PDA

View Full Version : 5&6&7&8



Andy McGregor
10th-July-2008, 12:19 AM
Why do people say this when counting people in? I used to say it. Then I gave it some thought.

The beats in the minor phrase in 4/4 time go 12345678 so saying 5&6&7&8 counts the first 7 beats and you need another & to complete the 8 count. This means that you're saying 8 on beat 7 - confused yet? Yes? Then don't even consider that the 5 is on beat 1 or that the 6 is on beat 3.

What do I do now I've had this revelation? I don't count at all. I use descriptive words to say what I'd like the dancers to do. I don't say numbers at all as they've got far less meaning than "left-and-right", "to-the-side", guys-go-through" or some other description of what you'd actually like people to do.

So, do you do it? Does your teacher do it? Does it make sense when every single number has no relationship to the beat you are actually marking or what you're doing? And, finally, who cares?

Agente Secreto
10th-July-2008, 12:53 AM
Why do people say this when counting people in? I used to say it. Then I gave it some thought.

The beats in the minor phrase in 4/4 time go 12345678 so saying 5&6&7&8 counts the first 7 beats and you need another & to complete the 8 count. This means that you're saying 8 on beat 7 - confused yet? Yes? Then don't even consider that the 5 is on beat 1 or that the 6 is on beat 3.

What do I do now I've had this revelation? I don't count at all. I use descriptive words to say what I'd like the dancers to do. I don't say numbers at all as they've got far less meaning than "left-and-right", "to-the-side", guys-go-through" or some other description of what you'd actually like people to do.

So, do you do it? Does your teacher do it? Does it make sense when every single number has no relationship to the beat you are actually marking or what you're doing? And, finally, who cares?
Now Andy I hope this is not a thread where we end up with a thinly veiled attempt at naked Ceroc bashing!

I don't see anything wrong with using 5-6-7-8 to count in to the first move in a lesson (after which if course all you need to do is talk through the move components). The count in serves 2 purposes for me:

Establish a very solid tempo for the move being taught - and we all know that many people at both Ceroc and independent venues need all the help they can get to find the beat.
Signal to the more talkative members (we know that some guy called Axxy has them at his venue so you might too:whistle:) that it is time to shut up and focus on the lessonNow back to all of the &s. No argument that the beats go 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8, and always happy to be educated that this is a minor phrase. Of course for many tracks (except such all-time favourites as Candyman) the MJ beat is half tempo so 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8 would become 1&2&3&4& since we'd normally emphasise the odd beats in the phrase.

And for completeness of course if we were counting in on our 5-6-7-8 we'd probably start by going &5&6&7&8 (in which case the 8 would actually be on 15 and not 7).

The count definitely has a role to play (unlike the circle of course:rolleyes:)

MartinHarper
10th-July-2008, 12:54 AM
I use descriptive words to say what I'd like the dancers to do. I don't say numbers at all as they've got far less meaning than "left-and-right", "to-the-side", guys-go-through" or some other description of what you'd actually like people to do.

You know who else does that?
Everyone.

Andy McGregor
10th-July-2008, 01:21 AM
Now Andy I hope this is not a thread where we end up with a thinly veiled attempt at naked Ceroc bashing!


You know who else does that?
Everyone.:yeah:

I know it's "everyone". Therefore I'm not bashing Ceroc or "anyone". Especially as I've been doing it until recently.

However, in my quest to deconstruct "everything" I gave some thought to this count and it just doesn't make sense. I'm guessing that jive teachers started it because that's what funky musicians do. But we're not funky musicians - so why do it? And, again I'm guessing, jive teachers do it because it's what everyone does.

I stopped doing the count and replaced it with an instruction for the guys weight change when counting in. I now count the 8 as Left&Right&Left&Right& - beginner guys seem to get the beat more often and stay on the beat better through the routine and beginner ladies mirror the guys and are more likely to step back right on the 1 count.

I suppose I'm sharing this in the way of best-practice. However, it may be that some people have a good reason to keep the old 5&6&7&8. Perhaps they could post their reasons here and I might be tempted to change back to counting.

Andy McGregor
10th-July-2008, 01:27 AM
Of course for many tracks (except such all-time favourites as Candyman) the MJ beat is half tempo so 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8 would become 1&2&3&4& since we'd normally emphasise the odd beats in the phrase.I'm not sure I get the meaning of this. For MJ the way the lady uses the beat in the basic, open hand-hold is almost always the same. They usually step or have a weight-change on every beat. Watch them in freestyle and count the beat - occasionally you'll see women not doing this: sometimes they're doing the old LeRoc taught footwork and other times they're just staggering around because they're not very experienced or not being led properly.

TA Guy
10th-July-2008, 01:54 AM
I maybe wrong about this, but I can't remember my MJ teachers ever using the '&'. It always used to be something like 5 6 arm jive....

I have known WCS teachers use &.... For a beginner that is hard, esp considering the & is supposed to the 'sit back' thingy anyway. Not a lot of time given :) I can't actually remember, but I think, as an MJ beginner, the most important thing to me would be the length of the count-in :) Need time to get set, prepare etc.

straycat
10th-July-2008, 08:45 AM
The beats in the minor phrase in 4/4 time go 12345678 so saying 5&6&7&8 counts the first 7 beats and you need another & to complete the 8 count. This means that you're saying 8 on beat 7 - confused yet? Yes? Then don't even consider that the 5 is on beat 1 or that the 6 is on beat 3.

I've never come across anyone counting like this. Not been to any MJ beginners classes in years, mind, so maybe I'm missing out :whistle:

Personally, I count people in (teaching Lindy) using '5 6 7 8' - but this business with the & is new to me - and the timing is quite particular. We treat swing music as being eight beats to the bar - so a dancer's bar has two musicians (true) bars in it. Technically, it's known as a 'mini phrase'. The 5 6 7 8 comes on the last four beats of a dancers bar - which will be, in musician's terms, on a 1 2 3 4 - not on 1 3 5 7.

I regard it as a gentle way to get people used to aspects of the musical structure & how dance relates to it (without having to give a lecture on the subject)

Most of the music we commonly dance MJ to echoes this same structure - so the 5 6 7 8 lead-in does have its place, despite the lessened structural interplay between dance & music. To do that lead-in the way you describe, however, does make little sense, and suggests that the practice has been adopted and modified by people who have no idea of the point behind it. The idea of doing that lead-in on 1 2 3 4 makes me shudder - the idea of doing it at even less appropriate thoughts is downright horrifying....

straycat
10th-July-2008, 08:50 AM
Of course for many tracks (except such all-time favourites as Candyman) the MJ beat is half tempo so 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8 would become 1&2&3&4& since we'd normally emphasise the odd beats in the phrase.

:what::what::confused::confused:
Which tracks would you say that applies to? The only possible reason I can think of for half-timing a track would be if I wanted to dance MJ to something ridiculously fast... and such tracks aren't generally played at MJ venues, afaik...

Lory
10th-July-2008, 09:37 AM
as an MJ beginner, the most important thing to me would be the length of the count-in :) Need time to get set, prepare etc.

You've just reminded me of something that used to make me laugh, one beginner I knew, had a habit of taking an enormous deep breath, as the teacher counted everyone in :eek::rofl:

Thinking about it, I wonder if he held his breath the whole way through?

David Franklin
10th-July-2008, 09:43 AM
Repeating others, I don't think I've ever seen the count Andy describes.

Using _ to show silence during a beat, the counts I've seen in MJ have either been:

5_6_7_8_ (Ceroc count - i.e. one count per two beats)

or

5_6_5678

Lee Bartholomew
10th-July-2008, 10:08 AM
Just confuse things a little....

When I count i put an 'a' in so it would be

&a5&a6&a7&a8&a1

Why? I get the beginners used to the count that way and once they become intermediate I start teaching rolling count getting them to start moving on the A.

To most people this is natural to do anyway but I feel it is a good idea to get people thinking about what they are actually doing.

Brian Doolan
10th-July-2008, 11:16 AM
:what::what::confused::confused:
Which tracks would you say that applies to? The only possible reason I can think of for half-timing a track would be if I wanted to dance MJ to something ridiculously fast... and such tracks aren't generally played at MJ venues, afaik...

You should try WCS, where the true timing is &a1&a2&a3&a4&a5&a6 and that's to smooth music.

Lou
10th-July-2008, 11:30 AM
I stopped doing the count and replaced it with an instruction for the guys weight change when counting in. I now count the 8 as Left&Right&Left&Right& - beginner guys seem to get the beat more often and stay on the beat better through the routine and beginner ladies mirror the guys and are more likely to step back right on the 1 count.

When I first started dancing around here, I noticed an alarming number of men dancing weird footwork. As they rocked from side to side, they would step onto one foot, and the other would be lifted up behind, as high as the back of their knee. It looked exactly as if they were ice-skating. It did not look attractive.

What really puzzled me, though, was that I noticed a couple of Taxi dancers (who should know better) doing it. But I couldn't work out why, because each worked for a different franchise.

It was only after going to a couple of different beginners classes I realised a lot of teachers get the class to do this side-to-side thing, presumably to help them find the beat of the music. This had morphed into the ice-skating look, and these guys knew no better :sick:

I hate it. It leads to bad habits. Why move side to side? It's not even as if it's a normal pattern within Modern Jive! And surely it encourages the ladies to keep moving, even if the men are leading nothing. :(

ETA... I just read through that again. I realised I needed to make it clearer that this happens when the teacher is calling to-the-left...to-the-right, to-me...to-you... etc... before starting the count in.

straycat
10th-July-2008, 11:46 AM
You should try WCS, where the true timing is &a1&a2&a3&a4&a5&a6 and that's to smooth music.

You really don't want to get me started on that one :whistle: (I dance Lindy, where the 'true' timing does something similar, but we get it from what the music is doing...)

David Bailey
10th-July-2008, 12:40 PM
When I first started dancing around here, I noticed an alarming number of men dancing weird footwork. As they rocked from side to side, they would step onto one foot, and the other would be lifted up behind, as high as the back of their knee. It looked exactly as if they were ice-skating. It did not look attractive.
:eek: I do the heel-lifting thing occasionally :tears:

(not on side-to-side, mainly on front-and-back steps)

Lee Bartholomew
10th-July-2008, 12:44 PM
You really don't want to get me started on that one :whistle: (I dance Lindy, where the 'true' timing does something similar, but we get it from what the music is doing...)

I would be intrested in hearing what you mean on this.

I havn't been doing lindy very long but it does seem to be based on counts.

Music is made up of beats per bar. How we dance different dances is made up from how we deal with those beats per bar. For example.

(+ = 1 beat, &=half beat)


Standard Musical 4 Bar 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 ,

MJ count 1, + , 2 , + , 3 , + , 4 , +,

WCS/Lindy basic 1, 2 , 3 & 4 ,5 & 6

NC2Step 1 , 3 & 4 , 5 , 7 & 8

Cha Cha Cha 1 , 2 , 3 & 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 & 8

Salsa 1 , 2 , 3 , , 5 , 6 , 7 ,


If someone wants to add to that or put it in a neat HTML table (I couldn;t be ar$ed) then feel free.

If you go through other musical timings you will prob find MJ unique in the fact that it is the only one that does not number the correct beat apart from the 1 (2=3, 3=5, 5=7 etc)

What you will notice about most if not all of them, the down beat (odd numbered notes (1,3,5,7) are the dominant beats. Infact I cant think of any dances where the upbeats (even numbered beats) are the beats started on or dominant.

mikeyr
10th-July-2008, 12:49 PM
You should try WCS, where the true timing is &a1&a2&a3&a4&a5&a6 and that's to smooth music.

:eek:I'd be careful with that statement, I would'nt try try it to often if I were you, Its the song that calls the timing....

Swing music emphasises division of the beat. It divides it into 2-beat units, the music usually has strong backbeats that differentiate between the strong beat (downbeat) or the weak beat (backbeat). In common 4/4 time.
True swing is neither a triplet nor a dotted eight and sixteenth note pattern; it is somewhere in between. How much in between depends on the song and the people playing the song. A sixteenth pattern is counted 1 e & a 2 e & a 3 e & a 4 e & a. A triplet pattern is &a1&a2&a3&a4 etc.

Not a lot of West Coast swings these days:what:

mikeyr
10th-July-2008, 12:53 PM
What you will notice about most if not all of them, the down beat (odd numbered notes (1,3,5,7) are the dominant beats. Infact I cant think of any dances where the upbeats (even numbered beats) are the beats started on or dominant.

Read below then listen again..........:whistle:

Lee Bartholomew
10th-July-2008, 12:58 PM
A sixteenth pattern is counted 1 e & a 2 e & a 3 e & a 4 e & a. A triplet pattern is &a1&a2&a3&a4 etc.



What are the 'e's for?

A little confused by the above. One of them things that is hard to read and write about.

Gadget
10th-July-2008, 01:05 PM
The 5 6 7 8 is not really that important: the important bit is that the next count (ie 1) is what you start on. Why not count 1 2 3 4? Why not count 7 8 9 10? Why not count 1 2 3? Why not count backwards 4 3 2 1? If you can answer these, then you will know why it's 5 6 7 8.

Each count is when the foot hits the ground. 4/4 music. We dance to music - therefore the timing of the music dictates the timing and number sequence of the counts.

Steven666
10th-July-2008, 01:16 PM
I've never been to a class that doesn't do this count in. Though never the &'s.

The only reference it gives to me is to a mini prep/seim-circle starting on count 7, then pushing back on count 8, assuming the follower hasn't moved back already. :whistle:

Steven666
10th-July-2008, 01:21 PM
Of course for many tracks (except such all-time favourites as Candyman) the MJ beat is half tempo so 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8 would become 1&2&3&4& since we'd normally emphasise the odd beats in the phrase.

I'm pretty sure candyman is half tempo too. It's just that the half tempo is slightly quicker than average. Though for me still not quick enough. :angry:

David Franklin
10th-July-2008, 01:41 PM
~ stuff taken verbatim from FAQ: Lead and Follow, section 8.2 (http://www.eijkhout.net/lead_follow/music_and_timing.html) ~It's kind of polite to acknowledge when you're quoting someone else, don't you think? :rolleyes:


What are the 'e's for?Each beat is being evenly subdivided into 4. Hence 1e&a2e&a3...

For a more detailed explanation of mine, see here: http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/282758-post14.html

(Some of the true musicians didn't like it, but I got repped a couple of times for it by people I respect, so mileage obviously varies).

Agente Secreto
10th-July-2008, 01:44 PM
:what::what::confused::confused:
Which tracks would you say that applies to? The only possible reason I can think of for half-timing a track would be if I wanted to dance MJ to something ridiculously fast... and such tracks aren't generally played at MJ venues, afaik...

Loads - in fact far too many to consider mentioning. Listen to the underlying beat and the phrasing of the music.

Let's take that old favourite 'Now I Can Dance' by Tina Arena - underlying tempo (as given by the drum beat that runs solidly though the whole track) is twice the 'dance tempo'. Just listening on the iPod to 'Destination Calabria' by Alex Gaudino - that's the same. Blues might be different - no that is the same too since the actual beat in 'Sweat' by Popa Chubby is twice the speed that you'd do the moves to (listen to the tempo of the bass guitar). iPod just moved on to 'Time is Now' by Moloko, same thing since the drum beat gives the tempo of the music but we'd dance at half that rate.

And Steven666 is right - the underlying beat of Candyman is twice as fast as the beat we'd dance too (which is fast enough).

Unless of course I have completely missed the point about musical phrasing.

Steven666
10th-July-2008, 01:52 PM
Candyman is twice as fast as the beat we'd dance too (which is fast enough).

Haha. I'm just not into slow music at all atm. It's I spent nearly no time in the blues room at Daventry. For me, the faster the better. :D

David Franklin
10th-July-2008, 01:53 PM
Loads - in fact far too many to consider mentioning. Listen to the underlying beat and the phrasing of the music.I'm unclear, when you say "the beat we dance to", do you mean the Ceroc count (what a teacher would count when teaching a move)? Because that is undeniably half time, but I would say the beat we dance to is twice as fast. That is, we typically take two steps for each Ceroc count.


[Let's take that old favourite 'Now I Can Dance' by Tina Arena - underlying tempo (as given by the drum beat that runs solidly though the whole track)is twice the 'dance tempo'.I would say the underlying tempo is 120bpm (very roughly). I'd also say that's the speed that this couple: YouTube - Ceroc Alsager Christmas Party Karen & Ade (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsc6L0q8lEU) are dancing, at least some of the time (have a look at the feet around 0:40-0:50).

If you see it differently (which is entirely possible), can you explain a bit more about what you mean?

Brian Doolan
10th-July-2008, 02:15 PM
:eek:I'd be careful with that statement, I would'nt try try it to often if I were you, Its the song that calls the timing....

Not a lot of West Coast swings these days:what:

You could try buying Jordan Frisbee's "Rolling Count and "a" More (http://www.jordantatianaswing.com/products.php)" for a better understanding of the &a count relating to WCS.
No offence meant but I'm not sure WCS ever did swing, at least not in the way Lindy does.

Lou
10th-July-2008, 02:21 PM
I'm unclear, when you say "the beat we dance to", do you mean the Ceroc count (what a teacher would count when teaching a move)? Because that is undeniably half time, but I would say the beat we dance to is twice as fast. That is, we typically take two steps for each Ceroc count.

I would say the underlying tempo is 120bpm (very roughly). I'd also say that's the speed that this couple: YouTube - Ceroc Alsager Christmas Party Karen & Ade (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsc6L0q8lEU) are dancing, at least some of the time (have a look at the feet around 0:40-0:50).

If you see it differently (which is entirely possible), can you explain a bit more about what you mean?
:yeah:
I'm also confused as to what Agente Secreto means. Here's a clip of Ceroc to Candyman, and they're definitely dancing to the standard Modern Jive timing/counts, as per your Now I Can Dance example.

YouTube - Ceroc dancers spinning to Candy Man (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kimXMhj1LbI)

What are we meant to be looking for?

Lee Bartholomew
10th-July-2008, 02:22 PM
You could try buying Jordan Frisbee's "Rolling Count and "a" More (http://www.jordantatianaswing.com/products.php)" for a better understanding of the &a count relating to WCS.
No offence meant but I'm not sure WCS ever did swing, at least not in the way Lindy does.

Thats a great DVD. Worth getting a copy.

straycat
10th-July-2008, 02:24 PM
I would be intrested in hearing what you mean on this.
I wasn't talking about structure - I was talking about rhythms. One of the defining characteristics of swing music is the syncopation on the swung beats - and this gives us the timing for triple steps. The timing of this syncopation can vary a lot, which can lead to some nice variations in footwork & timing thereof. If one is good enough. Here's an awesome example (http://youtube.com/watch?v=TLgh5ZT2kOs&feature=related).



Infact I cant think of any dances where the upbeats (even numbered beats) are the beats started on or dominant.

Chacha for one (2 3 4&1). And there's a lot of salseros who dance on 2.

straycat
10th-July-2008, 02:31 PM
I'm pretty sure candyman is half tempo too. It's just that the half tempo is slightly quicker than average. Though for me still not quick enough. :angry:

:confused:
Please explain what you mean by 'candyman is half tempo'

The basic beat for Candyman is around the 170bpm mark (fast by MJ standards) Half of that is 85bpm, which is slow by MJ standards. What exactly do you think it's 'half' of? :confused:

straycat
10th-July-2008, 02:33 PM
Not a lot of West Coast swings these days:what:
Quite seriously - are there any youtube clips of WC'S' which do swing?

David Franklin
10th-July-2008, 02:38 PM
Quite seriously - are there any youtube clips of WC'S' which do swing?I freely admit, I struggle with telling what really is swung, but this would seem to be a strong candidate:

YouTube - Kyle Redd & Sarah Vann Drake (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nosy-BMU3vM)

straycat
10th-July-2008, 02:43 PM
I freely admit, I struggle with telling what really is swung, but this would seem to be a strong candidate:

YouTube - Kyle Redd & Sarah Vann Drake (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nosy-BMU3vM)

Mmmm. There's a saying amongst jazz musicians that there's not really such a thing as swing music - just music that swings. Which would make it pretty subjective, but by that definition, in my book, yep. That swings. Great routine... (thanks)

David Franklin
10th-July-2008, 03:01 PM
Mmmm. There's a saying amongst jazz musicians that there's not really such a thing as swing music - just music that swings.Also, Fats Waller when asked to define swing: "If You Got To Ask, You Ain't Got It!".


Which would make it pretty subjective, but by that definition, in my book, yep. That swings. Great routine... (thanks)Problem I find is that I listen and think "that feels swingy", but no way could I really say what's going on to make me think that - it's just that someone's told me that when it sounds like that, it's because "the half beats are delayed to the 2nd triplet".

Another good link for people: Feel the Beat: swing (http://www.eijkhout.net/ftb/text_files/Swing.html)

In particular, there are two sound snippets of Baby Workout there, one with straight eighths, one with swung eighths. It makes the difference pretty clear.

Ironically, although Mario Robau seems to want more "proper swing music" to be played, when we won the US Open with Baby Workout, he chose the version with straight eighths. (Unless my hearing is completely off on this one, in which case, sorry Mario!).

David Franklin
10th-July-2008, 03:08 PM
You could try buying Jordan Frisbee's "Rolling Count and "a" More (http://www.jordantatianaswing.com/products.php)" for a better understanding of the &a count relating to WCS.So, anyone going to summarize what Jordan actually has to say about the '&a' count?

Steven666
10th-July-2008, 03:24 PM
:confused:
Please explain what you mean by 'candyman is half tempo'

The basic beat for Candyman is around the 170bpm mark (fast by MJ standards) Half of that is 85bpm, which is slow by MJ standards. What exactly do you think it's 'half' of? :confused:

340! :D

Though in MJ you tend to dance to every other beat therefore it being 170. It basically means you have to move your feet.

David Franklin
10th-July-2008, 03:33 PM
340! :DI have no idea what beat you are picking up to think its 340bpm, but pretty much everyone I know (DJs, dancers, etc.) agree it's around 173bpm. Searching on google, I quickly find 10+ links reckoning it's ~173bpm, and I don't see anyone supporting 340bpm.


Though in MJ you tend to dance to every other beat therefore it being 170. It basically means you have to move your feet.If you think Candyman is 340bpm, that possibly explains why you think every MJ track has to be half-timed. Not a view shared by the majority, however.

mikeyr
10th-July-2008, 03:40 PM
It's kind of polite to acknowledge when you're quoting someone else, don't you think? :rolleyes:
Plagurised, possibly if that were where I got it from... Read "Last edited by mikeyr : 10th-July-2008 at 12:50 PM. Reason: If you dont believe me........ Ask Mario" at the bottom of the post.

With regard to WCS footwork timing and why swing, swings and R&B dont from Mario meaning Mario Robau Jr( Who is quoted as multiple source in the document you are referring to and a fellow forumite).... A lesson on the variety of WCS timings whilst driving through Houston Texas in Dec last year(name dropping is not an offence) with musical examples played on the DAB truck radio (other forumites present, Reet Petite who managed to document the whole 4 day visit).

Also I did earn a living for a short period as a rhythm Guitarist for what used to be the "An Sibin" Pub band in Frankfurt in middle 90's it did give me a little of understanding of musical structure...... :what:

The description of why Swing, swings is in essence a common or simpler way of trying to explain the complexities of Syncopated rhythmns, of which swing music is just one (others would be Reggae(all Backbeat), R&B(Rap:eek: Oh yes), jazz and pretty much all dance music) the one thing musically they have in common is the way they differ from the normal regularly spaced strong(downbeat) and weak(backbeat) timing that is supposed to define common or garden 4/4 time music.

Musicians are a lot like dancers, the theoretical knowledge and the practical performance can be miles apart. to which the small number of forumites who have had the misfortune to hear me play "Live" will gladly attest Iam sure.

Oh just an aside, musicians count 1234 Dancers count 5678 the reasons have been well documented over the years, I'll not go there for fear of plagurising myself again:flower:.

straycat
10th-July-2008, 03:43 PM
So, anyone going to summarize what Jordan actually has to say about the '&a' count?

Well - here's (http://skippyblair.blogspot.com/2006/08/music-and-rolling-count-video-1-min-40.html)what Skippy has to say about it, if that helps.

David Franklin
10th-July-2008, 03:56 PM
Well - here's (http://skippyblair.blogspot.com/2006/08/music-and-rolling-count-video-1-min-40.html)what Skippy has to say about it, if that helps.Meh - I can't view that right now (I need to get a new version of QT, apparently), but I have a fairly good idea what Skippy would have to say about it, she's written a few articles on it. (I'd imagine) most people talking about rolling count will also know of those articles. From what was posted, my assumption was that Jordan is saying something noticably different (hence my curiosity).

mikeyr
10th-July-2008, 04:08 PM
So, anyone going to summarize what Jordan actually has to say about the '&a' count?

To paraphrase, "We do it that way":what:

heres an example YouTube - Jordan et Tatiana - Pump it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3gXSJq_s2s)

Didnt bother checking this one neither:na:

David Franklin
10th-July-2008, 04:11 PM
To paraphrase, "We do it that way":what:Perhaps a somewhat less condensed summary might be helpful...

mikeyr
10th-July-2008, 04:18 PM
Well - here's (http://skippyblair.blogspot.com/2006/08/music-and-rolling-count-video-1-min-40.html)what Skippy has to say about it, if that helps.

I will go out on a limb and say its not a panacea, rolling count has a place where music is doing the same...... Am I a Heretic:what: Look at the syncopated rhythmn of R&B(Rap) music it doesnt fit:eek:

Now we are truly off topic:rolleyes:

Lee Bartholomew
10th-July-2008, 04:23 PM
I will go out on a limb and say its not a panacea, rolling count has a place where music is doing the same...... Am I a Heretic:what: Look at the syncopated rhythmn of R&B(Rap) music it doesnt fit:eek:



Jordan said something at the Northampton weekender something like:

We use a rolling count to get people to move prior to the beat. You will move on the 'a' and place your weight on the count.

I can not remember what is said on the dvd but will let you know when I watch it next.



Now we are truly off topic:rolleyes:

It's ok. It's one of Andys threads. :D

Agente Secreto
10th-July-2008, 04:51 PM
I'm unclear, when you say "the beat we dance to", do you mean the Ceroc count (what a teacher would count when teaching a move)? Because that is undeniably half time, but I would say the beat we dance to is twice as fast. That is, we typically take two steps for each Ceroc count.

I would say the underlying tempo is 120bpm (very roughly). I'd also say that's the speed that this couple: YouTube - Ceroc Alsager Christmas Party Karen & Ade (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsc6L0q8lEU) are dancing, at least some of the time (have a look at the feet around 0:40-0:50).

If you see it differently (which is entirely possible), can you explain a bit more about what you mean?
OK accepted that what I assumed Andy was talking about was the MJ count and not the musical beat.

But on the feet I do not always take 2 steps for each MJ count - this varies depending on whether I'm stepping with the count, perhaps doing a rock-step or even a triple step. And since most venues spend little time acknowledging that the feet are even there :whistle:I'd suggest that any counting mechanism that focussed on what the feet are doing would confuse everyone, other than at those venues with a more regimented approach to the footwork action.

straycat
10th-July-2008, 05:12 PM
Problem I find is that I listen and think "that feels swingy", but no way could I really say what's going on to make me think that - it's just that someone's told me that when it sounds like that, it's because "the half beats are delayed to the 2nd triplet".

Time to confuse the issue (and abandon the topic completely for a while :whistle:). While I like the the musician's quote ('no such thing as swing music'), I don't really think it should be taken too literally... and Fats' quote, although very funny, is a bit of a cop-out. In a nutshell, the way many use the description 'that swings' is very distinct from music being swing music (or not). Whenever anyone's said 'that music swings' in my hearing, what they've meant is "that music's good" (in a dancing context). If they say 'That swings hard' - then it's not just good - it's amazing.

The summary being: not all music that swings is swing music. And not all swing music swings (far too much of it doesn't).
The old-timers (Frankie, Norma Miller et al) maintain that Europe's early 'swing' bands got it wrong, and simply didn't swing - in any sense of the word - and in consequence, were very hard to dance to.

So the track that Kyle and Sarah are dancing to isn't swing, although there are swung elements to it. But (IMO, it does swing.)


In particular, there are two sound snippets of Baby Workout there, one with straight eighths, one with swung eighths. It makes the difference pretty clear.
Now this choice of example intrigues me. Jackie Wilson's version - the one that uses swung eighths, is NOT swing - it's rock'n'roll. While the drummer does use very basic swung eighths, everything else is played & swung very straight, with none of the syncopations one might expect from a swing track. So it's an odd track to use to show the difference the use swung eighths would make.

An example of a track that is swing, and that swings hard.... and that I can link to easily - I suppose this brings me back to Basella (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksbc_8q0Wgc). Be warned - it's ten minutes long. The whole track is magic, but a couple of quick things to listen out for: the way Basie's piano playing dancs around the drums for the first couple of minutes - all that syncopation... and for the real meat of it, look at around 8:14 - listen (for example) to the way the trombone is always coming in the barest fraction before Ella. It's the kind of thing that's happening constantly through a lot of the classic swing tracks. The last 2 1/2 minutes of that track swings HARD.....


Ironically, although Mario Robau seems to want more "proper swing music" to be played, when we won the US Open with Baby Workout, he chose the version with straight eighths. (Unless my hearing is completely off on this one, in which case, sorry Mario!).

Ironcally, while Jackie Wilson's is the one which has a swung beat, to me, the rest of it simply doesn't swing... whereas, despite the efforts of the 'modern' simplified beat, George Benson's singing and brass section absolutely does.

Anyway - that's probably enough rambling. If this all sounds completely insane, incomprehensible, or pretentious (or whatever) - well - you should all be used to me by now :whistle:

straycat
10th-July-2008, 05:17 PM
I will go out on a limb and say its not a panacea, rolling count has a place where music is doing the same...... Am I a Heretic:what: Look at the syncopated rhythmn of R&B(Rap) music it doesnt fit:eek:

May I share your limb? (she lost me completely when she talked about drowning out 'bad' music with the rolling count)

David Franklin
10th-July-2008, 05:46 PM
Time to confuse the issue (and abandon the topic completely for a while :whistle:). While I like the the musician's quote ('no such thing as swing music'), I don't really think it should be taken too literally... and Fats' quote, although very funny, is a bit of a cop-out. In a nutshell, the way many use the description 'that swings' is very distinct from music being swing music (or not). Whenever anyone's said 'that music swings' in my hearing, what they've meant is "that music's good" (in a dancing context). If they say 'That swings hard' - then it's not just good - it's amazing.Interesting. I can't say I've ever heard the term outside of a discussion of timing, really (i.e. "that swings" <=> "that is swing music").


Now this choice of example intrigues me. Jackie Wilson's version - the one that uses swung eighths, is NOT swing - it's rock'n'roll. While the drummer does use very basic swung eighths, everything else is played & swung very straight, with none of the syncopations one might expect from a swing track. So it's an odd track to use to show the difference the use swung eighths would make.I think it makes sense if you're talking about swung eighths, but yes, there are lots of other differences that distract at the same time.


Ironcally, while Jackie Wilson's is the one which has a swung beat, to me, the rest of it simply doesn't swing... whereas, despite the efforts of the 'modern' simplified beat, George Benson's singing and brass section absolutely does.I know what you mean; there's a sense in which the George Benson version has more 'swing aesthetic'. But we do largely dance to the beat...


Anyway - that's probably enough rambling. If this all sounds completely insane, incomprehensible, or pretentious (or whatever) - well - you should all be used to me by now :whistle:No, not at all. Thanks.

DavidB
10th-July-2008, 06:38 PM
So, do you do it?
I would not count 5&6&7&8& to beginners as I don't think they need it, and would be more likely to be confused by it than benefit from it. I wouldn't do it to intermediates either, as most of the class would ignore you. And I wouldn't do it with advanced dancers unless I'd taught them why.


Consider a simple lead to step back [all timings are Ceroc count]

Stepping back is mechanically quite complicated. You don't just fall backwards and catch yourself. Instead you subtly shift your weight and adjust your posture to allow you to drive of the standing foot, and as your weight starts to move backwards you extend your free foot backwards under your centre to receive the weight. There are lots of different muscle groups involved, from the feet all the way up to the core for the movement, and from the core all the way to the fingers for the connection. Fortunately most of this happens naturally, but it does take time. It is not instantaneous.

On the 'Eight' of the previous bar she is probably stationary. She has to be led to start moving in the new direction. This lead will be before the Eight, as it blends into the lead to stop her previous movement. If it is the start of a dance, then getting the connection will happen before the 8, but the lead still starts before the Eight, and continues throughout the Eight. The whole of the Eight is taken up by the lady doing the mechanics of starting to step back.
Between the Eight and the '&' she is in full flight.
On the '&' she is moving backwards. If she is doing the marching footwork, then her other foot will have hit the ground, and will be taking her weight. At this point I am maintaining a connection, but probably not actively leading.
Before the 'One' she is still moving backwards. The lead to stop her moving any further backwards will start.
On the 'One' the lady has stepped back, and her weight is on one of her feet. Now all the mechanics happen in reverse so that she can step forward.Once you understand what your partner is doing* as a result of your lead, you can start varying the timing to suit the music and make things more interesting.

The strange thing is - if you tell people to 'step back on one', most people will do a good enough approximation of all this to get by.

Back to the original question. I would count 5 6 7 8 when not playing music as it gives people an idea of the speed of the walk through. With music I would still try to count 5 6 7 8 so that the next 1 coincides with a 1 in the musical count. It also gets the class to stop chatting and rotate partners a bit quicker.

However as I hardly dance at the moment, let alone teach, I'm not sure my views on teaching are that valid.

David

* The science of human movement is called Kinesiology. Kinesthetics is the ability to feel movement of the limbs. Proprioception is the sense of what your body is doing. Degree courses in dancing usually have modules in these areas, as they can lead to an understanding of what you can do. However that is overkill for me. Far more important is a basic understanding of how my partner's body moves, how it is currently moving, what it can naturally do next, and how my lead can fit in with that. I call it 'Partner Kinesthetics' for want of a better term.

robd
10th-July-2008, 07:30 PM
YouTube - Kyle Redd & Sarah Vann Drake (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nosy-BMU3vM)

I don't think I will ever get tired of seeing that routine :respect::worthy:

From memory, I think the main point Jordan got across on the RC DVD was the need to make your transition between counts smooth {edit: maybe continuous is a better word than smooth} and that RC was a useful way to achieve that. He did, as Lee noted, make the point at the recent Blisworth weekend that RC is not appropriate in all situations (think he used a very staccato RnB track to illustrate) but is a good default.

Personally, when people start talking about music swinging and eights and triplets I am completely lost :sick:

mikeyr
10th-July-2008, 07:39 PM
Consider a simple lead to step back [all timings are Ceroc count] ~snip~


:respect:


May I share your limb? (she lost me completely when she talked about drowning out 'bad' music with the rolling count)

Welcome, :yeah: especially a "bad" RnB tune it will just look plain wrong:whistle:

That said.......[Name Drop Warning] I was in a car with(seriously, Iam not making this up, it just to happens that way:what:) Kyle Redd and the conversation got around to musicality - like it does:really: He says he uses an internal rhythmn (either 1 bar repeat or a 2 bar repeat)thats unique to the song to base his dancing on then, proceeded to use the song playing on the radio at the time to demonstrate what he meant... "Dance to your own music and you'll never be wrong.

A couple of days later in a practice, he demonstrated where it fits in to the whole picture. 8 is the base count, then vocalised rhythmn(not Skippy B's rolling count) he'd created in his head, then added the vocal line on to that making his dance a visual instrument jamming over the track playing. The end results.....theres enough examples on youtube.

This multi layered approach seems common in Pro WCS, layers though, are individual and the weighting of each the is also unique it seems.

I ve always told there is no one right way in dance, when someone tells you it is theyre wrong. Rolling Count like everything has a place, and knowing what, when and where to use it is a good thing:grin:

NZ Monkey
10th-July-2008, 10:16 PM
So, anyone going to summarize what Jordan actually has to say about the '&a' count? From memory from the DVD and one of his workshops, it's a way to split the timing in a triple step so that the dance looks laid-back, but is still on time.

The basic idea is that in a triple, the gap between the last two steps is smaller than the gap between the first two. If you were dancing to music that had had an extra beat plastered right in the middle of the main one, you’d be doing the middle step slightly after it. A good example is YouTube - Jordan Frisbee & Tatiana Mollman in Paris 2oo6 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2CA9PAIMRg). If you watch Jordans footwork (I can never follow Tatianas for some reason…)you’ll notice that while his timing never seems constant or even very consistent, he is somehow never off-beat either.

However, the other point that is often made (in this thread by Robd) is that it also forces the dancer to think about what’s going on through the entire beat. Suddenly rather than just stepping on a beat you’re forced to think about blending your movements through smaller time increments. The end result is that your movement has to become smoother. To be honest, I think if this is your only goal the use of a rolling count is overkill. Cat and Lee managed to get this point across simply by telling us to blend our movements over the entire beat, but this ignores the timing point I mentioned above.

Steven666
10th-July-2008, 11:25 PM
I have no idea what beat you are picking up to think its 340bpm, but pretty much everyone I know (DJs, dancers, etc.) agree it's around 173bpm. Searching on google, I quickly find 10+ links reckoning it's ~173bpm, and I don't see anyone supporting 340bpm.

If you think Candyman is 340bpm, that possibly explains why you think every MJ track has to be half-timed. Not a view shared by the majority, however.

In reality, I don't.

For me...

...a beat is a MJ beat. MJ beats have a distinctive faint beats between them, whether heard or intended.

As for music, I know nothing except what I hear. Bit like most people.

Candyman is c.170bpm. You can dance half time which I have done but that is slow. Or you can speed it up double time, which is difficult for that track, but possible for a short burst.

As for how many beats are in a certain length of music, does it really matter? I'm counting the & as a # so get 8 not 4 or whatever. No explanation if what the e was though. Not exactly riveting bed time reading.

Hmmm.

[/ramblinggrumblepost]

NZ Monkey
11th-July-2008, 12:00 AM
Well - here's (http://skippyblair.blogspot.com/2006/08/music-and-rolling-count-video-1-min-40.html)what Skippy has to say about it, if that helps.I'll probably burned at the stake for being a heretic for saying this - but I hate Skippy's articles!

It takes her forever to reach a point, she waffles around and around in circles and constantly uses terms (which I'm sure she's invented) to describe other terms without actually defining the original set in the first place. You need to know what she’s talking about already to translate what she’s written into comprehensible English. To make maters even worse, she’s prone to flowery prose which often leaves the meaning of what she’s just said ambiguous.

She clearly knows what she's talking about and has a stack of achievements to back her case up, but having never seen her teach a whole lesson of any kind I’m left wondering just how clear an instructor she really is. Given her status I’m assuming she’s much better in person, but I’m not convinced from that clip either.

David Franklin
11th-July-2008, 12:53 AM
Candyman is c.170bpm. You can dance half time which I have done but that is slow. Or you can speed it up double time, which is difficult for that track, but possible for a short burst.So where does dancing at normal time fit in to your scheme of things? :confused:

David Bailey
11th-July-2008, 08:18 AM
Stepping back is mechanically quite complicated.
Indeed :)


You don't just fall backwards and catch yourself. Instead you subtly shift your weight and adjust your posture to allow you to drive of the standing foot,
Same in AT.


and as your weight starts to move backwards you extend your free foot backwards under your centre to receive the weight.
Ahh. Interestingly, AT is different at this point, at least as far as I understand it.

Typically in AT you extend your foot back first when you feel the initiating lead, and then you only start to transfer weight backwards once that back foot has connected and stabilised on the floor to receive the weight transfer. This avoids the "transfer weight into the air" problem, where you can be a bit off-balance during the transition; additionally, it means that the leg is always moving back in time for the follower not to get her leg bumped by the leader.

Now, I've noticed that a lot of MJ followers don't move their feet back in that way, they do have this delay and I tend to encounter a knee-bumping thing with MJ followers learning AT. Possibly, this difference in technique explains why this happens.

Food for thought.

straycat
11th-July-2008, 08:20 AM
I know what you mean; there's a sense in which the George Benson version has more 'swing aesthetic'. But we do largely dance to the beat...


Do we? Do you? The beat is a guide, sure, a measure, a fallback, but if you look at that Kyle and Sarah (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2CA9PAIMRg) routine you pointed us at, if I had to pick one thing that makes it so great, it would be how they're dancing to the music, not the beat. They're picking a lot of their footwork and dance rhythms from the drums, sure (but going waaay beyond the beat), but what gives most of the effect is the way they're dancing to the harmonica wherever possible. Not the beat.

Likewise that Dax & Emily (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLgh5ZT2kOs) dance that I linked to earlier - Dax is picking up and dancing to rhythms from every part of the music he possibly can... trumpet from around the 27 second mark, when the piano kicks in at around 38', they start dancing to that, and when these crazy guitar rhythms come in at around 2:25, they just go nuts to it...
It's awesome to watch, as it looks like Dax isn't familiar with the track, but when a new element appears in the music, he takes a second or two to pick up on whatever it is, then starts going to town with it....

If. we. all. just danced. to. the. beat., we might as well scrap the DJs, and get a drum machine. Would save a fortune on music.... :whistle:

OK - so I suppose in reality, most people do. just. stick. to. the. beat. But music is so much more than that.....

Andy McGregor
11th-July-2008, 08:44 AM
We've had plenty of theory on here and we've had plenty of discussion of the count in Tango and WCS. And we've had some very confident statements from a teacher who has never taught advanced classes and has yet to teach anybody to dance from scratch :innocent: But what I'd like to know is what is actually say in the real world to count in the start of the routine during established MJ lessons. And what is the teacher doing as they count in the class?

So, what do they actually say at your local MJ classes to start people dancing the routine or moves during the lessons?

Here is the kind of post I'm expecting to see.

The last time I saw Nigel Anderson teach an intermediate/advanced lesson he used the following 8 count "one-and-two-you-know-what-to-do". The "two" was on the 3 - obviously :confused: While Nigel was counting people in he was shifting his, and his partner's weight from side to side.

Steven666
11th-July-2008, 08:47 AM
So where does dancing at normal time fit in to your scheme of things? :confused:

When I'm knackered. :wink:

Steven666
11th-July-2008, 08:49 AM
real world

You're asking for too much on here. :na:

David Franklin
11th-July-2008, 09:41 AM
[soapbox]Do we? Do you?Yes, I think so.


The beat is a guide, sure, a measure, a fallback, I think it's a bit more than that; to quote Hip-Hip Chin-Chin:


Rhythm. The beat. The driving force that holds our lives together.

Yeah, it's just background structure. But it's pretty darned important background structure.


but if you look at that Kyle and Sarah (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2CA9PAIMRg) routine you pointed us at, if I had to pick one thing that makes it so great, it would be how they're dancing to the music, not the beat. They're picking a lot of their footwork and dance rhythms from the drums, sure (but going waaay beyond the beat), but what gives most of the effect is the way they're dancing to the harmonica wherever possible. Not the beat.Someone would have to do the experiment to see, but I think if you removed the 'movement to the beat', you'd be left with a hugely impoverished routine. Again, it's sort of background, but you'd miss it if it wasn't there. In fact, for this kind of performance, I'd say it's one of the main difference between MJ and WCS or Lindy. There are lots of people who could hit the accents while dancing MJ - the one time I danced to it, I surprised myself by how few I missed. And there are a few who could at least come close to K/S in terms of upper body movement. But without the footwork, it all looks very 'sparse' - it's like someone scrawled a sketch but never put in any of the detail.

For what it's worth, I'd say one of my bigger dance weaknesses is that I tend to concentrate more on the melody and phrasing than the beat - to exaggerate the situation, you could say that as long as I can hit the highlights then I'm happy. And that's probably why I'm so sure that doing that really does weaken a performance (unless you've got a shedload of highlights so no-one notices anything else).

straycat
11th-July-2008, 11:21 AM
Yes, I think so.
...
Someone would have to do the experiment to see, but I think if you removed the 'movement to the beat', you'd be left with a hugely impoverished routine.

Depends how one thinks about it, I suppose. Of course - the beat affects everything, and in the two clips the dancers are a basic pulse with their bodies that corresponds to the basic beat, the very simple 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8.
The music layers on top of that though - with the K&S clip, the drums layer a lot of different rhythms on top (nice load of subtle syncopated touches throughout, with some end-of-phrase drum climaxes and the like.) The bass, vocals, harmonica then play around those rhythms. Most of the dancing is done to these extra drum rhythms, and the rhythms created by the harmonica. All driven by the beat, but they're what bring the song, and the dance, to life.

For the Dax/Emily piece (King Porter Stomp) - the basic driving beat is most clearly heard as that familiar 'chug chug chug chug' sound from the rhythm section. The hi hat is adding loads of swung syncopated extras, and all the other instruments dance around that and round each other, all playing off each other. The dancers dance to and play off that mix.

So the beat drives it all, yes - but they're dancing to much much more than that. Personally, I think that if they just stuck to pure 'movement to the beat' - that's when the routine becomes impoverished. The dance comes to life when they go far far beyond it.


For what it's worth, I'd say one of my bigger dance weaknesses is that I tend to concentrate more on the melody and phrasing than the beat - to exaggerate the situation, you could say that as long as I can hit the highlights then I'm happy.

I can't really comment on this without seeing you dance, which (as far as I know) I haven't ... but that sounds to me like a strength, not a weakness.

Just noticed that in my earlier post, when I meant to link to Kyle & Sarah (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nosy-BMU3vM), I actually linked to Jordan & Tatiana. Oops. :blush:

straycat
11th-July-2008, 11:32 AM
Here is the kind of post I'm expecting to see.

The last time I saw Nigel Anderson teach an intermediate/advanced lesson he used the following 8 count "one-and-two-you-know-what-to-do". The "two" was on the 3 - obviously :confused: While Nigel was counting people in he was shifting his, and his partner's weight from side to side.

Well - tough :na:
What I can recall of recent lessons has been:
Warren Hayes using 1...2...you.know.what.todo
Lots of Lindy teachers (including me) using '5...6..a5.6.7.8

Most MJ teachers that I can remember seeing use either 5...6...5.6.7.8 or just 5.6.7.8

I really don't think it matters what one uses, so long as one is 1) in time with the music, 2) start the dancing at the beginning of a dancers bar (mini phrase), and in an ideal world c) start it at the beginning of a phrase. The key thing is consistency -people like to know what they're doing.

OK that bit's done with now - time to meander safely back off-topic again :whistle:

Lynn
11th-July-2008, 12:39 PM
I really don't think it matters what one uses, so long as one is 1) in time with the music, 2) start the dancing at the beginning of a dancers bar (mini phrase), and in an ideal world c) start it at the beginning of a phrase. The key thing is consistency -people like to know what they're doing.
:yeah: And doesn't count you into a break...

The dancers just need to know when to start so that everyone starts at once.

Gadget
11th-July-2008, 01:05 PM
Typically in AT you extend your foot back first when you feel the initiating lead, and then you only start to transfer weight backwards once that back foot has connected and stabilised on the floor to receive the weight transfer.
~
Now, I've noticed that a lot of MJ followers don't move their feet back in that way, they do have this delay and I tend to encounter a knee-bumping thing with MJ followers learning AT. Possibly, this difference in technique explains why this happens.
Yup. To get a MJ follower to move their feet, normally you have to move their body/core so that they have to move their feet in order to be balanced. From my understanding, in AT the follower tends to move the feet to prepare on the intent*, then transfer on the lead. I think the main reason for the difference is that normally there is no time (or necessity) to convey the intent in MJ in AT you make the time.

(* my terminology: 'intent' is the lead without/before transferring weight. MJ is based on a constant weight transferral principle (ie marching) so their is limited 'balance' time to convey the intent... or that's what I've understood of it anyway.)


...Yeah, it's {the beat} just background structure. But it's pretty darned important background structure.
~
I tend to concentrate more on the melody and phrasing than the beat - to exaggerate the situation, you could say that as long as I can hit the highlights then I'm happy.
And the melody/phrasing are not constructed around the beat? If you dance to them, then by association you are dancing in time and to the beat. You don't specifically have to stomp out every base line to be dancing on beat or in time with the music.

I've been getting into solo dancing again and just can't bring myself to do the 'handbag two-step' - which is the solo equivalent of dancing only to the beat. How many MTV videos have you seen with people dancing like that? None. If we were to dance only to the beat, we would soley dance the in and out and the arm jive... now that makes for an interesting dance! :rolleyes:


I really don't think it matters what one uses, so long as one is 1) in time with the music, 2) start the dancing at the beginning of a dancers bar (mini phrase), and in an ideal world c) start it at the beginning of a phrase. The key thing is consistency -people like to know what they're doing.
Since the moves are a random length and when dancing could end up in any random place in the music, is the highlighted part important?

straycat
11th-July-2008, 01:15 PM
Since the moves are a random length and when dancing could end up in any random place in the music, is the highlighted part important?

Yes :D

Andy McGregor
11th-July-2008, 01:20 PM
Since the moves are a random length and when dancing could end up in any random place in the music, is the highlighted part important?This is probably the most idiotic and totally wrong post that Gadget has ever made - in a massive history of getting it totally wrong. I'm a bit busy today so I'm not going to attempt to explain the many ways in which Gadget has got it wrong. Anybody else fancy a go?

Gus
11th-July-2008, 01:58 PM
Is it just me (OK ... I KNOW it probably is, but I'm just musing) but is all this technical debate just missing the point a little? On a number of threads we have had people pontificating about the exact science of counting, body positioning, alignment and galactic symbolism (....ok, may have made the last one up) .... all in a dance world that is dominated by people who are quite grateful if they pick out the odd beat and manage to finish the dance without damage.

Modern Jive is NOT, nor likely to be, a technical dance. Its there to be enjoyed by the masses. By all means, teachers should learn some technical principles ... but don't we need to focus on getting the basics right first? It like a project I'm working on ... we had a great technical debate about the appropriate use of a sexy bit of technology which would deliver a slightly nicer customer experience ... while a vast area where the process simply didn't work was forgotten. :rolleyes:

How about a 'back to basics' debate ... what can we teach beginners about balance, posture, grip, tension, attitude to moves, basic musical interpretation ... you know, something that all the Gods of Dance who infest the Forum keep on demanding in the common folk who make up the majority of the dancing real world .... just a thought.

Rant over ... or maybe its just the start ......

Steven666
11th-July-2008, 02:00 PM
Is it just me (OK ... I KNOW it probably is, but I'm just musing) but is all this technical debate just missing the point a little? On a number of threads we have had people pontificating about the exact science of counting, body positioning, alignment and galactic symbolism (....ok, may have made the last one up) .... all in a dance world that is dominated by people who are quite grateful if they pick out the odd beat and manage to finish the dance without damage.

Modern Jive is NOT, nor likely to be, a technical dance. Its there to be enjoyed by the masses. By all means, teachers should learn some technical principles ... but don't we need to focus on getting the basics right first? It like a project I'm working on ... we had a great technical debate about the appropriate use of a sexy bit of technology which would deliver a slightly nicer customer experience ... while a vast area where the process simply didn't work was forgotten. :rolleyes:

How about a 'back to basics' debate ... what can we teach beginners about balance, posture, grip, tension, attitude to moves, basic musical interpretation ... you know, something that all the Gods of Dance who infest the Forum keep on demanding in the common folk who make up the majority of the dancing real world .... just a thought.

Rant over ... or maybe its just the start ......

:clap:

Someone with common sense!

Andy McGregor
11th-July-2008, 02:11 PM
Is it just me (OK ... I KNOW it probably is, but I'm just musing) but is all this technical debate just missing the point a little? On a number of threads we have had people pontificating about the exact science of counting, body positioning, alignment and galactic symbolism (....ok, may have made the last one up) .... all in a dance world that is dominated by people who are quite grateful if they pick out the odd beat and manage to finish the dance without damage.

Modern Jive is NOT, nor likely to be, a technical dance. Its there to be enjoyed by the masses. By all means, teachers should learn some technical principles ... but don't we need to focus on getting the basics right first? It like a project I'm working on ... we had a great technical debate about the appropriate use of a sexy bit of technology which would deliver a slightly nicer customer experience ... while a vast area where the process simply didn't work was forgotten. :rolleyes:

How about a 'back to basics' debate ... what can we teach beginners about balance, posture, grip, tension, attitude to moves, basic musical interpretation ... you know, something that all the Gods of Dance who infest the Forum keep on demanding in the common folk who make up the majority of the dancing real world .... just a thought.

Rant over ... or maybe its just the start ......This is completely the wrong place to have this rant.

We're discussing a tiny aspect of dance. And now Gus has chimed in completely off-topic, to say we shouldn't be talking about this, we should be talking about what Gus wants us to talk about.

Gus, this is your forum as much as it's anybody's. You can talk about whatever you like. And the forum can have discussions on any topic it likes, all at the same time. What we don't need is the Offical Wet Blanket trying to stifle discussion :mad:

If you don't like what's being discussed on a particular thread because you think the forum should be discussing something else I suggest you start a thread on the subject that interests you. I suggest that you do not come bursting onto other threads where you have no interest and say that we're wrong to be discussing a particular matter. Those of us who are interested in the subject are posting and debating: all of those who have no interest in the subject are not posting - all except Gus, that is :mad:

Andy McGregor
11th-July-2008, 02:13 PM
:clap:

Someone with common sense!Someone with none :wink:

straycat
11th-July-2008, 02:23 PM
Is it just me (OK ... I KNOW it probably is, but I'm just musing) but is all this technical debate just missing the point a little?

I'm not so much missing the point, as totally ignoring it. In fact - I'm not sure there ever was a point. Andy asked a question, some of us had a stab at answering it, some of us went off at completely irrelevant tangents (like this one) and some of us did both. I'm not sure where this point thing comes into the equation...


..... all in a dance world that is dominated by people who are quite grateful if they pick out the odd beat and manage to finish the dance without damage.

Yes - but we're not talking about Salsa here. Are we? :devil:


Modern Jive is NOT, nor likely to be, a technical dance. Its there to be enjoyed by the masses. By all means, teachers should learn some technical principles ... but don't we need to focus on getting the basics right first?

Well - this clearly can't apply to me, as you have no idea what my 'basics' are like :whistle: - but that aside, is there a forum rule or an MJ law saying one can't get technical if one wants? There's so much to be learned from other dances, and it's FUN to bring that technical stuff into MJ, and discuss it in an MJ context. I think that what most of us are drawing on for this discussion are the various influences that have shaped our dancing over the years / months / weeks / days / whatever. It's relevant to the people in the discussion. Othwerwise, we wouldn't be discussing it, now would we?


How about a 'back to basics' debate ... what can we teach beginners about balance, posture, grip, tension, attitude to moves, basic musical interpretation ...

Good plan! How about you start one? You could even do it without belittling current discussions that other people are actually enjoying ;)

David Bailey
11th-July-2008, 02:31 PM
Is it just me (OK ... I KNOW it probably is, but I'm just musing) but is all this technical debate just missing the point a little?
Yep. It's definitely just you.

We're in a dance discussion forum, in the "Let's talk about dance" section, in the "intermediate corner" subsection. Feel free to start any other threads on other topics in other areas, but this is completely appropiate in my view.

Gus
11th-July-2008, 02:33 PM
Good plan! How about you start one? You could even do it without belittling current discussions that other people are actually enjoying ;)yeah ... wasn't trying to belittle ... have been some very interesting comments ... esp by The Oracle (aka DavidB). My comments were a little tongue in cheek ... the Forum is, and has always, liked to pounce the minutae of dance and feverently discuss, and thats not a bad thing ... been known to add my odd two penneth myself.

OK ... I will take your challenge young sir and try to put together a post worthy of following on form this wonderous debate ... or at least I will at the weekend when I have 5 minutes for (semi-)coherent thought.

David Bailey
11th-July-2008, 02:33 PM
Yup. To get a MJ follower to move their feet, normally you have to move their body/core so that they have to move their feet in order to be balanced. From my understanding, in AT the follower tends to move the feet to prepare on the intent*, then transfer on the lead.
That sounds about right to me.


I think the main reason for the difference is that normally there is no time (or necessity) to convey the intent in MJ in AT you make the time.
In AT, if you don't make the time (or "do it right"), people fall over. In MJ, you can get away with not doing it right. AT isn't necessarily slower than MJ - certainly Milonga isn't - but yes, it's much better to do it right-but-slow than wrong-but-on-time.

Gus
11th-July-2008, 02:38 PM
Gus, this is your forum as much as it's anybody's. You can talk about whatever you like. And the forum can have discussions on any topic it likes, all at the same time. What we don't need is the Offical Wet Blanket trying to stifle discussion :mad:Andy ... build a bridge ... get over it ... its NOT that important. :flower: As in all debates, I have the right to say "I think this debate is steaming poo" (which I didn't BTW) and you have the right to say that I don't have the right to say that ... and so on...

I ventured a view ... not entirely witha straight bat ... but just to challenge a consensus view ... its very much what I do as a day job so its a hard habit to get out of. As said to StrayCat, there has been some good points made ... I was offering a view that there may be better ways of using the great minds of the Forum to the good of lesser mortals ... the fact that you've thrown your dummy out (again ?) is an added bonus :devil::devil:

Andy McGregor
11th-July-2008, 06:52 PM
Andy ... build a bridge ... get over it ... its NOT that important. :flower: As in all debates, I have the right to say "I think this debate is steaming poo" (which I didn't BTW) and you have the right to say that I don't have the right to say that ... and so on...

I ventured a view ... not entirely witha straight bat ... but just to challenge a consensus view ... its very much what I do as a day job so its a hard habit to get out of. As said to StrayCat, there has been some good points made ... I was offering a view that there may be better ways of using the great minds of the Forum to the good of lesser mortals ... the fact that you've thrown your dummy out (again ?) is an added bonus :devil::devil:So now we have a Patronising Official Wet Blanket. It won't be long before it starts to spell something - there is a "W" in there but it seems to be in the wrong place :angry:

Andy McGregor
11th-July-2008, 06:57 PM
... its very much what I do as a day job so its a hard habit to get out of. What I do as a day job could help Gus. I make sure patients get the right drugs :whistle:

straycat
11th-July-2008, 11:55 PM
I was offering a view that there may be better ways of using the great minds of the Forum to the good of lesser mortals ...

:what:
Gus.... Your comment sounds like we have a duty to educate here, and that we're Doing It Wrong. I'm not under any kind of illusion that a) there's anyone else on the forum that I (or any other forumites) should consider a Lesser Mortal, or that b) this is anything but a fun discussion. It isn't for the good of anyone. I'm putting forward a point of view which I hope some people are interested in, and I think most others involved are doing much the same. I think most of us are learning something from it.

That is all.

straycat
12th-July-2008, 12:04 AM
This is probably the most idiotic and totally wrong post that Gadget has ever made - in a massive history of getting it totally wrong. I'm a bit busy today so I'm not going to attempt to explain the many ways in which Gadget has got it wrong. Anybody else fancy a go?

Andy. Play nice. Or the other kids will just stop coming to play with you at all...
I don't think it's an idiotic question - I made an assertion, and Gadget has queried it.

Back to the question (sorry I didn't address it myself earlier)

Since the moves are a random length and when dancing could end up in any random place in the music, is the highlighted part important?

I'll offer one reason.
Most music has a structure, and that structure can become a fundamental part of the way we shape dances. Most people are, to start with, unaware of that structure, or how they make use of it... and lectures on the subject aren't really an option for regular class nights. So how do we start to teach people about the structure, without taking any time out to do so? By reinforcing it in the way we teach people to start dancing. By consistently getting people to start at the beginning of a mini phrase or phrase, you begin to get people used to listening out for those phrases. Without having to add any more time on to the class to teach it.

Gus
12th-July-2008, 12:31 AM
:what:
Gus.... Your comment sounds like we have a duty to educate here, and that we're Doing It Wrong. Urrr ... I was addressing the 'Great Minds' ... that wasn't EVERYONE! And even then I wasn't making it a command .... just a suggestion ... or once more have I errede in my choice of words?

Andy McGregor
12th-July-2008, 01:18 AM
:what:
Gus.... Your comment sounds like we have a duty to educate here, and that we're Doing It Wrong. I'm not under any kind of illusion that a) there's anyone else on the forum that I (or any other forumites) should consider a Lesser Mortal, or that b) this is anything but a fun discussion. It isn't for the good of anyone. I'm putting forward a point of view which I hope some people are interested in, and I think most others involved are doing much the same. I think most of us are learning something from it.

That is all.:yeah:

Andy McGregor
12th-July-2008, 01:24 AM
So how do we start to teach people about the structure, without taking any time out to do so? By reinforcing it in the way we teach people to start dancing. By consistently getting people to start at the beginning of a mini phrase or phrase, you begin to get people used to listening out for those phrases. Without having to add any more time on to the class to teach it.This is absolutely right. We can spend more time on music in workshops. However, a 10 minute sermon about phrasing would result in a very empty "church" the following week.

The importance of getting people to start dancing at the beginning of a mini-phrase is one of the reasons why I started this thread. It may be that Gus thinks we should be discussing more worthy topics - I can't think of many that are more important than your first step.

And, Gadget, the reason that the "random" length of moves is irrelevant is that you know the length of the move and you know the time to then next moment in the music that you'd like to mark in some way by your movement. You can either choose a move that is the correct length to fit the music or you can do what most people do and change the move to fit the music. We are not slaves to the moves and their "random" lengths, we are helpless slaves to the music. It's quite simple, we're leading the dance and we can change the moves - we can not change the music.

straycat
12th-July-2008, 09:33 AM
Urrr ... I was addressing the 'Great Minds'?

So... who, specifically, are these 'Great Minds'? :wink:

Andy McGregor
12th-July-2008, 10:28 AM
So... who, specifically, are these 'Great Minds'? :wink:I lay awake pondering this question. Then I remembered it was Gus who posed the question ...

.. we just need to ask Gus 'who are the "great minds"?'

But, "specifically" I believe the "greatness" of your "mind" has no bearing in this case. Gus is not debating the topic of the thread in any way whatsoever. He wants to debate the application of "great minds" elsewhere. That, too, is a debate that belongs elsewhere - I've looked "elsewhere" and Gus has not started the debate which belongs there.

Jivejunkie
16th-July-2008, 01:10 PM
This 5,6,7,8 isn't just limited to MJ, I've been watching a few rock n roll and lindy videos lately and they all use the 5,6,7,8. Its quite funny when you think of it, I go to see a load of live bands and they still use a count of 4 - A 1 and 2 and 3 and 4 :waycool:

NZ Monkey
16th-July-2008, 09:25 PM
This 5,6,7,8 isn't just limited to MJ, I've been watching a few rock n roll and lindy videos lately and they all use the 5,6,7,8. Its quite funny when you think of it, I go to see a load of live bands and they still use a count of 4 - A 1 and 2 and 3 and 4 :waycool:I think you'll find Andy's point is that MJ teachers are counting 8 beats here, and none of the numbers even line up with the appropriately numbered beat.

I also think you'll find the Rock and Roll and Lindy dancers are only counting four beats and all of them are numbered correctly as the last half of a dancers 8 beat set or mini-phrase.

Musicians are the ones who are probably counting it the most "correctly" from a musical point of view, because they're usually only concerned with the count in each bar of music (four beats if it's in 4/4 time). One hopes they are counting the beats with the appropriate numbers.

Andy McGregor
17th-July-2008, 08:29 AM
I think you'll find Andy's point is that MJ teachers are counting 8 beats here, and none of the numbers even line up with the appropriately numbered beat.
:yeah:

That's exactly what I'm saying. The count I was doing and the count I've observed other do bears no relation to anything numerical in the music and is , to some extent, just a noise to mark each beat: at best it's counting down to starting dancing.

I was also reporting that what I'm doing now is saying what I want dancers to do with their weight when I'm counting them in - this is exactly the same as teachers using descriptive words when demonstrating the move or routine to a count.

I have been asking other members of the forum to report what their local teacher do and to comment on what I'm now doing.

We've been debating this quite nicely - until Gus came along and killed off the thread by saying that we shouldn't be discussing this topic on this thread because there's other matters which he would like to debate. That was about a week ago and Gus has failed to initiate any debate on any other matters - I've been sitting here quietly nursing my pint* and waiting for the promised pearls of wisdom from Gus. So far my drink has gone decidedly flat :angry:

*Actually, I've just been busy as work :innocent:

Gus
17th-July-2008, 11:50 AM
That was about a week ago and Gus has failed to initiate any debate on any other matters - I've been sitting here quietly nursing my pint* and waiting for the promised pearls of wisdom from Gus. So far my drink has gone decidedly flat :angry:

*Actually, I've just been busy as work :innocent:
Andy ... LIFE .... GET ONE. :flower:

Worry not ... actualy got a day or two away from work soon so I will dedicate myslef to scribing a thread, allowing you to actualy drink your flat pint :rolleyes:

straycat
17th-July-2008, 12:23 PM
until Gus came along and killed off the thread


Andy ... LIFE .... GET ONE. :flower:

You know - this sniping is doing neither of you the slightest bit of good in the credibility stakes. Here's a novel suggestion - why doesn't one of you try clawing back a bit of that good old moral high ground by not constantly rising to the bait. You could always rise above it instead.

I'm sure it's good to remember your teens, but I've never understood the need to try to relive them quite so frequently... :what:

Brian Doolan
17th-July-2008, 12:30 PM
I'm sure it's good to remember your teens, but I've never understood the need to try to relive them quite so frequently... :what:

:rofl::rofl: I remember my dad saying "Most people grow up as they get older, some just grow taller" :D

Andy McGregor
17th-July-2008, 12:40 PM
"Most people grow up as they get older, some just grow taller" :DI didn't do one of those two things. I'm 5'7" :wink:

I think the same is true for the, fairly tall, Gus :whistle:

Brian Doolan
17th-July-2008, 12:49 PM
I didn't do one of those two things. I'm 5'7" :wink:

I think the same is true for the, fairly tall, Gus :whistle:

:rofl: That's what I call a seriously good sense of humour, I'm still chuckling :rofl:

Andy McGregor
17th-July-2008, 12:51 PM
You know - this sniping is doing neither of you the slightest bit of good in the credibility stakes. Here's a novel suggestion - why doesn't one of you try clawing back a bit of that good old moral high ground by not constantly rising to the bait. You could always rise above it instead.Gus and I enjoy bickering - we're like an old married couple, even down to the fact that we have not had sex with each other for the last ten years*.

And popcorn eaters quite enjoy the show.

One thing that is absolutely true is that forum traffic increases at time of heated debate and decreases at times of extreme luvviness.

Besides, I'm being very specific in my criticims of Gus and what he's posted. I'm also being fairly persistent in my persuit of a response. Gus, on the other hand, is simply throwing off random and non-specific insults that are usually hurled by pre-pubescent girls :wink:



*We didn't have sex** before that either :devil:

** With each other :innocent:

Gadget
17th-July-2008, 01:08 PM
The importance of getting people to start dancing at the beginning of a mini-phrase is one of the reasons why I started this thread.

How can you be wrong asking a question? Especially one that invokes a comprehensive answer to expands on the original premise?

I'm confused at your outrage to a simple question like that :confused: And I am at a loss to finding all these posts where I am "wrong" on the forum: I seldom post 'facts' - always opinions, thoughts and experiences. Subjective viewpoints... Unlike some who seem to have found enlightenment in binding footwork and the elimination of helpful preparations. :rolleyes:

anyway...

The argument for the teacher starting on a 'mini-phrase' is that it imparts a subliminal message to the students that they should do the same. So that they can begin to identify musical structure. Good argument.
Unfortunately, when dancing socially, any move starting on a mini-phrase is coincidental and immaterial to musicality: it's the end of moves that people use emphasise the music - you don't focus on when you are going to start a move: the start is just a build-up.
So if following the argument through (that it's important to start at on specific timing to try and impart 'musicality') then shouldn't the teacher work out how many counts the move is and start so that the end of the move coincides with a mini-phrase?
{I know of at least one teacher who tries to make all of their moves in an intermediate class eight counts (or sixteen, or twelve at a push) - so that they can start and end with the music.}

As long as you start on an even count, I don't think that it has to be on the eight - try counting 1,2,3,4 to start. Then try counting 1,2 start. And 1,2,3,4,5,6 start. Once you start moving, the phrases and musicality dictate when you emphasise the move. The 'start' of a move is a fake premise set up by the teacher so everyone can learn in unison. The only time you ever see anything similar to it on a dance floor is in a popular track with an obvious break where most folk play musical statues.

If it is so important, then why not make all the beginner moves in multiples of eight counts? The recent trend of eliminating a lot of returns between moves is (imho) making leads more creative, but in doing so you are loosing a lot of the eight count structure that the returns helped maintain. Moves are less likely to finish on the eight; Is the dancing better for it? If so, then would dancing improve equally if the start was varied? Would dancers get even more creative and less tied to 'moves'?


[/quote]We are not slaves to the moves and their "random" lengths, we are helpless slaves to the music. It's quite simple, we're leading the dance and we can change the moves - we can not change the music.[/quote]So we are not "helpless" slaves to the music - we are willing slaves to the music. We have free will to change what we do, including when to start. and end. and what to do in the middle. The music accompanies us like we accompany our partners - it shouldn't dominate and we should be comfortable in it's grasp.

straycat
17th-July-2008, 02:09 PM
The argument for the teacher starting on a 'mini-phrase' is that it imparts a subliminal message to the students that they should do the same. So that they can begin to identify musical structure. Good argument.
Thank you.


Unfortunately, when dancing socially, any move starting on a mini-phrase is coincidental and immaterial to musicality: it's the end of moves that people use emphasise the music - you don't focus on when you are going to start a move: the start is just a build-up.

Completely disagree.
Where / how you start a move is very important in a musicality sense, and can emphasise the musical structure or hits in the music every bit as much as where / how you end it.


So if following the argument through (that it's important to start at on specific timing to try and impart 'musicality') then shouldn't the teacher work out how many counts the move is and start so that the end of the move coincides with a mini-phrase?
I feel it's possible that this statement could cause Andy M to re-assess his last one to you... :whistle:



{I know of at least one teacher who tries to make all of their moves in an intermediate class eight counts (or sixteen, or twelve at a push) - so that they can start and end with the music.}

Which actually does make perfect sense.


As long as you start on an even count, I don't think that it has to be on the eight - try counting 1,2,3,4 to start.

Doesn't have to be anything. But musicality has to start somewhere, and this is a good place, IMO.


The 'start' of a move is a fake premise set up by the teacher so everyone can learn in unison. The only time you ever see anything similar to it on a dance floor is in a popular track with an obvious break where most folk play musical statues.
Well - it is if you don't teach it so it goes with the music. If you do, it becomes a valuable extra part of the lesson. As described earlier. Since part of the point of this thread is that this kind of thing is (alledgedly) generally taught properly, is it any surprise that you don't notice more it on the general dance floor?



So we are not "helpless" slaves to the music - we are willing slaves to the music. We have free will to change what we do, including when to start. and end. and what to do in the middle. The music accompanies us like we accompany our partners - it shouldn't dominate and we should be comfortable in it's grasp.

Well - you cannot be a slave to the music, willing or unwilling, if you don't understand the rules by which it works, the structure it is built on. Unless this is in no way taught, how are people to learn it?

If I hadn't learned it myself, and learned how to achieve that kind of partnership with the music, I doubt I'd still be dancing - I'd have become bored with it. To me, that's a pretty powerful argument for teaching musicality skills, no matter how basic, in whatever ways one can.

straycat
17th-July-2008, 02:12 PM
Gus and I enjoy bickering

Well - you can hardly complain about the hijacking of your thread when you're gleefully participating in that hijacking process, can you? (OK - so you CAN, but you'd look completely and utterly daft doing it :whistle:)

While you're waiting for Gus to start his Enlightened Teaching thread, why don't you start the Andy & Gus Marital Stress thread, and divert it all to there?

Andy McGregor
17th-July-2008, 02:18 PM
Completely disagree.Agreed :clap:

I'd rep you if I could but I need to spread it around.

I'm amazed at Gadget's last post. It shows the depth of Gadget's lack of understanding of how the music works - and I have to confess, my understanding of the structure of music is very shallow. I'm in awe of straycat for attempting to make enough sense of Gadget's post to be able to give rational answers :worthy:

Andy McGregor
17th-July-2008, 02:20 PM
why don't you start the Andy & Gus Marital Stress thread, and divert it all to there?Isn't that the purpose of this thread? Aren't you the nice lady from RELATE? And, finally, does my bum look big in this?

straycat
17th-July-2008, 02:48 PM
Unless this is in no way taught,

This should have read 'IF this is in no way taught'. Oops :blush:

Gus
17th-July-2008, 06:39 PM
Gus and I enjoy bickering NO! ... however, there was a fair challenge to put a post together on some subject (which I've forgotten about :sick:) which I committed to post so I will.

Meanwhile the earth turns and many forumites have made some interesting comments on thread ... probably more so than usual ..... so is there anything to really worry about? .... need to spend some time sifting through them to see if there is anything that could be practically applied.

David Franklin
17th-July-2008, 08:49 PM
Meanwhile the earth turns and many forumites have made some interesting comments on thread ... probably more so than usual ..... so is there anything to really worry about?Do you honestly not realise how disruptive your post has been to this thread?

Up to your post (#69) in this thread, I'd say there were 13 "off-topic" comments out of 68 (obviously somewhat subjective).

After (and including) your post, there were 25 off-topic posts out of 34. Most of which were related to your post.

So, the net effect was we went from about 80% of posts being useful to about 25%.

All due respect, but that isn't really a change for the good...

NZ Monkey
17th-July-2008, 09:54 PM
My better judgment is telling me to just leave Straycat to do the talking, since I’m largely in agreement with him in this thread. My better judgment is, however, a boring person to be around at the best of times so I sent him down the road to buy some more milk while I get posting.
I'm confused at your outrage to a simple question like that :confused: And I am at a loss to finding all these posts where I am "wrong" on the forum: I seldom post 'facts' - always opinions, thoughts and experiences. Subjective viewpoints... Unlike some who seem to have found enlightenment in binding footwork and the elimination of helpful preparations. :rolleyes:Funnily enough though, the rest of your post seems to be quite full of “facts”…. :rolleyes:



The argument for the teacher starting on a 'mini-phrase' is that it imparts a subliminal message to the students that they should do the same. So that they can begin to identify musical structure. Good argument. And one I agree with too. Lets get to the rest of your post then shall we?



Unfortunately, when dancing socially, any move starting on a mini-phrase is coincidental and immaterial to musicality: it's the end of moves that people use emphasise the music - you don't focus on when you are going to start a move: the start is just a build-up. This is phrasing 101 material Gadget. For maximum visual impact (you know….the musicality that other people can actually recognize) you generally want to be either starting entirely fresh at the beginning of a new phrase or landing some sort of big hit there, depending on how the music changes phrase and if it’s marked in some way. Being able to start a new move on the “one” of a new phrase is therefore useful in approximately half of the music you’re likely to be dancing to.

Granted, you’re talking about mini-phrases and not major phrases. To some extent I agree with you, except where the mini-phrase is also the start of a major one. That said, I fail to see how it’s the end of a move that emphasizes the music except in very specific circumstances such as breaks. It is quite possible to emphasize music in the middle of a move as well.



So if following the argument through (that it's important to start at on specific timing to try and impart 'musicality') then shouldn't the teacher work out how many counts the move is and start so that the end of the move coincides with a mini-phrase?
{I know of at least one teacher who tries to make all of their moves in an intermediate class eight counts (or sixteen, or twelve at a push) - so that they can start and end with the music.}If the teacher is willing (and able :devil: ) then that’s a great idea. The best teachers I’ve ever had, have done exactly that (matched to the beginning of the major phrase). My biased opinion is that it had the desired effect.

Again though, you’re specifying the mini-phrase so I will extrapolate further. If you can’t find the “one” in the music on any mini-phrase, it’s highly unlikely you’ll be able to find the phrase changes or hear them coming with sufficient warning.


As long as you start on an even count, I don't think that it has to be on the eight - try counting 1,2,3,4 to start. Then try counting 1,2 start. And 1,2,3,4,5,6 start. Once you start moving, the phrases and musicality dictate when you emphasise the move. The 'start' of a move is a fake premise set up by the teacher so everyone can learn in unison. The only time you ever see anything similar to it on a dance floor is in a popular track with an obvious break where most folk play musical statues.Hang a second! Didn’t you tell us earlier that the end of the move is how you emphasize music? Now you’re telling us that you can do it anywhere in the move, except, apparently, the start of it? :confused:



If it is so important, then why not make all the beginner moves in multiples of eight counts?That is one way of skinning the proverbial cat, but in doing so you’d actually be limiting the ability of the dancer to highlight much of the music effectively. See my earlier point about making phrase changes for the obvious example.


The recent trend of eliminating a lot of returns between moves is (imho) making leads more creative, but in doing so you are loosing a lot of the eight count structure that the returns helped maintain.There’s an 8 count structure in MJ?! Where? I thought you told me in an earlier thread on musicality (I can’t be bothered Harperlinking at the moment) that the moves all take as long as you need them too? Do you only need them to take multiples of 8 or something?

Agente Secreto
17th-July-2008, 10:14 PM
Agreed :clap:

I'd rep you if I could but I need to spread it around.

I'm amazed at Gadget's last post. It shows the depth of Gadget's lack of understanding of how the music works - and I have to confess, my understanding of the structure of music is very shallow. I'm in awe of straycat for attempting to make enough sense of Gadget's post to be able to give rational answers :worthy:
I have to admit that I sometime fail to understand how Gadget views things but it is all completely irrelevant. The fact that Gadget understands music differently from you, Straycat, me or anyone else on the planet makes no difference since as long as he has some kind of understanding he can dance musically. That would easily distinguish him from 90% of the dance robots I see when I travel around all thumping out moves in complete ignorance of the music (and sometimes their partner).

I try not to judge other people's musicality - especially since for me when I'm in the zone and dancing musically it is entirely unconscious and I respond to the music as it happens.

straycat
18th-July-2008, 10:08 AM
I have to admit that I sometime fail to understand how Gadget views things but it is all completely irrelevant.
I disagree.


The fact that Gadget understands music differently from you, Straycat, me or anyone else on the planet makes no difference since as long as he has some kind of understanding he can dance musically.
I agree.


That would easily distinguish him from 90% of the dance robots I see when I travel around all thumping out moves in complete ignorance of the music (and sometimes their partner).
No comment :whistle:


I try not to judge other people's musicality - especially since for me when I'm in the zone and dancing musically it is entirely unconscious and I respond to the music as it happens.

Interesting....
I'm not judging Gadget's dancing, or his musicality. I've never (knowingly) seen him dance, and while his comments on the forum have given me an impression of what his dancing might be like, that impression could be (probably is) completely wrong... and it's irrelevant to this discussion.

Gadget's assertion is that that it is pointless to teach a particular thing (starting at the start of a mini-phrase). My own assertion is that teaching this way does have a lot of benefit. Simple as that.

If you want to take it a step further, Gadget is actually the one who's saying that some of my own musicality suggestions are invalid. Have a re-read of this:




Unfortunately, when dancing socially, any move starting on a mini-phrase is coincidental and immaterial to musicality: it's the end of moves that people use emphasise the music - you don't focus on when you are going to start a move: the start is just a build-up.
Completely disagree.
Where / how you start a move is very important in a musicality sense, and can emphasise the musical structure or hits in the music every bit as much as where / how you end it.
Note the following. I had stated that starting moves on a mini-phrase was important and worth teaching. Gadget effectively said this was rubbish (although slightly more politely), and preferred to emphasise the end of mini-phrases. Notice how I did not contradict him on the phrase end part of it? I simply defended my original point. Personally, I think I've been pretty good about not judging Gadget in this thread.

In other words, I'd say you have your post the wrong way around.

Dreadful Scathe
18th-July-2008, 10:31 AM
Funnily enough though, the rest of your post seems to be quite full of “facts”…. :rolleyes:?

No, "opinion", he's already said that's what it is - why are you calling him a liar?

Of course I'd comment, but it's all too overanalysed for my liking. I can hear music and probably do start moves at the beggining of a phrase or whatever but it doesn't seem natural to try to explain it or have some else explain it. It just is.

straycat
18th-July-2008, 11:17 AM
I can hear music and probably do start moves at the beggining of a phrase or whatever but it doesn't seem natural to try to explain it or have some else explain it. It just is.

Which just goes to show the power of the 'subliminal' musicality teaching techniques, yes? :D

Andy McGregor
18th-July-2008, 11:23 AM
No, "opinion", he's already said that's what it is - why are you calling him a liar?I don't think Gadget is a liar and I don't think anybody is saying that. Gadget is wrong. People are telling him that he is wrong and why he is wrong. Gadget has disagreed with those who say he's wrong.


Of course I'd comment, but it's all too overanalysed for my liking. I can hear music and probably do start moves at the beggining of a phrase or whatever but it doesn't seem natural to try to explain it or have some else explain it. It just is.This thread is entirely about analysis (apart from the contributions from Gus and our answers to Gus :innocent: ). It's analysing what we do to start a routine or a move during the teaching of Modern Jive. The analysis has moved on to the affect that has on the way we dance and use the music during freestyle dancing.

I think that this type of debate is what this forum is here for. If we were at a MJ conference this would be one of the break-out round-table discussions. The agenda would probably say "Are there better ways of Counting In and Alternative Ways of Introducing Musical Phrasing to Students?" - although someone would probably think of something more snappy. That discussion would have a chair or a leader who would keep the discussion on-topic. Gus would be told that his ideas deserve futher discussion and that he should have a word with the organiser to see if he can get something on the agenda for the next conference (he might be asked why he came to this session or even "did you read your agenda to see what this session is about?". I'm not sure what Gadget would be told. Probably something more diplomatic than "you really, really don't understand the question, let alone have an answer that makes any sense" :whistle:

Andy McGregor
18th-July-2008, 02:09 PM
Which just goes to show the power of the 'subliminal' musicality teaching techniques, yes? :DI am guilty of this reliance on "subliminal" teaching - but not as much as some teachers :whistle:

However, there is clear evidence that some students really do want a bit more detail. Here is a precis of a 'phone call I took on Wednesday this week. I've removed some details so it doesn't look like I'm criticising any particular teacher or advertising any of my classes.

Caller - "I hear you have MJ classes in XXXX and that you give a lot of detailed instruction"

Me - "Yes. I don't spend too much time on technique but I do give regular tips and talk about weight changes from foot to foot for both lead and follow" - what was going through my mind at this moment was the thought that a number of people have actually stopped doing my classes saying "you go on too much" :blush: Although my classes are still full.

Caller - "Do you have any classes nearer to YYYY" (YYYY is about 15 miles from XXXX).

Me - "You don't need to come to XXXX, you have MJ classes down the road from you".

Caller - "Yes, we've been to them for a few months. We stopped going a while ago because the teacher gave no instruction about footwork or timing for the men and my husband, coming from years of ballroom dancing, found it really frustrating".

Me - "OK, I suppose it's only half an hour in the car if you take the A27. See you next at XXXX next ZZZZ".

Caller - "Is that quicker than the coast road?"

etc ...

I don't get many calls like this. But I do get some, and we do have quite a few people who travel up to 100 miles on a week night to get the kind of instruction I offer. Without exception, these are people who have been to other classes and found there was a lack of detail in the instruction. On the flipside, there are a few locals who avoid our classes because they think I "go on too much" they say I'm a bit like a school teacher :tears:

To be brutally honest, there's more than a few, there's quite a "coven" of people who don't like the way I teach and manage our classes :tears: This coven really don't like the fact that I'm determined to actually teach some dancing rather than simply hope people pick something up by subliminal communication or some kind of osmosis. They mostly don't like lessons at all and are the kind of people who arrive towards the end of the lesson and make a big deal out of changing into their dance shoes and buffing up the soles of their expensive and flashy dance shoes so those who need the lesson can see what a hotshot they really are. Looking on the bright side, one of those people who stays away is grease. He recently posted here (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/lets-talk-about-dance/16568-should-teachers-take-their-bad-modes-out-dancers.html) - in the circumstances, I'm glad he and his coven all choose to dance elsewhere.

"Bovvered?" "Do I look bovvered?" Not a all. Here is an excerpt from an email I received today from a woman who has been dancing "elsewhere" for the last year and discovered us for the first time last night;


.. last night's dancing was the BEST fun dancing I have ever had!! You clearly attract a friendly, cheerful crowd of dancers - great atmosphere.

Of course, the reason they're so friendly is that I tell them they must be friendly or I'll give them a 10 minute sermon on frame, footwork, timing, tension and posture :whistle:

Dreadful Scathe
21st-July-2008, 12:42 PM
I think that this type of debate is what this forum is here for.

Oh indeed, I meant this thread itself was overanalysed to the point of trivia...by er...certain people known to post waaay too much when a paragraph would do ;) Analysis of musicality etc...in real life i have found very helpful in the past - specifically Nigel, Amir, Jordan and DavidB classes on the subject. But then they are playing music with this analysis in mind - far removed from forum bickering about it, which i find much less useful ;)

straycat
24th-July-2008, 09:08 AM
Of course I'd comment, but it's all too overanalysed for my liking. I can hear music and probably do start moves at the beggining of a phrase or whatever but it doesn't seem natural to try to explain it or have some else explain it. It just is.

For the most part I don't have a problem with this comment - one can go as far (or otherwise) with musical comprehension & interpretation as one feels like.

I'm not sure why you think it doesn't seem 'natural' - when it comes down to it, an enormous amount of musical theory can be boiled down to sheer mathematics - although that's taking it far outside my own comfort zones.

On my own experience though - originally, I danced as you describe - doing what felt right to the music. It was actually one of Nigel's musicality talks, followed by a more in-depth one from Rena a few years later that really helped changed the way I listened to and interpreted music. Now, I still do what feels right... but I'm hearing much much more in the same pieces of music, and able to make use of much more of the subtleties and nuances of it than I ever could before.


Analysis of musicality etc...in real life i have found very helpful in the past - specifically Nigel, Amir, Jordan and DavidB classes on the subject. But then they are playing music with this analysis in mind - far removed from forum bickering about it, which i find much less useful ;)

So.... let me get this straight. None of us on this thread have worthwhile opinions on musicality? Nice. Apart from noting the interesting contradiction here (1 - it's not natural to explain it vs. 2 - it's good if taught by a recognised authority), I think I'll just point out that you don't actually have to read the thread if you really don't want to.

David Franklin
24th-July-2008, 09:33 AM
I'm not sure why you think it doesn't seem 'natural' - when it comes down to it, an enormous amount of musical theory can be boiled down to sheer mathematics - although that's taking it far outside my own comfort zones.Any online references for this? As my mathematics is considerably stronger than my music theory I find myself intrigued, if a little skeptical.


So.... let me get this straight. None of us on this thread have worthwhile opinions on musicality? Nice. Apart from noting the interesting contradiction here (1 - it's not natural to explain it vs. 2 - it's good if taught by a recognised authority), I think I'll just point out that you don't actually have to read the thread if you really don't want to.To be fair, I think the point being made is that there's a big difference between someone talking about this and actually illustrating it in front of you. Especially if they do a "before and after" demonstration.

I find it's very hard to have meaningful discussions about these things over the internet, particularly if you're talking about MJ - because you find nearly all the examples and quotes are from other dances. I think one problem is that if you just do MJ, there's a severe lack of formal vocabulary. Even getting people to agree on what the basic 'count' is tricky.

Andy McGregor
24th-July-2008, 10:46 AM
I think one problem is that if you just do MJ, there's a severe lack of formal vocabulary. Even getting people to agree on what the basic 'count' is tricky.I think that problem is very real. Part of the problem is that MJ is so easy anybody can set up as a teacher. Another problem is that there is no central body that has agreed a formal vocabulary. The nearest we have is the LeRoc Federation and their view is that each teacher needs to be consistent. But only with themselves, not the teacher down the road.

I think the the LeRoc Federation were very wise to take their view. There are so many versions of dance being taught under the name Modern Jive. Most of them, but not all, are recognisably MJ. Even the ones that aren't MJ can be seen as related. If the LeRoc Federation were to say "this is the only vocabulary and this is the only way" they would lose a huge number of members.

On the other hand, each organisation really does need to decide on their vocabulary and way of doing the dance. We need to be consistent for our students. It would be lovely if every dance teacher used the same vocabulary and did the same dance. However, I rather like the fact that each organiser can claim that their "version" of MJ is significantly better than the one taught down the road.

straycat
24th-July-2008, 01:45 PM
Any online references for this? As my mathematics is considerably stronger than my music theory I find myself intrigued, if a little skeptical.

Some basic stuff here (http://members.cox.net/mathmistakes/music.htm).
Bach's use of mathematics in composition was pretty much legend (one of many papers on it (http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:whymrjVRGHQJ:www.ias.ac.in/resonance/Mar1999/pdf/Mar1999p06-15.pdf+mathematics+music+bach&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9&gl=uk&client=firefox-a))
Try Google. There's a wealth of information out there....


To be fair, I think the point being made is that there's a big difference between someone talking about this and actually illustrating it in front of you. Especially if they do a "before and after" demonstration.


etc
All very true... but I still can't see what's wrong with making the effort. Yes - it would be better face to face, but it's rare we get that opportunity.

Put it this way... I really don't mind being disagreed with, or even misunderstood. I just don't like being told that it's pointless to post at all...

David Franklin
24th-July-2008, 02:03 PM
Some basic stuff here (http://members.cox.net/mathmistakes/music.htm).
Bach's use of mathematics in composition was pretty much legend (one of many papers on it (http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:whymrjVRGHQJ:www.ias.ac.in/resonance/Mar1999/pdf/Mar1999p06-15.pdf+mathematics+music+bach&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9&gl=uk&client=firefox-a))
Try Google. There's a wealth of information out there....Thanks for the links, but that's basically all about note frequencies(*), which is fairly trivial. I'd be more interested in a study of "music" rather than the notes that make it up, if you see what I mean. The wiki pages on computer generated music look probably the best bet as a first port of call, but much of the information there is essentially trivial. Most of it seems to be about classical music as well, whereas I guess I was really hoping for something about popular music.


Put it this way... I really don't mind being disagreed with, or even misunderstood. I just don't like being told that it's pointless to post at all...Fair enough. I don't think it was quite meant like that, but I can see it comes across that way.