PDA

View Full Version : What is "swing content" in WCS?



ducasi
4th-August-2008, 05:35 PM
Can I ask a dumb, but sincere question?

What is "swing content"? Would I know it when I see it? Can West Coast Swing be West Coast Swing without "swing content"? What is it if not? "West Coast ____"?

robd
4th-August-2008, 05:49 PM
Can I ask a dumb, but sincere question?

What is "swing content"? Would I know it when I see it? Can West Coast Swing be West Coast Swing without "swing content"? What is it if not? "West Coast ____"?

www.usopenswingdc.com/general_rules_2008.pdf is how one event defines it.

Only you can answer as to whether you would know it if you saw it.

ducasi
4th-August-2008, 09:17 PM
www.usopenswingdc.com/general_rules_2008.pdf is how one event defines it.

Only you can answer as to whether you would know it if you saw it.
That's not especially helpful to me – Modern Jive could pass their definition of Swing, if you're careful about the choice of your "patterns".


“Swing is an American Rhythm Dance that is identified primarily by 6-
beat and 8-beat patterns that incorporate a wide variety of rhythms. 6-
beat patterns include, but are not limited to, passes, underarm turns,
push-breaks, open-to-closed and closed-to-open position patterns. 8-
beat patterns include, but are not limited to, whips, swing-outs, Lindy
circles, and Shag pivots.
Although they are not part of the foundation of the dance as stated above,
2-beat and 4-beat rhythm breaks may be incorporated to phrase the
music, to extend a pattern, and/or to accent breaks.”

Can someone suggest a YouTube video, and point to "Swing content" and "non-Swing content"?

I'm wondering though... If the best couples aren't dancing "Swing", what are they dancing? Is "Pro WCS" becoming a different dance from "regular WCS"?

NZ Monkey
4th-August-2008, 09:40 PM
I'm wondering though... If the best couples aren't dancing "Swing", what are they dancing? Is "Pro WCS" becoming a different dance from "regular WCS"?That's one of the big debates in the WCS world at the moment, and as far as I can tell nobody really seems to be close to getting some sort of consensus.

You may have heard the terms classic WCS and funky WCS which is an attempt at differentiating the dance styles, but I don't think that is a very commonly accepted division either. Certainly it isn't in competition anyway.

This is pure hearsay and speculation but I belevie there is a strong movement toward tightening up the judging with regards to swing content* in the major US competitions. I seem to recall a few fan favourites' routines in the classic or showcase divisions have been losing out over less difficult or entertaining but more "pure" routines in the last year.


*which I'm assuming means moving closer to the roots of the dance in this case

Brian Doolan
4th-August-2008, 09:44 PM
Modern Jive could pass their definition of Swing, if you're careful about the choice of your "patterns".


I'm not sure if it could, as WCS patterns include structured footwork/timing whereas MJ is loose and fragmented footwork with mostly arm moves. I'm quite sure I could dance MJ to an entire music track standing on the spot and incorporating 30/40 Ceroc/Leroc moves.
I've seen Modern Jivers come from Ceroc & Leroc to WCS classes and left after a few lessons, never to be seen at a WCS class again, for various reasons, that sound more like excuses; the best one I've heard is "I can dance Ceroc to WCS music just as well, so I'll not bother with WCS classes" from a man who uses "musicality" 'cause he only does a dozen or so MJ moves, so the ladies tell me :rolleyes:

Minnie M
4th-August-2008, 10:03 PM
What a good debate ...........Mods can you change this to it's own thread please:flower:

Brian Doolan
4th-August-2008, 10:12 PM
I'm not sure if it could, as WCS patterns include structured footwork/timing whereas MJ is loose and fragmented footwork with mostly arm moves. I'm quite sure I could dance MJ to an entire music track standing on the spot and incorporating 30/40 Ceroc/Leroc moves.
I've seen Modern Jivers come from Ceroc & Leroc to WCS classes and left after a few lessons, never to be seen at a WCS class again, for various reasons, that sound more like excuses; the best one I've heard is "I can dance Ceroc to WCS music just as well, so I'll not bother with WCS classes" from a man who uses "musicality" 'cause he only does a dozen or so MJ moves, so the ladies tell me :rolleyes:

This comment was, of course, aimed at social dancers like myself and NOT to any pro's and IS NOT meant in any way to offend. The last bit was tongue in cheek and meant to be humerous.

The above is just in case some silly wee nyaff with a humour by-pass complains to the moderators.

robd
4th-August-2008, 10:24 PM
That's not especially helpful to me – Modern Jive could pass their definition of Swing, if you're careful about the choice of your "patterns".

Whether it is helpful to you or not is irrelevant really. You asked 'what is swing content', I gave you the definition from the judging criteria of the premier swing event in the US - I don't think you'll get a more authoritative answer. Ultimately 'swing content' matters only if you are competing in an event with a category that specifies that a certain percentage of your dance must adhere to their definition of 'swing content'. In social WCS dancing the issue never crosses my mind nor, I imagine, many others.

TA Guy
4th-August-2008, 11:39 PM
As I understand it, that description of swing content can be taken pretty literally. When talking about lack of swing content in WCS they mean lack of 6/8 beat patterns, extending too many patterns, lack of clearly defined anchors etc. Even moving too much away from 'dancing in a slot'.


Things that are not swing content are often referred to as 'tricks', or 'fluff'. Allowed, but the argument is, should be used more sparingly, in some cases, much more sparingly :)

Brian Doolan
4th-August-2008, 11:52 PM
As I understand it, that description of swing content can be taken pretty literally. When talking about lack of swing content in WCS they mean lack of 6/8 beat patterns, extending too many patterns, lack of clearly defined anchors etc. Even moving too much away from 'dancing in a slot'.


Things that are not swing content are often referred to as 'tricks', or 'fluff'. Allowed, but the argument is, should be used more sparingly, in some cases, much more sparingly :)

Well done TA Guy, you've just explained why the winners of the WCS Classic actually won, without taking anything away from the excellence of the other competitors.

Geordieed
5th-August-2008, 08:41 AM
As I understand it, that description of swing content can be taken pretty literally. When talking about lack of swing content in WCS they mean lack of 6/8 beat patterns, extending too many patterns, lack of clearly defined anchors etc. Even moving too much away from 'dancing in a slot'.


Things that are not swing content are often referred to as 'tricks', or 'fluff'. Allowed, but the argument is, should be used more sparingly, in some cases, much more sparingly :)

The tricks and fluff that you mention is a little disreseptful of what you might be seeing. I don't know where you stand on the debate over Swing content. I have spoken to previous Grand National and US Open champions concerning the current debate to get a picture of what is going on to try and understand what is happening. What the outcome is going to be I doubt anyone can say at the moment.

What is apparent though as in anything in life one of the only constants is change. Whether we want it or not change will always occur. Younger generations will always want to take ownership of some piece of the world as is their right. How much of a change that is can be found at the centre of the debate. This includes creatively challenging the parimeters with which we work with. Creativity has to challenge whether we realise it or not to exist. It takes alot of skill and understanding to impliment this. One thing for sure the pros can make the difficult look simple or the so called fluff.

In my belief WCS is a progressive dance unlike Lindy which is a constant and stands as a point of reference. Like anything we must not forget the past and teach the newer generations coming through so that history is not forgotten. In tennis people like Roger Federra understands the importance of this history of the world he lives in and is famous for his respect and traditions of it.

Geordieed
5th-August-2008, 09:06 AM
That's one of the big debates in the WCS world at the moment, and as far as I can tell nobody really seems to be close to getting some sort of consensus.

You may have heard the terms classic WCS and funky WCS which is an attempt at differentiating the dance styles, but I don't think that is a very commonly accepted division either. Certainly it isn't in competition anyway.

This is pure hearsay and speculation but I belevie there is a strong movement toward tightening up the judging with regards to swing content* in the major US competitions. I seem to recall a few fan favourites' routines in the classic or showcase divisions have been losing out over less difficult or entertaining but more "pure" routines in the last year.



I am not sure whether WCS and funky WCS are regarded as categories. Could you expand on this. Are you referring to the two forms of Swing timing that WCS uses. The music will create this and for the majority of the time Standard rhythm is used and Syncopated which is danced to old Swing music is played as a token for the older Swing dancers at a freestyle. I have been in competitions where they play old Swing to help cut down the numbers in the heats. It is also useful to see if dancers know about the difference in timing and can apply it to their patterns.

Commenting about your 'hearsay' even before the debate on Swing content the were debates on placings in competitions. Human nature. The dialogue between judges and competitors has been going on a while in the competitor meetings in America. Again before the debate grew and thinking of it look at any dance form or competition Ceroc, Ballroom you name it competitions by their very nature fuel debate.

ducasi
5th-August-2008, 09:10 AM
I'm not sure if it could, as WCS patterns include structured footwork/timing whereas MJ is loose and fragmented footwork with mostly arm moves. [...]
If you read their definition of "Swing", it doesn't talk about footwork at all, nor does it really go into the timing, beyond talking about 6- and 8-beat patterns. It then gives a few simple example patterns.

All the example WCS patterns have MJ equivalents, and I'm sure they and lots of other MJ moves could be adapted to fit into 6 or 8 beats.

That's why I don't see that definition as especially useful.

I wouldn't go as far as to claim that MJ is WCS, even if the pro WCS dancers are looking for something a bit more "loose".

ducasi
5th-August-2008, 09:15 AM
Whether it is helpful to you or not is irrelevant really. You asked 'what is swing content', I gave you the definition from the judging criteria of the premier swing event in the US - I don't think you'll get a more authoritative answer. Ultimately 'swing content' matters only if you are competing in an event with a category that specifies that a certain percentage of your dance must adhere to their definition of 'swing content'. In social WCS dancing the issue never crosses my mind nor, I imagine, many others.
When I say "useful to me", I don't mean me as a WCS dancer, I mean me as a WCS competition spectator. What I meant by my question is, if I am watching a typical WCS routine, how can I tell how much swing content is being demonstrated?

TA Guy
5th-August-2008, 09:50 AM
The tricks and fluff that you mention is a little disreseptful of what you might be seeing. I don't know where you stand on the debate over Swing content. I have spoken to previous Grand National and US Open champions concerning the current debate to get a picture of what is going on to try and understand what is happening. What the outcome is going to be I doubt anyone can say at the moment.


Nonetheless, these are the terms that are commonly used as far as I know. Happy to be educated if there are other names/terms to use ?

In practise, I personally stand nowhere on this debate. I am far enough away from the point where this would matter that it is currently irrelevent. And I get both points of view anyway :)

In theory, I can see where the traditionalists are coming from. A lot of 'westies' or 'funky WCS' or 'fluffier' or 'progressive' dancers these days look like a cross between WCS, and dare I say it, some kind of idealized MJ (or if you prefer ECS or Jitterbug) with a wavering slot, lack of anchors, vanishing triples etc. I can understand why a lot of dancers would like to get back the emphasize on things that actually make the dance WCS. Too much fluff destroys the framework of the dance and the argument is it stops being WCS and starts being some other dance.

On the other hand, no one can deny the appeal and brilliance of some of these progressive ('fluffier') dancers.

Your right, it is the dance changing. The big question is; is this WCS progressing or a new dance evolving, or just a temporary evolutionary dead-end ?
I haven't a clue :)




In my belief WCS is a progressive dance unlike Lindy which is a constant and stands as a point of reference. Like anything we must not forget the past and teach the newer generations coming through so that history is not forgotten. In tennis people like Roger Federra understands the importance of this history of the world he lives in and is famous for his respect and traditions of it.

Actually, I believe Lindy went thru something very similar a while back. The actual outcome was to incorporate both camps into the dance, but I think essentially the traditional Lindy won. I don't claim to be an expert on this, maybe Stray can enlighten? Was one camp called the groovers ? I can't remember. Doh!

David Franklin
5th-August-2008, 09:58 AM
Of course, there's also this article from Skippy: USA Swing Dance Network (http://www.usaswingnet.com/what_is_swing.htm). I'll highlight 3 bits (italics are material Skippy is quoting herself):


This is the first Definition of "Swing" as approved by the original Swing Dance Council in 1985:
"Swing" is an all-American couples rhythm dance consisting primarily of 6-Beat and 8-Beat patterns that cover either a circular or slotted area on the dance floor. Swing incorporates the use of underarm turns, side passes, push breaks, and whips -- plus "4-Beat" rhythm beaks, syncopations and extensions of the same.So far, basically what was quoted earlier. But then there's this:


In 1994, an amendment was added by the World Swing Dance Council [to clarify what swing is NOT]
If you can identify the dance as something OTHER than Swing, it cannot be considered part of the required percentage of Swing.

I have to say, the mere existance of this amendment leaves me thinking "If you're left defining what swing isn't, particularly in such vague terms, then you don't have a proper definition of what it is."

And then finally:


I personally did a full year of research before coming up with something that 100% of those involved agreed with. The criteria for "Is it Swing?" - even on a social basis - is this:
If a Leader doing one form of Swing can dance with a Follower doing another form of Swing -- with only slight adjustments in style and tempo -- then it is Swing.By that definition, in my experience MJ does count as Swing, at least when both sides are reasonably competent.

[Note: I'm not particularly endorsing these views, and I know there are different definitions. I think one of the clearest definitions I've heard is from Mario, but I can't seem to find it since StrictlyWestie ruined their site to make it more commercial].

straycat
5th-August-2008, 10:02 AM
If you read their definition of "Swing", it doesn't talk about footwork at all, nor does it really go into the timing, beyond talking about 6- and 8-beat patterns. It then gives a few simple example patterns.

All the example WCS patterns have MJ equivalents, and I'm sure they and lots of other MJ moves could be adapted to fit into 6 or 8 beats.

Fully agree. My own views on the 'swing' aspect (or lack thereof) of modern WCS notwithstanding, it's quite possible to dance all those patterns in ways which are manifestly not WCS... so I think the definition leaves a lot to be desired.

Geordieed
5th-August-2008, 10:21 AM
Your right, it is the dance changing. The big question is; is this WCS progressing or a new dance evolving, or just a temporary evolutionary dead-end ?
I haven't a clue :)


No one can call it at the moment. It was interesting but it has been noted by some of the powers that be, has been the influence of YouTube. How much this has contributed to the interest in WCS is significant and helped to spread interest. What people see and are educated by has changed quite alot since YouTube hit the scene...

David Franklin
5th-August-2008, 10:22 AM
This is pure hearsay and speculation but I belevie there is a strong movement toward tightening up the judging with regards to swing content* in the major US competitions.Technically, I guess the following is also hearsay, but it's from the event (co-)director from Boogie By The Bay, where this all somewhat kicked off (with every Classic routine recieving violations from the judges):


What has changed in recent years is that
Classic couples, in order to add "excitement" to their routines, have
pushed the boundaries to the point where many judges now think there
is a serious problem with lack of recognizable swing content in many
Classic routines. As one judge put it, "I'm seeing a lot of great
dancing, but very little I recognize as swing."

Full post viewable here: BoogieByTheBay and Competition Violations - rec.arts.dance | Google Groups (http://groups.google.co.uk/group/rec.arts.dance/msg/40fe5373c47fafb6)

It's perhaps worth commenting that they didn't see the same problems with Showcase; my personal feeling is that Showcase has gone too far the other way and people play it too "safe" there.

straycat
5th-August-2008, 10:33 AM
In my belief WCS is a progressive dance unlike Lindy which is a constant and stands as a point of reference.
[history mode on]
I have to say something here - Lindy has never been a constant, not in its early days, and definitely not now. Even if you look closely at a 'definitive' clip like Hellzapoppin (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTg5V2oA_hY), you'll see huge differences in style and technique between the different couples. Even at that time, everyone was doing it differently - George Snowden (credited with starting it all off) was all about footwork and technique, Whitey's Lindyhoppers were more into insane aerials and flash & dazzle...

Remember - this dance was, initially all about a bunch of people having fun on the dancefloor, messing around, copying each other, trying to outdo each other, innovating, taking bits from other danceforms (eg Charleston) and blending them in... it was never ever anything formal, defined, or even remotely static. There were a thousand and one different dances and dance fads sweeping America at the time, and Lindy is in many ways a mishmash of lots of them.

And it's gone every whichway since - for example, Dean Martin developed 'Hollywood' style, which in turn became WCS - and nowadays, Lindy is still taking a lot from other dance forms - there's a lot of seepage from WCS back into Lindy, for example. Lindy is, and always has been, a very dynamic, constantly changing dance. I know this clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWYZM4Wj7ZI) has been linked to death, but it pretty much illustrates the point - same dance, but a world of difference between it and Hellzapoppin' Lindy.


Like anything we must not forget the past and teach the newer generations coming through so that history is not forgotten.
:yeah: I very much agree here - and this is why it's so wonderful to have groups like the Jiving Lindy Hoppers, who work very hard to show off the dance (and many related dances) as they were danced 60-70 years ago. It's also important not to be restricted by the past.



Actually, I believe Lindy went thru something very similar a while back. The actual outcome was to incorporate both camps into the dance, but I think essentially the traditional Lindy won. I don't claim to be an expert on this, maybe Stray can enlighten?
There's still a multitude of schools of thought, and there are some die-hards in different camps, saying that the dances should be like X. I think that most people really aren't bothered though, and will happily take techniques and styles from anywhere so long as it improves their dancing, and lets them have more fun. Which, to me, is basically the point.

Geordieed
5th-August-2008, 10:52 AM
Sure but Lindy did have something akin to a hibernation period and has been revived more recently. Plus some would say that the influence of the music keeps it from accelerating away from its' roots. Whereas old Swing or syncopated rhthym may well be forgotten by the mainstream if it has not been forgotten already.

You look at the time after Hellzapoppin and what happened in Harlem etc and the dance was formed as a point of reference that is the legacy today. That is not the same for WCS...

clevedonboy
5th-August-2008, 11:02 AM
Dean Martin developed 'Hollywood' style
During his long collaborative period with Jerry Lewis maybe?

I know you know it's Dean Collins but I just had to do it

straycat
5th-August-2008, 11:32 AM
During his long collaborative period with Jerry Lewis maybe?

I know you know it's Dean Collins but I just had to do it

I really should try getting more sleep :blush:

Rhythm King
5th-August-2008, 01:26 PM
[history mode on]
And it's gone every whichway since - for example, Dean Martin developed 'Hollywood' style, which in turn became WCS -

Hic! I think you mean Dean Collins, but you're absolutely right, the Lindy hop purists who try to preserve the older, original form refer to it as "Savoy style", but there are modern and developing style variations, such as smooth and even hip hop.

Minnie M
5th-August-2008, 03:25 PM
- for example, Dean Martin developed 'Hollywood' style

:rofl: I think you mean Dean Collins :wink:

whooops - didn't see RK's post and haven't got the delete option on this post ?

straycat
5th-August-2008, 04:23 PM
Sure but Lindy did have something akin to a hibernation period and has been revived more recently.
True enough, but as long as people have been actively dancing it, the dance has been developing. Same (I imagine) as most dances.


Plus some would say that the influence of the music keeps it from accelerating away from its' roots.
It does (and I hope always will) stay true to the music, sure, but that's hardly a restriction. Swing is a very complex and rich form of music - lots of room for development


Whereas old Swing or syncopated rhthym may well be forgotten by the mainstream if it has not been forgotten already.
I can't really see that happening myself. The truly great swing music, while it still isn't heard a great deal these days, is becoming a lot easier to get hold of, and I think awareness of it is currently growing (slowly but surely)
And if the rhythms are in the music, they'll get into the dancing.



You look at the time after Hellzapoppin and what happened in Harlem etc and the dance was formed as a point of reference that is the legacy today.
Hellzapoppin was just one performance amongst many, at one point in the development of the dance. The dance is currently the sum of all its influences. Just like WCS.

MartinHarper
5th-August-2008, 08:16 PM
I believe this performance in 1999 is meant to have kicked off the groove Lindy trend in the US:
YouTube - Minnie's Moochers ALHC 99 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26_VqCRZebw)


Some would say that the influence of the music keeps it from accelerating away from its roots.

There's a bit more music purism in the Lindy scene than in Modern Jive or West Coast, but a lot of folks will "dance to anything", just the same.

NZ Monkey
5th-August-2008, 09:44 PM
I am not sure whether WCS and funky WCS are regarded as categories. Could you expand on this. Are you referring to the two forms of Swing timing that WCS uses. That's basically the most important differentiation, although I'd guess there are styalistic features considered appropriate in one but not the other as well. Poping would be particularly out of place in a typical classic blues track for instance.

As I said earlier, this isn't a view held by all and isn't officially endorsed in any way. It's more of a "street" distinction than anything else.


I have to say, the mere existance of this amendment leaves me thinking "If you're left defining what swing isn't, particularly in such vague terms, then you don't have a proper definition of what it is."
Agreed. I'll also note though that this isn't unique to swing dancing - MJ does exactly the same thing. Somehow this seems more acceptable in MJ than Swing though.



What has changed in recent years is that
Classic couples, in order to add "excitement" to their routines, have
pushed the boundaries to the point where many judges now think there
is a serious problem with lack of recognizable swing content in many
Classic routines. As one judge put it, "I'm seeing a lot of great
dancing, but very little I recognize as swing."Indeed, this was one of the examples I was thinking of.

Given the pretty loose definition of swing content the competitors have to work with, I'm not sure how fair it is to infract them for lack of swing content if they're not actually breaking any of those defining rules. It's a very fuzzy area, and to honest it's one I'm glad I don't have to think about too much.

I think there's also some overlap here with the debate regarding the form and function of the anchour step. Skippy Blair published an article expressing her views on the matter, which thankfully reinforce my understanding. That said, although her opinion carries a lot of weight in the WCS world, not every heavy hitter agrees with her so the debate isn't over yet. This is IMO, an endorsment of the "newer" or funky style of WCS as seen from the likes of J&T.


ANCHORS in West Coast Swing (Judging)

Skippy Blair©

5-20-05 - Update: 2-07, 4-08


Because of recent Intensives, discussions with judges, contestants, and even potential judges, we have netted new insights into the art of “anchoring.” During a Session in Seattle, someone was concerned about an out-of-state competition where they had recently competed. (Not in Seattle) This particular person had judged one couple very LOW, because of a lack of anchoring. The judge’s statement was: “I never saw an anchor in the whole routine.” Not having observed that competition, I could not state an opinion. Then, someone else asked: “What did you see that convinced you they were not anchoring?” The reply was “I didn’t see any triples on the end of their patterns.”


Several participants discussed that “Triples” were not crucial to create an anchor. A few were definite that triples should be present in the dance, but were certainly not REQUIRED as part of EVERY anchor. They knew their definitions and from later reports, I know that it was a very rewarding discussion. The discussion showed that there were a few people who were unaware that an anchor could be danced without a Triple. It also showed that


MANY were already very much aware, that it was not the Triple itself that defined an anchor.


Educational Note: An anchor is neither a Foot Position nor a Dance Rhythm. An ANCHOR is an ACTION. Many dancers do Triples in 3rd foot position, but still do not achieve the “connection” that qualifies the move as an anchor. An ANCHOR is an “away” connection from one partner’s center (CPB) to the other partner’s center. It can easily be achieved by both partners placing their Center Point of Balance (CPB) BEHIND the heel of their forward foot. This strengthens the partner connection at the point where the anchor takes place. This also alerts each partner that they have completed what they intended and are now ready to move on. TEACHING someone to do an “ANCHOR Triple, in 3rd foot position” is a good basic teaching technique in the beginning stages. The very next stage is to make them aware that their center (CPB) should be behind the heel of the forward foot.

An Anchor Connection can be done using various rhythms: A “Point Back -Close in 3rd” makes a very good anchor. A follower can also step back on the Right foot on “4” and drag the Left foot back through “&a 5&a” and close the Left foot behind the Right foot on “6.” The whole point is that an ANCHOR is an ACTION and not a specific Rhythm, nor a specific Foot Position. A recent discovery noted the fact that many dancers who “anchor in 3rd foot position,” actually stay centered over their FORWARD foot. The feet APPEAR to be in the right place - but the partners LACK the connection of the CPB of both partners, that the anchor was designed to deliver. ANCHOR (or ANCHOR UNIT) - (1) An Anchor is NOT a foot position and not a Rhythm. It is a partner connection in West Coast Swing, achieved when both partners place their CPB (Center Point of Balance) behind the heel of the forward foot. (2) An Anchor is danced on the last two beats (last Unit) of each basic, fundamental Step Pattern in West Coast Swing. (3) A feeling of body leverage that balances the resistance of both partners. (4) Each partner is responsible for establishing their own individual anchor.

Historical Note:


The term “ANCHOR” was coined by GSDTA in the early 1960s to clarify the difference between the “resistance” desired at the end of a West Coast Swing Pattern, and the lack of resistance caused by the 1961 version of a “Coaster” Step. This is one of the major milestones that changed the face of West Coast Swing.