at the back of the mind keeping track of things without much effort.

Depending on your point of view, this could be considered counting deliberately or not. I’m quite confident though that if you played five or so beats of a reasonably familiar track and someone who listened could tell you which of the four or six likely 8 beat mini-phrases it lay in by the tone and other clues, chances are that something is used to keeping track of those cues regardless of how much they ridicule the idea.

I often count out music when I’m listening to it on the bus or in my car, and I’m quite good at hearing the differences in tone between the mini-phrases then. When I’m not counting them out, I’m still pretty good at hearing those changes and have a much better idea of where I am in the music now than before I started that counting. I hope that in some way this has helped my dancing too :P

To date, I’ve not been game to try actively counting while dancing and see how that helps me but I’m convinced that it’s just an extension of the exercise I’ve just described. I can say RR recommends it though.

[mikeyr]

Well, Jordan claims that he does count and that counting helps everyone dance better than they would otherwise. I have no reason to doubt him, but yes – it surprised me too. Robert Royston advocates the same thing on his DVD series so I don’t think it’s just Jordan having the computational power of Deep Blue.

Its not as hard as it sounds, (Disclaimer, perfection is attained thru constant practise) a certain Mr Robau Jr showed me a neat little thing that I try to incorporate in my WCS.

If I just dance 6 count patterns I will always hit the change on a 1, 3 or 5
of said 6 count patterns so if I dance a 32 beat major phrase I will always hit the first beat of next major phrase on the 3rd beat of a six count pattern. Now if I just add 1 Eight count pattern into it the next pattern (6 or 8) will the emphasis point.

So for example rather than just doing that, you would consciouly lead a whip with a double outside spin :wink: this is Conscious Pattern Selection (which is counting).

Constant practise will allow most of the dance to be innate so that when the time comes for a bit of CPS, its more likely to work:cool:.

Do try this at home if you want become professional:D

[Gadget]

Thats right: 2"counts" + four beats = 8 beats, where 1"count"= 2 beats. Here concludes the math’s lesson.You seemed to express surprise/dismay/scorn that a simple move such as the comb could take so long - I was confudled as to how you could make it shorter (while keeping the same "framework" that makes it a MJ beginner's move - ie the same start and end) The only shorter move is the "in and out" which takes 3 counts at it's shortest.


With all due respect to DavidB, ...~... but if your case that musicality is independent of dance is true then I'm still more prepared to take their lessons on board.I sited him because I asked the specific question in a musicality workshop - if he actually counted through the song - his response at the time was that he did.


This is where I'm going to try and make a very subtle point that I hope comes across clearly:

If you can pick up where you are in a phrase and how far you are from any accents or hits - you're counting. Subconsciously perhaps (which what you really want to be able to do - see my earlier posts) but what do you think "listen to the music"* actually means?The only times I have ever counted in my head while dancing is in the one ballroom lesson I have done and the handful of WCS lessons I have done: Where the pattern is important to the structure of the dance.

I can only relate my personal experience and speak for myself; I have always danced with what I consider "musicality". I danced in clubs for years before being introduced to Ceroc (rock, metal, indie, goth, pop, handbag...) I've only been able to recognise it as "musicality" by learning from workshops. How I achieve it I believe has very little to do with counting, even on a sub-concious level: The way I do it is closer to what CJ teaches - if you listen to the music, there is generally a build-up and release, a call and response, a key change, an extra beat on the drums, the finishing of a verse, the start of a chorus, ... something that lets you know that the music is about to change. Very few songs simply stop like the power is cut - in order to be noticed and a 'good' track, there must be contrast; loud and soft, busy and quiet, etc. and normally there is something in the music where you can predict what's going to happen next. If not the what then at least something is going to change.
I have listened to enough music that I tend to think "oh, this is a bit like that" and can guess how the musical phrase is going to be completed, where the breaks lie, when a track will end, ... I am not counting, but listening for musical "clues". If something pops up every 32 beats, whoop-dee-doo. I don't care. I know that there is a build-up, the verse ends and there is chord with an impact beat before a the bit I want to mark: I don't need to count the structure that the music is placed on, I only need to listen to the music. I am reacting to the music, not the structure.

"Listening to music" to me means identifying patterns within it. And identifying things don't follow patterns. This can be vocally, instrumentally, rhythmically, tonally, musically, or whatever. If I am only listening for 8 or 6 beat patterns, then I would miss half the music that is woven through these patterns. If I am counting, then I am not listening to the music, I am listening for something within the music. Everything that happens up to that point is pushed aside as immaterial.

Patterns are not counting or numbers; they are rawer than numbers. You recognise the pattern of dots on a dice rather than the number. How many people have to remember the pattern on a keypad before they can correlate that to a pin number. Counting can create patterns, but it's the pattern that matters, not the counting.

I'm sure musicians jamming don't count beats - especially in jazz.


Since we're name dropping here I'll paraphrase Amir - I've yet to meet a dancer who is worse off for knowing this stuff.The knowledge is useful, but when dancing, do you really think that Amir counts 'staccato steps for eight beats, then drawn out ronde for four,...' or that he reacts to the music? It certainly looks like the latter. {Amir?}
I think that the knowledge helps you identify patterns within the music and anticipate their start/end, I think that counting may help recognition of things within the music, but is painting by numbers really painting? is dancing by numbers really dancing? I suppose it is easier - and that's what the topic is about.


No, it's that the dance maintains a structure complementary to the music and therefore makes musicality easier than in MJ.If the structure maintained a constant correlation with the music, yes. But I think that is a huge "if". Perhaps this is why a lot of people think that WCS music is very "samey"? (and some MJ music... dependant on the DJ's)

[Amir]

I think the oversight in this thread so far is what looks like the following assumption: That all good dancers work in the same way, and that that 'same way' is what is going to work for everyone else.

I often need to count when learning something new, but I don't really feel like its 'dancing' until I don't have to. That is me though, and I think often people who are amazing at something do things in a way that only works for them. People said Michael Johnson would run faster if he ran with a more conventional technique. Michael says that him and his coach had the good sense to realize that if he changed his running to be like everyone else, he'd be back there with them. Up until recent Usain Bolt like runners, it was thought that being too tall would slow you down for fast sprints. Well now all the experts have to change their theories as to why height is such an advantage.

But I still maintain that everyone will benefit from learning how music is structured, or at the very least it won't hurt you.

Back in the day many jazz musicians were afraid to learn to read music. They were afraid it would hurt their improvisation skills, or their 'raw' sound. Louis Armstrong spent the first few years of his musical life without reading a note of music. But then when he did learn to read, he didn't lose any skills, he just added some more. Since the 20s probably most great jazz players have learnt to read.

Back to the discussion on this thread, however:

From a historical perspective modern jive is a swing dance which has been simplified to make it easier. It has been simplified by taking certain elements out, most obviously the leading of and interchange between walks and triple steps. Since leading and following footwork rhythms that highlight or accentuate the music is such an important ingredient in most musical dancing, I would say WCS, once mastered, gives you more scope for musicality than modern jive.

Having said that, a great chef can do a better job with three ingredients than I could with ten.

But having said that, most great chefs would still probably prefer to have ten, if not thousands of ingredients to choose from.

And having said that, I'm going to go make me a sandwich.

[Dreadful Scathe]

hmm esuriant? no wonder.

I've 'ad me lunch :)

[FoxyFunkster]

As we become more familiar with the dance I believe that we become more able to be musical. Here is where I am.

Percentage of brain needed to devote to various factors


MJ
15% Moving Leading the patterns of the dance
25% Floorcraft
50% Musicality
10% General Entertainment
8/10 Ability to help less experienced Follow


WCS
74% Moving Leading the patterns of the dance
5 % Floorcraft (less needed)
20% Musicality
1% General Entertainment
0/10 Ability to help less experienced Follow

Partner can help by interpreting occasional Musical Highlight:nice:
If the partner does her own thing throughout then I can never get anywhere.:sick:

Zuhal

This looks to detailed to try and think about when dancing, I`ve heard a few WCS teachers in the states say that your 3 way dance partnership should be divided something like this....

50% Music
40% Your partner
10% The floor

[Astro]

Louis Armstrong spent the first few years of his musical life without reading a note of music. But then when he did learn to read, he didn't lose any skills, he just added some more.

The more strings to your bow the better, makes sense in any field.

Wonder if Macca has learnt to read music yet?

Since leading and following footwork rhythms that highlight or accentuate the music is such an important ingredient in most musical dancing, I would say WCS, once mastered, gives you more scope for musicality than modern jive.
But what if the music doesn't float your boat?

Whilst I can really get going to Swing music and adore it, the stuff played for WCS doesn't make my feet itch.


Ouch just realised I've contradicted myself.

[robd]

I`ve heard a few WCS teachers in the states say that your 3 way dance partnership should be divided something like this....

50% Music
40% Your partner
10% The floor

Slightly different emphasis but Mario made a point that stuck with me in his workshops here (and Chris & Katrina emphasised it too) that your priorities should be your partner first, the music second and something that I can't recall :blush: third.

Like most things in WCS I am sure different teachers will have different viewpoints. I know Jordan and Tatiana spent a lot of time at Blisworth talking about dancing with the music (I suspect because of what they had seen - or rather, not seen - in the freestyle the previous nights)

[jockey]

The question is largely misplaced..musicality is independent of tempo and 'basic step structure'.

[Zuhal]

This looks to detailed to try and think about when dancing, I`ve heard a few WCS teachers in the states say that your 3 way dance partnership should be divided something like this....

50% Music
40% Your partner
10% The floor

I was trying to say that when you are learning a dance I have to concentrate on the core movements. The previous percentages were specifically where I felt that I was at that time.

Moving on 6 months I feel that I have to devote less brain to the movement in WCS and can apply more to the musicality.

The question posed is which do you find easier to dance to Musically?,

I now feel that they are about equal but I can foresee a time when the WCS will be easier.

Zuhal

[robd]

musicality is independent of tempo and 'basic step structure'.

It is not entirely concentrated upon them, granted, but I think musicality does encompass tempo, for sure, and basic step structure in so far as the musicality should not negatively impact that structure.

[Andy McGregor]

The question is largely misplaced..musicality is independent of tempo and 'basic step structure'.This is completely wrong and criticises the original question without explaining why it is "misplaced". The absence of any justification only reinforces just how wrong jockey is.

Musicality is part of the dance and the dance requires you to use the beat and move your feet in MJ patterns to that beat. For example, if a lady were to back-lead a separation it would normally commence on beat 1 or 5 of a minor phrase and finish at the end of that phrase - beat 8. Another example would be syncopations: these are entirely based on the beat of the music and could require you to use the basic step structure of MJ.

[Gadget]

(funny that: I find myself agreeing with Jocky even more since Andy joined in :rolleyes: )

"musicality is independent of tempo and 'basic step structure'."
In context, I read Jockey as saying that the defining difference between MJ and WCS is the tempo and 'basic step structure'. And it doesn't matter which of these forms of dance you apply to the music - musicality is about matching the dance to the music. It independent of specific step structures and tempos that define the dance and more dependant on the structures and tempos within the music.

The main argument from the WCS side of things seems to be that the 'basic step structure' is based on the same 'basic beat structure' that the music is built around. Therefore (in theory) it should be easy to apply musicality to the dance.

The argument from the MJ side of things seems to be that you can make the 'basic step structure' fit into any beat structure. Therefore (in theory) it should be easy to apply musicality to the dance.

{This assumes that "musicality" in your dancing is created by matching the underlying beat structure with an underlying movement, while accenting the dance to mimic accents in the music.}


Andy - "Musicality is part of the dance and the dance requires you to use the beat and move your feet in MJ patterns to that beat. "
There is no requirement to move your feet in MJ to any pre-defined pattern. Most beginner leads get away with not moving their feet at all! The ability to dance with musicality does not rely on footwork or patterns, or even the beat (*). It is about converting music to movement - and that is almost the definition of "dance".

(*does ballet contain any 'musicality'? where is the beat? The most musical of dancers I have seen don't dance to the beat, they dance to the melody - it just so happens that most melodies follow the beat so as a 'bonus' they dance to the beat as well.)

[Andy McGregor]

(Andy - "Musicality is part of the dance and the dance requires you to use the beat and move your feet in MJ patterns to that beat. "
There is no requirement to move your feet in MJ to any pre-defined pattern. This is the fundamental area that Gadget has got wrong. MJ is a folk dance. It is done the way that "folk" do it. In our lessons we teach people to dance with the "folk" who already do the dance. This means we need to observe what happens in freestyle. And what happens in freestyle is that ladies in particular have very specific footwork. With very few exceptions ladies transfer their weight to the right foot on the 1 & 3 and left on the 2 & 4. Even when you stop the lady in place most of them will be changing their weight in this pattern as they wiggle in a sexy way to the music.

I think that Gadget has somehow swallowed the "there is no footwork" mantra from his local classes. However, if he was to actually watch what people do in freestyle he would see that there is specific footwork to fit the bar structure. This means that, in many instances, there is footwork when you are dancing musically. jockey (still no capital in his name) has made an all-embracing claim that "musicality is independent of tempo and 'basic step structure'". The way jockey has made his statement it is very clear he think musicality is outside the beat or the music or the footwork of MJ. All I need to do to prove him wrong is to give one example where musicality is dependent on the beat and/or uses the basic step structure of MJ. I think I have done that.

[NZ Monkey]

There is no requirement to move your feet in MJ to any pre-defined pattern. Most beginner leads get away with not moving their feet at all! The ability to dance with musicality does not rely on footwork or patterns, or even the beat (*). It is about converting music to movement - and that is almost the definition of "dance".
There is certainly more to musicality than placing your feet on every beat, but I have to agree with Andy on this one (to an extent anyway).

If you watch the overwhelming majority of dancers at most MJ nights, they're either making one weight change per beat, or they're off-time entirely. Even if it isn't taught that way explicitly, everyone gets conditioned to it quite quickly and it becomes an accepted norm.

Those few that do break the mold, and do it well, usually aren't passing their knowledge on. They also tend to group with other like-minded people, so there's little "trickle-down" from social dancing. These people are very much the exception, and therefore it seems crazy to me to use their understanding to form the definitions of the basic steps of the dance from.

I don't think that comparing a beginner leads footwork with one of these people is very useful, or even particularly fair.

[NZ Monkey]

Today I stumbled upon a video of Skippy entitled "when to stop counting". I'm pretty sure I made a mangled mess of trying to explain this myself in this thread - so I'll leave it up to her.

Take from it what you will, as it's only a two minute clip of a larger workshop. It's the fifth video here. (http://www.skippyblair.blogspot.com/)

[robd]

Nice vid (well, the angles suck but it's a very important topic) on matching resistance too (something I know the big boss man* is very hot on too).

The most satisfying dances I enjoy are always those where I can 'feel' my partner connected in the way Skippy describes.











*Le Franck of course

[Gadget]

This is the fundamental area that Gadget has got wrong. MJ is a folk dance. It is done the way that "folk" do it. In our lessons we teach people to dance with the "folk" who already do the dance. This means we need to observe what happens in freestyle.?? so you teach folk to dance in a circle, bounce on each step, the men to stay rooted, everyone to lead from wind-milling arms, pay no attention to anyone else on the dance floor...
You don't teach people to dance how they dance in freestyle. You teach them how you would like them to dance in freestyle. You would like them to dance with specific footwork, so you teach it. If you were truly observing how folk dance, then you would see that they don't actually pay any attention to which foot they are on.


I think that Gadget has somehow swallowed the "there is no footwork" mantra from his local classes.Swallowed? I probably initiated it! I maintain and uphold it. If you can get your body in the place to lead (or you are led), then what you do with your feet to get it there makes no odds. Your feet stop you from falling over and move you from A to B.

In saying this, it does not mean that what you do with your feet has no bearing on your dancing: there are more efficient ways to move, there are positions, placements, weight transfers and timing that can make your body be in a better place to lead a particular move, or move with more style, or give you better balance, ... but they are not essential to doing moves in a class or in freestyle.



~ there is specific footwork to fit the bar structure. This means that, in many instances, there is footwork when you are dancing musically. jockey has made an all-embracing claim that "musicality is independent of tempo and 'basic step structure'". The way jockey has made his statement it is very clear he think musicality is outside the beat or the music or the footwork of MJ.
Perhaps clear to you, but to me he is saying that the beat and the footwork that define a dance as X or Y have no bearing on how much musicality a dance has: you can do a cha-cha, WCS, MJ, tango, tap, the funky chicken or whatever to the same piece of music. Each can have musicality. Each will have different beats and footwork. This does not mean any dance form is more (or less) musical than the other. {with the possible exception of the funky chicken. :what:}


I don't think that comparing a beginner leads footwork with one of these people is very useful, or even particularly fair.I don't think it's particularly fair or useful to say that if you don't subscribe to Andy's version of footwork then you can't have any musicality.

[Andy McGregor]

?? so you teach folk to dance in a circle, bounce on each step, the men to stay rooted, everyone to lead from wind-milling arms, pay no attention to anyone else on the dance floor...Every dance floor has bad dancers. I have no intention of teaching people how to emulate the bad dancers.

You don't teach people to dance how they dance in freestyle. You teach them how you would like them to dance in freestyle.I teach people how to dance like the good dancers who I see at freestyles. So I do "teach people to dance how they dance in freestyle" - just not all of the people, only the good dancers. This might only be a handful of dancers, but you can always see other dancers who are on their journey from being the poor dancers Gadget describes to becoming the great dancers they can be if their teachers took the time to teach them correctly. It's like evolution, just because we've evolved from monkeys doesn't mean there are no monkeys - and there's plenty of people out there who are still dancing like gibbons :eek:

And the other difference is that I don't teach my students things they will need to unlearn to progress and evolve ....