Knowing your partners foot/weight/placing...

[Moo]

Hi all,

New to these forums to please take it easy! Feeling brave today to ask a question.

I'm wondering if everyone knows what foot their partner (thinking more from a lead perspective) and weight is on at any given time.

I've been trying to learn some moves with steps in them. First move with steps seems fine for example, as typically both will be at a stage with outside feet back, which you can then move from with a certain amount of confidence.

However, a few other moves I've been trying, with maybe steps leading from a sway or basket as an example, I find I can do a reasonable amount of the time with no problem, but often I have to actually look down to figure what my partner (follower) is doing for sure. As although typically the move would have standard footwork, it doesn't seem to always be the case (maybe I'm not leading a move back enough for example so its ambiguous where a weight change is? Just guessing here, as it happens so fast I can't seem to be sure).

So are there any tips for this type of thing? Do most people instinctively know where their partners feet/weight is and its just something with experience, or is it generally from certain moves so you are fairly sure of that then lead into another ?

I fully realise I'm likely doing something else wrong to not even know in the first place, but any advice greatly appreciated.

[robd]

Welcome to the forum Moo, good topic.

Quick reply as am on ipod and not easy to type!

Ceroc has little in the way of standard footwork so it can be hard to lead based on expectation of certain weighted foot at a specific count.

Also, some followers will do the footwork they think they need to do rather than following a lead or just following their natural momentum. I find this happening frequently on a first move when I wish to lead the follow to step straight out and instead they do a hoppity skip because they expect to turn back in to face me a la the way the first move is taught in Ceroc classes.

[jivecat]

So are there any tips for this type of thing? Do most people instinctively know where their partners feet/weight is and its just something with experience, or is it generally from certain moves so you are fairly sure of that then lead into another ?
Hmm. Have you considered taking up Argentine tango at all?:hug:



I fully realise I'm likely doing something else wrong to not even know in the first place, but any advice greatly appreciated.

You're doing something extremely right to be even asking the question at all, at your stage in MJ. Most MJ beginner leads don't even think about it, but luckily the follower can normally compensate for the leader by managing where her weight is herself and doing a quick shift if she is led somewhere opposite to where her weight is. You're right in thinking that the weight has to be in the correct position to smoothly link moves together and I'm sure lots of other forumites could give you technical advice about this.

I don't think knowledge of where the weight is is instinctive- in MJ it's probably quite an advanced skill, although it's rule #1 in tango, and has to be mastered before a leader can progress any further.

[philsmove]

Welcome Moo


Hmm. Have you considered taking up Argentine tango at all?:hug:

.

I suspect, you have already done some Tango


but often I have to actually look down to figure what my partner (follower) is doing for sure. .

Like Tango, this not a good idea and as Jivecat say's, its not that important to start with. After a while you will be able tell what the follower is up to, but I would not worry too much at the moment :cheers:

[straycat]

Excellent question.

Years ago, at a N&N workshop, I remember being told that I needed to be aware at all times of where my partner's weight was, and my (internal) reaction was something along the lines of "I have enough trouble working out what I'm doing, let alone what my partner's up to".

One can muddle along quite happily, I think, in MJ without knowing any such thing - but once one start's down the road of improving one's lead, this is a key issue.

Here's a tip that helped me a great deal. Rather than trying to work out where your partner's weight is, you can lead her to have her weight where you want / need it to be. You talk about being in a sway or basket position - from those positions it's relatively easy to accomplish.

Try this: get your partner into a basket position, and make sure that you are well connected with her (so that she'll move when you move), then transfer your weight from one side to the other. You can use this to bring her with you, and when it works, you'll feel her weight shift. Then you know where her weight is, and you're good to go.

Similar techniques can be applied in most situations.

And the more you practise conciously influencing where your partners' weight goes, the more your general awareness of it will develop.

[NZ Monkey]

Try this: get your partner into a basket position, and make sure that you are well connected with her (so that she'll move when you move), then transfer your weight from one side to the other. You can use this to bring her with you, and when it works, you'll feel her weight shift. Then you know where her weight is, and you're good to go.

Similar techniques can be applied in most situations.Just to further Straycats suggestion - when you are in basket-like positions try to be snugly contacting your partner as much as you can without making it physically uncomfortable or making her hunch her shoulders. You should probably also try not being really creepy while doing this.

Basically, it's a lot easier to control someones weight if you can use your body to do it. If you're just relying on your two hands you'll find it very hard indeed. Impossible even I'd think, without a very good follower.


And the more you practise conciously influencing where your partners' weight goes, the more your general awareness of it will develop.:yeah: Conveniently after a while they learn where to go anyway, and pass the knowledge around in whispering session in the ladies bathroom.

Of course, it's a sign our lead is improving when they go to this much effort to make us look good :D

[straycat]

Just to further Straycats suggestion - when you are in basket-like positions try to be snugly contacting your partner as much as you can without making it physically uncomfortable or making her hunch her shoulders. You should probably also try not being really creepy while doing this.

Basically, it's a lot easier to control someones weight if you can use your body to do it.

:yeah:
Absolutely. One of the main rules of leading that I try to obey whenever I possibly can is 'Move your partner by moving yourself' - and it can be applied in most lead & follow situations.

[Moo]

Thanks for the replies, its giving me some things to think about and work on (what I was after).

Robd, yes I get the "hoppity skip" sometimes as well when trying a first move steps, just wasn't sure how to explain that one, so didn't try. Is there anything obvious I'm likely doing wrong, as some people get it perfect with me, some don't and not entirely sure what the difference is (apart from some likely adapting and expecting it from me). Is this just anticipation, or something I can be clearer with to help prevent that anticipation (other than the tips in the posts afterwards).

I haven't actually done any AT as yet, may be on the list of challenges to start in the New Year. I had done a Workshop with Amir on Jango though, where a move made me very concious of the weight change, which is likely why its on my mind more than in the past.

straycat: "I have enough trouble working out what I'm doing, let alone what my partner's up to".

Yep, this is kind of where I feel I am at the moment, I'm starting to think about it, but always feels like so much going on its hard.

The basket example of shifting weight so my partner does, I'm not sure I fully understand, but I'll see if it makes more sense when trying, guessing it may be one that comes slowly.

[jivecat]

Is there anything obvious I'm likely doing wrong, as some people get it perfect with me, some don't and not entirely sure what the difference is (apart from some likely adapting and expecting it from me). Is this just anticipation, or something I can be clearer with to help prevent that anticipation (other than the tips in the posts afterwards).

Bear in mind that some women may have no idea where their own weight is and are not responsive to efforts to manage it, so don't beat your self up about it, you're obviously doing something right at least some of the time!

[David Bailey]

Bear in mind that some women may have no idea where their own weight is and are not responsive to efforts to manage it, so don't beat your self up about it, you're obviously doing something right at least some of the time!
:yeah:

I'd even go so far as to say that, in Modern Jive, weight transfer is not really that important - at least, not compared to AT. It's good to be aware of the concept, but there's probably more important things for beginners to learn - stepping on the beat, for example.

[Andy McGregor]

Robd, yes I get the "hoppity skip" sometimes as well when trying a first move steps, just wasn't sure how to explain that one, so didn't try. Is there anything obvious I'm likely doing wrong, as some people get it perfect with me, some don't and not entirely sure what the difference is (apart from some likely adapting and expecting it from me). Is this just anticipation, or something I can be clearer with to help prevent that anticipation (other than the tips in the posts afterwards).Most women will step on every beat in MJ. For most of them they step right on beat 1 in the bar.

Some women dance MJ with a skippety, kickeddy footwork. You need to be careful with these women not to turn or even pivot them in the middle of their skip. My advice when dancing with skippers is to adjust your timing to fit their footwork.

One of the things about Modern Jive is that there is some debate about the footwork. I teach at least three lessons a week, have taught at all the non-Ceroc weekenders and have made it to the finals of every MJ competition in the UK - however, I've had one teacher tell me that I can't even teach the first move properly as I get the lady to step back on beat 5 and this teacher steps the lady back on beat 4 :eek: This doesn't make me wrong or the teacher, it just makes us different - although that teacher still thinks I'm "'wrong" :tears: One of the good things about MJ is that it is a loosely defined dance that can accommodate these differences. Unfortunately it can confuse beginners if they attend more than one teacher's classes or dance with ladies who have a different version of the correct footwork.

[robd]

I'd even go so far as to say that, in Modern Jive, weight transfer is not really that important - at least, not compared to AT.

In MJ (and pretty much every partner dance) weight transfer is just as critical as in AT, it's just the extent to which it is dictated by the leader (or within the responsibility of the follower's role) that it differs.

[martingold]

One of the things about Modern Jive is that there is some debate about the footwork. I teach at least three lessons a week, have taught at all the non-Ceroc weekenders and have made it to the finals of every MJ competition in the UK - however, I've had one teacher tell me that I can't even teach the first move properly as I get the lady to step back on beat 5 and this teacher steps the lady back on beat 4 :eek: This doesn't make me wrong or the teacher, it just makes us different - although that teacher still thinks I'm "'wrong" :tears:
I think the problem with this andy is your not teaching the scttl you would get it right if you did :na:

[Andy McGregor]

I think the problem with this andy is your not teaching the scttl you would get it right if you did :na:Do you mean the SCTTL&BSB*? This is beyond me. I think it might work for me if I had longer arms :blush:

My guess is that there is an arm-length measuring component of the audition for becoming a dance teacher with certain dance companies - I don't think I measure up :tears:





*Semi-Circle To The Left and Both Step Back

[geoff332]

Weight transfer is lead and follow. To get the follow to move, you need to get them to transfer their weight. It really is that simple.

The most important thing is knowing about weight is impossible (or very close to impossible) if you have poor connection. If you want to go down this path (and it is a good path to go down), then you need to start by managing the connection. For myself, I figure out very early on whether or not the person I'd dancing with will give me enough connection to know where their weight is most of the time. If they don't, then I typically ignore it and let them worry about it. This produces the hopping and skipping, but I've never been one for pandering to bad habits.

After connection is frame. If both partners look after their frame properly, then the connection will tell you which foot their on. This is a rule in all dancing (it's most curious in latin, where you often isolate the upper body from the hips/legs, but you still get the connection and know which foot their on).

The next step is to control the lead well. One of the reasons I dislike the semicircle and the side to side step (I've opened those cans of worms now) is because they break the tension you need to control weight transfer. If you have the basic ceroc start and both partners maintain tension, then you can press slightly towards the follow's right hip and they should step back on their right foot. Push towards the left hip, and the left foot goes back. This is the most basic lead and follow in MJ - the building block that it starts on.

For all of this stuff, the most obviously place to start is yourself. Do you have a good frame? Do you manage your weight well? Do you maintain good connection? Do you lead well? (If you're a beginner, don't beat yourself up on all this. These are things to start thinking about and they will significantly improve your dancing, but give yourself time to learn and enjoy as you're going along).

In practice, certain movements are much much harder if the weight's in the wrong place. And other places where it's really important to get it right before you move. But every move looks (and feels) better if the weight transfer is correct. And there are certain positions where connection is forced (eg the basket). But to do this well, you need to be able to know which foot your partner is on when you've opened out.


Most women will step on every beat in MJ. For most of them they step right on beat 1 in the bar.On or near...
... I get the lady to step back on beat 5 and this teacher steps the lady back on beat 4 ... One of the good things about MJ is that it is a loosely defined dance that can accommodate these differences.I absolutely disagree with that: it very quickly becomes contradictory. If we accept that there are footwork variations, then there needs to be some basis to lead those variations. If there is no way to lead a variation, then it's almost impossible to dance with someone with different understanding of what a move is. In reality, I think the good MJ leads can and do lead their own particular variation on each move - and do so very successfully. The problem I have is that this isn't taught properly.


I'd even go so far as to say that, in Modern Jive, weight transfer is not really that important - at least, not compared to AT.Weight transfer is critical in any form of dance that involves you stepping on more than one foot.


Years ago, at a N&N workshop, I remember being told that I needed to be aware at all times of where my partner's weight was, and my (internal) reaction was something along the lines of "I have enough trouble working out what I'm doing, let alone what my partner's up to".It's very good advice, although not particularly easy. One thing to keep in mind is the weight is often on both feet (and, occasionally, on neither...). This isn't good technique: weights on both feet, then dancing is going to become very ugly very fast (you have to do a double shift of weight every time you want to take a step - move weight off the foot you want to move, then back onto it once you've moved it). A good rule for your own dancing is make sure your weight is always predominantly on one foot or the other.

And the more you practise conciously influencing where your partners' weight goes, the more your general awareness of it will develop.You will find that some people it's fairly easy to know where their weight is. This is most likely because they are doing a bunch of other things right (see above). These are the people you want to practice with; practicing this with someone who has a loose frame or poor connection will make it much harder to learn. Start with someone who does their part well and this will help you improve your technique (and don't be afraid to ask for feedback). As you improve, you can then use the same skills on other people who are less technically proficient.

This post, and the other replys, have got a lot of information in them. As I said earlier, this is not the only path to go down (but I do think it's the best one, if you want to dance well). But give yourself time and space to learn as you go along.

[straycat]

I absolutely disagree with that: it very quickly becomes contradictory. If we accept that there are footwork variations, then there needs to be some basis to lead those variations. If there is no way to lead a variation, then it's almost impossible to dance with someone with different understanding of what a move is.
I think that what Andy was suggesting was that this kind of timing really isn't set in stone anywhere, and that a first move - for example - can really be led with any timing the leader wants, if the leader knows how. Which doesn't seem to be a million miles from what you're saying. So you may not be disagreeing as much as you think ;)


The problem I have is that this isn't taught properly.
Fair point.



It's very good advice, although not particularly easy.
Very good advice... only it wasn't really until I started learning Lindy from Dance Gods that I started learning how to apply it.


One thing to keep in mind is the weight is often on both feet (and, occasionally, on neither...). This isn't good technique: weights on both feet, then dancing is going to become very ugly very fast (you have to do a double shift of weight every time you want to take a step - move weight off the foot you want to move, then back onto it once you've moved it). A good rule for your own dancing is make sure your weight is always predominantly on one foot or the other.
Now here's the funny thing... just about everyone doesexactly what you advise when they walk normally. And yet - put many of those same people in a 'dance' situation, and they start getting their weight wrong in the way you describe - they start, quite simply, having problems with something they normally do completely naturally. Which is probably why I've ended up spending a fair amount of time in dance classes, just 'learning to walk' :doh:


This post, and the other replys, have got a lot of information in them. As I said earlier, this is not the only path to go down (but I do think it's the best one, if you want to dance well). But give yourself time and space to learn as you go along.
:yeah:

[Gadget]

New to these forums to please take it easy! Feeling brave today to ask a question.
Welcome :D


I'm wondering if everyone knows what foot their partner (thinking more from a lead perspective) and weight is on at any given time.
Yes, but only because of what I lead and how I expect the follower's weight to feel through my connection:

In MJ, the basic footwork pattern is R-L-R-L... etc. So if I know they were on one foot on a specific count, then I am almost sure that they will be on the other one on the next count.

I know that if I am mirroring my partner's foot falls, there should be a bit of 'extra' compression and tension on each step. If I am matching them, then I shouldn't feel any change in connection other than through what I lead. (Try leading a basket with one foot and then the other - close your eyes so you can 'feel' your partner's movement.)

The only thing is that several followers (particularly those dabbling in WCS) tend to put in triple step shuffly things that put them on the "wrong" foot :mad: But you get to feel this in the connection and can do your own triple step shuffly thing to match.

Leading specific footwork patterns? I tend not to - give the follower some space to do something and then copy them :D Or do your own thing and don't let it confuse the lead.


Here's a tip that helped me a great deal. Rather than trying to work out where your partner's weight is, you can lead her to have her weight where you want / need it to be.
:yeah: but don't stress about the where/how. It's much cooler if you can use Franck's osmosis technique: Just stand opposite your partner, take their hand loosley and start gently (subtly) transferring your weight from one foot to the other. Your partner will start to match you and sway in time. Now you lead them to step back on whatever foot you want - make sure the timing of the lead is such that you lead your partner's foot to move back when it is not supporting them (kind of hard to step back on the right when your weight is on your right.)

If you want to get even smoother, then don't 'lead' the step back - in the same exercise, maintain the relative position of your hand and take a small step forward. Your partner will step back perfectly timed and in tune with you. Osmosis. :wink:

The same techniques this introduces can be used and developed to lead your partner on whatever foot you want. I recommend finding some of Franck's workshops.


One of the things about Modern Jive is that there is some debate about the footwork. ~ This doesn't make me wrong or the teacher, it just makes us different ~ One of the good things about MJ is that it is a loosely defined dance that can accommodate these differences.
:rofl: ... with most of the debate about footwork coming from Andy's corner. {As much as I agree with the above, I have to laugh at it coming from Andy's mouth ROFL}

[Dreadful Scathe]

On or near...I absolutely disagree with that: it very quickly becomes contradictory.

What does? You can teach stepping back on any beat you like, its simply a variation. I'd put some dramatic pauses in there and lead back on beat 12 :)




Weight transfer is critical in any form of dance that involves you stepping on more than one foot.


DB is suggesting it is not that important to MJ and certainly not compared to a dance like AT. I completely agree. Everyone can step on more than one foot reasonably well, otherwise they wouldnt be able to walk anywhere :rolleyes: and MJ doesnt require any extra skills in balance in order to "dance". I'd say your comment here is just plain pedantic and could be changed to "Weight transfer is critical in any form of movement that involves you stepping on more than one foot."



This post, and the other replys, have got a lot of information in them. As I said earlier, this is not the only path to go down (but I do think it's the best one, if you want to dance well).

"dance well" is entirely subjective and not necessarily the goal of everyone who has danced MJ.

[Andy McGregor]

I think that what Andy was suggesting was that this kind of timing really isn't set in stone anywhere, and that a first move - for example - can really be led with any timing the leader wants, if the leader knows how. Which doesn't seem to be a million miles from what you're saying. So you may not be disagreeing as much as you think ;):yeah:

Thank you. I was ONLY talking about the move we all call the "first move". Of course you would disagree with my advice if I was talking about any other move. That's because the timing I recommend for different moves is specifically for those moves. It's like the answers to different questions - they are only correct for one question. The are not a universal answer.

The way I teach the first move is always the same. I do not vary at all. To vary the way I teach a particular move but keep the name identical would really confuse people.

Even if you disagreed, it would only be about the name of the move. We'd be giving different moves the same name. Both moves could be correct and follow the wishy-washy rules of MJ - but we might "absolutely disagree" about how a move is done simply because we have two moves which are different or variations on a theme but both called the same name. That is a disagreement about nomenculature, not dance or the way it is done.

[Andy McGregor]

:rofl: ... with most of the debate about footwork coming from Andy's corner. {As much as I agree with the above, I have to laugh at it coming from Andy's mouth ROFL}I didn't say I like there being a loose definition of MJ footwork. However, it's the way I've observed it being taught - and I don't like it one bit.

My own opinion is that we should be able to clearly define the footwork in MJ. I can in the version I teach. Others say "it doesn't matter which foot" - and then dance in a way that fits the footwork as I define it.

[straycat]

DB is suggesting it is not that important to MJ and certainly not compared to a dance like AT. I completely agree. Everyone can step on more than one foot reasonably well, otherwise they wouldnt be able to walk anywhere :rolleyes: and MJ doesnt require any extra skills in balance in order to "dance". I'd say your comment here is just plain pedantic and could be changed to "Weight transfer is critical in any form of movement that involves you stepping on more than one foot."
Well - the pedantic form of the comment is still correct, whether one is aware of it or not. Weight transfer is critical to walking, running, dancing... you name it. The question, to my mind, isn't "is it important?", but "are you the slightest bit bothered about it?" A lot of MJ people aren't, and there's no problem with that. (kind of) - but odds-on that anyone reading this thread has at least a passing interest.


"dance well" is entirely subjective and not necessarily the goal of everyone who has danced MJ.

Very true, but given the nature of Moo's original question, I'm thinking that it's likely to be one of his goals. So let's explore it, say I :grin:

[David Bailey]

Weight transfer is critical in any form of dance that involves you stepping on more than one foot.
Well, not really. At least, not from the leader's point of view - which was the original post.

Take salsa - your weight transfer is driven by the music, not by the lead. If you're dancing to the rhythm, then you'll be on the right foot at the right time. The lead doesn't have to worry about weight transfer - and doesn't have to lead it. It just happens as part of the dance.

I'd apply a similar argument to "Classic" Modern Jive (when danced to pop music). Also, to Merengue, Bachata and Milonga. Weight transfer on the beat is pretty much an integral assumption of these dances, so leaders don't really have to lead it continuously.

However, in Tango, you have to know where the weight is at all times - it's vital and integral to leading the dance. You can't lead in AT without knowing where your partner's weight is, at all times.

Hence, I'm sticking with my comment, but I'll refine it: "it's not so important for beginner leaders to learn".

[straycat]

Hence, I'm sticking with my comment, but I'll refine it: "it's not so important for beginner leaders to learn".

Well - I agree - no it isn't, and I don't think anyone is really saying it is. What (I think) we are saying is that it's very important for anyone who is keen to improve their dancing.

[David Bailey]

Well - I agree - no it isn't, and I don't think anyone is really saying it is.

The impression one might get from reading this thread is that it's a vital skill - whereas the whole point of this thread is about leading, not about the mechanics of stepping from one foot to the other.


What (I think) we are saying is that it's very important for anyone who is keen to improve their dancing.
Past a certain point, yes - but it depends on the dance.

Frankly, leading weight transfer is bugger-all use in merengue or salsa, at any level.

It's useful in Milonga, but mainly to help to change tempo or get out of a mess.

But it's vital from the start in AT - it's a prerequisite.

In MJ, it depends.

[straycat]

The impression one might get from reading this thread is that it's a vital skill - whereas the whole point of this thread is about leading, not about the mechanics of stepping from one foot to the other.
In my view, the two are inextricably linked... and it was a major part of the original question.



Past a certain point, yes - but it depends on the dance.

Frankly, leading weight transfer is bugger-all use in merengue or salsa, at any level.

It's useful in Milonga, but mainly to help to change tempo or get out of a mess.

But it's vital from the start in AT - it's a prerequisite.

In MJ, it depends.
OK - I need to use one of my partner's analogies for this.
If I need to speak French to some people, and I know no French whatsoever, I have options. I could get a French phrasebook. This is fine to a degree - assuming it's a good one and well-tailored to my needs, used correctly it'll let me communicate via certain set phrases, and may well serve to communicate what's essential to me. It won't let me have a conversation though. For that, I need to start learning the underlying grammar and vocabulary.

MJ is mostly taught after the manner of a very good phrasebook (as is, for that matter, Salsa). This is one of the key things that makes MJ so accessible to so many people. If one wants to take it beyond a certain point though, one needs the grammar and vocabulary, which is where concepts like weight transfer and connection come in.

Note on weight transfer. We've branched out a bit in this conversation from it just being something to be aware of / lead in your partner. Before leading it, you need to be in control of your own weight placement / transfer - and Tango has surely taught you, that's a whole topic for discussion in itself. Then you need to learn to communicate it. And this, bear in mind, is merely the beginning.

Notes on Salsa - I really don't agree that it's 'bugger all use' - yes, if you're dancing 'phrasebook' Salsa, but the really good social salsa dancers I've watched constantly vary their footwork (including the footwork timing) constantly, lead footwork variations - they dance to the music, in the same way that the good MJ dancers do, in the same way that AT dancers do. Can't speak for merengue, as I don't dance it and have never really watched it, but it wouldn't surprise me if the same were true.

[Andy McGregor]

I'd apply a similar argument to "Classic" Modern Jive (when danced to pop music). Also, to Merengue, Bachata and Milonga. Weight transfer on the beat is pretty much an integral assumption of these dances, so leaders don't really have to lead it continuously.

However, in Tango, you have to know where the weight is at all times - it's vital and integral to leading the dance. You can't lead in AT without knowing where your partner's weight is, at all times. This is absolutely correct. Consider the Cha Cha Cha, the skippy bit on the & in between the 4 & 1 isn't led, it's there as a convention of the dance. You couldn't decide to lead it between two other beats, it just wouldn't work. Similarly, the RLRL on the 1234 of MJ is a given in the way I teach it. This is why I believe the lady has to step back right on the 5 in the first move, she's on that foot because it's the convention. This is why I really remembered being told the back-step right is on the 4 in the first move - whichever way the follower steps they should be stepping with the left on the 4 :confused:

[geoff332]

I think that what Andy was suggesting was that this kind of timing really isn't set in stone anywhere, and that a first move - for example - can really be led with any timing the leader wants, if the leader knows how. Which doesn't seem to be a million miles from what you're saying. So you may not be disagreeing as much as you thinkWhat I disagreed with was the two statements together - that's where they fall apart. I agree that MJ is generally less structured and there is 'no one right way' to do a move. But the only way that really works as a genuine partner dance is if you can lead those variations (I avoided saying that, at the risk of being too pedantic...). I'm not suggesting that Andy's idea of a first move is wrong or that he can't teach ceroc. The point was that you need either standardised moves or a clear way of leading variations. If you have neither, things will get messed up very quickly. MJ should really be the latter ... but, as taught, it's often neither.

Very good advice... only it wasn't really until I started learning Lindy from Dance Gods that I started learning how to apply it.I learnt it before I ever did MJ (in ballroom). That's probably why I think it's so important. Given the bits that make up doing this well are the bits that I think most MJ teaching does criminally badly, I think you'll see where it comes from.

MJ tends not to teach lead and follow. One picks up moves, without really learning how to lead them (your phrasebook analogy is a nice way of putting that). But whenever I watch the really good lead dancers (people like Phil, Simon and Nigel), they all seem to know what's going on with their partner's weight and are able to control it with their lead. The same is true of the great dancers in all dances that require lead and follow.

(As an aside, I think dancing of the best dancers is as useful a template of what consitutes MJ done well as any alternative ... for those that aspire to improve the quality of their dancing, I can't think of a better model. For those that don't aspire to such things: what are you reading this thread for??)

One of the big differences here is what is taught vs what makes for good dancing and a good dancer. The ceroc system certainly doesn't teach lead and follow of any sort so it doesn't teach weight transfer. But that's not the same as saying it's less important. Ceroc classes also (very rarely) teach you how to spin, but that's rather important too.

One way to view dancing is to look at the building blocks - the things that constitute the dance. Most dances are taught by using a set of moves to teach you the basic techniques of that dance. In AT, you have the basic 8. All the ballroom dances have a beginners curriculum that everyone learns. Even ceroc has its set of beginner's moves. The question is, what lies underneath that. In AT, they start teaching the essentials of lead and follow right at the start. In ceroc, they don't; an attitude that has carried into most MJ teaching (actually, there's often an active antipathy towards teaching technique, which I think handicaps MJ as a dance). What I'm arguing is that technique, of which weight transfer and lead/follow is a very important component of MJ (as important as any other partner dance). The fact it's not taught and that people can muddle through without thinking about it isn't an argument for saying it's not important.

[ant]

I'd even go so far as to say that, in Modern Jive, weight transfer is not really that important


Originally Posted by geoff332 http://1.2.3.10/bmi/www.cerocscotland.com/forum/images/orange/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/showthread.php?p=522210#post522210)
Weight transfer is critical in any form of dance that involves you stepping on more than one foot.


I feel that what is more important to the leader, especially early on in his development and what sets MJ apart from AT is being aware of the of your partners momentum direction rather weight distribution between the feet and being able to to get the correct moment when it changes direction. As opposed to being actually aware of what weight change is occuring between each foot for weight transfers.

[Dreadful Scathe]

I'm not suggesting that Andy's idea of a first move is wrong or that he can't teach ceroc.

Weird, I'm sure he can't teach ceroc :whistle:

[Simon r]

Just a couple of thoughts

Modern jive does have and can be taught to a very high level of complexity, those coming from a dance background will understand, detail and therefore teach this in there interp of modern jive.

The level this is taught will always be at the level of comprehension of the class.

For the large part of modern jivers they do not wish /want to understand this level of dance as it is a pure social outing. In this case Modern jive organizations do a really good job in keeping the masses within dance.

In our experience we have to take dancers through different levels of comprehension

1. Become a good leader (man)
2. Become a good follower (female)
3. Become good partner dancers (both)

The complexity of a dance can be shown and taught very early Aka ballroom etc...
But this may not inspire the majority to keep going and this is where modern jive does so well.

When level 3 is reached i believe that modern jive holds just as much control and understanding as any other partner dance i have danced

[Mary]

FWIW as a follow there are few things more frustrating than being led off on the wrong foot, which is also up there with being led off again when still in weight change transition and the lady hasn't had chance to fully settle back onto the foot, when, bang, she's being led off again. Although to my mind that is an indication of someone dancing to the metronome in their head rather than to the timing of the music being played. Even so a leader should be able to feel when the lady has completed her weight change. Or am I just being picky? :devil:

M

[Andy McGregor]

Weird, I'm sure he can't teach ceroc :whistle:After a few drinks I can do anything :wink:

[Dreadful Scathe]

After a few drinks I can do anything :wink:
A semi-circle will spill your drink. FACT :)

[martingold]

A semi-circle will spill your drink. FACT :)
just saying the words and andy spills his drink

[geoff332]

Modern jive does have and can be taught to a very high level of complexity, those coming from a dance background will understand, detail and therefore teach this in there interp of modern jive.
...
For the large part of modern jivers they do not wish /want to understand this level of dance as it is a pure social outing. In this case Modern jive organizations do a really good job in keeping the masses within dance.
...
When level 3 is reached i believe that modern jive holds just as much control and understanding as any other partner dance i have dancedOne of the main reasons I do MJ is because I think it's one of the few dances where those statements are all true. For people who want a purely social dance, it's there. But for the people who want to (technically) dance well and progress, it's there as well. I think a lot of people see the social dimension and underestimate how complex MJ really is when danced (and taught) well.


A semi-circle will spill your drink. FACT :)That proves that I am right when I say all evil originates from the semi-circle.


Even so a leader should be able to feel when the lady has completed her weight change.Yes and no. The most common left/right open hold in MJ, I can easily tell when the follow has finished their weight change if they hold a good frame and know how to maintain connection and use tension/compression well. If they don't do this, then it becomes harder - and I'm just not good enough to get it right all the time. In a closed (ie ballroom type) hold, it's a lot easier to know where the weight is, but is still made a lot clearer if the frame is held. So a leader should be able to feel when the weight change is completed, if the follow is also doing their part well.


...am I just being picky?Probably. Embrace the pickiness.

[Astro]

FWIW as a follow there are few things more frustrating than being led off on the wrong foot, which is also up there with being led off again when still in weight change transition and the lady hasn't had chance to fully settle back onto the foot, when, bang, she's being led off again. Although to my mind that is an indication of someone dancing to the metronome in their head rather than to the timing of the music being played. Even so a leader should be able to feel when the lady has completed her weight change. Or am I just being picky? :devil:

M

No you are not being picky Mary.

Apart from everything else mentioned, it is very jarring on the body to be wrong footed.

Then you tend to tense up in expectation of it happening again.

This is the worst thing you can do, as tense muscles are more likely to be damaged.

Catch 22

[Dreadful Scathe]

Even so a leader should be able to feel when the lady has completed her weight change.

But a Gentleman would never comment on it :)

[Andy Razzle]

A lot of valid points, but if you had to memorise a footwork pattern for every move you use it would restrict everything you did and stop improvisation. I personally use what I feel like in the way of footwork but allow space and time to try to read your partners reactions especially if they are not familiar and then adjust lead to cope with this.
Personally I like to use lots of variety to keep things interesting

As with every dance style each person is an individual and brings thier own style to the dance. You do find that same people are poles appart and would take time to adjust to eachothers habits.

For me you dance with them untill you have adapted and therefore improved your lead or they adapt their follow to suit!

Even with argentine tango you find that they dont all agree on how to do things even at the top level. Had a lesson with one of the world champion couples form argentina and they used a very light connection which I personally thought was great (they were fantastic dancers)

[Gadget]

One of the big differences here is what is taught vs what makes for good dancing and a good dancer. The ceroc system certainly doesn't teach lead and follow of any sort so it doesn't teach weight transfer. But that's not the same as saying it's less important. Ceroc classes also (very rarely) teach you how to spin, but that's rather important too.
We've been here before, but since this thread was started by a relatively new dancer I would like to point out a couple of things:

1) The "ceroc system" is more than weekly/nightly classes; these are for social dancing, practising, learning the basic bits of moves, etc. Ceroc (and others) also run workshops which are more intensive, have a smaller attendance and tend to focus on some key technical aspect(s) of your dancing.

2) "Lead and Follow" is taught: without it you couldn't dance socially with everyone. What's not done is the teacher underlining that what you are doing is lead and follow. Almost every piece of advice given in your dancing is to further your lead and follow, even if it's not explicitly stated.

3) The level of importance of any aspect of your dancing is up to the individual concerned. This can be connection, lead, follow, timing, musicality, weight transfer, frame, balance, spinning, ... and a million more. Each has ties to another aspect and improving one will improve others.

4) There is no real "minimum standard" you need to dance, there are thing that will help you communicate better with your partner, help you control your own body, help you listen to the music and express it in your dancing. They are not essential; you can shake your booty without them. But you will probably get even more more enjoyment out of it if you do these things as best you can.




In our experience we have to take dancers through different levels of comprehension

1. Become a good leader (man)
2. Become a good follower (female)
3. Become good partner dancers (both)
:yeah:
My progression was/is similar, with "become a good dancer" overlying the steps. I focused on the lead, then the connection, then floorcraft/positioning, then musicality, then timing, and now I'm looking more at dancing with my partner in a partnership.*

(* I started dancing and my partner was a prop for me to show off. I then became a frame to present my partner in the most complimentary way I could. I'm now trying to step into the frame and dissolve the boundary between me and my partner. :cool: )

[geoff332]

We've been here before, but since this thread was started by a relatively new dancer I would like to point out a couple of things:
You really do bite every time someone suggests that Ceroc is less than perfect. Quite funny, really.

Of course, I maintain that the ceroc system doesn't teach lead and follow at all. This means that most people acquire knowledge of lead and follow through other means - usually through trying things out. I say this because I've tried all facets of the ceroc system and found it significantly lacking. Where I've learnt about lead and follow are from teachers operating outside of the ceroc system. My argument is that these things are so fundamental and should be built into the core of what is ceroc, not optional add ons that the majority of ceroc dancers have nothing to do with. Your counter is, "well, everyone can chose to do what they want". Unfortunately, I could chose to stand in the middle of the dance floor and pretend to be a tree and call it ceroc. According to your definition, that's ceroc ("I'm dancing on the inside"); according to my definition, that's just being silly. So either there are things - standards - that make ceroc ceroc or there are not (and MJ MJ). If there are, what are they? If there are no standards, what, actually, is ceroc/MJ?

So, here's the challenge: define ceroc without any reference to any minimum standards.

[Mary]

MJ)

So, here's the challenge: define ceroc without any reference to any minimum standards.


Ceroc is a franchise and very successful business. :respect:

M
:wink:

[Simon r]

So, here's the challenge: define ceroc without any reference to any minimum standards.

An organization promoting a style of MJ that enables both sexes to socially interact on the dance floor,

[geoff332]

Ceroc is a franchise and very successful business.A lot of things are franchises and successful businesses. Both of those phrases invoke a wide range of standards, that are embedded within other standards. For example, the franchise will be defined by some form of franchise agreement, which is going to be tied into the legal framework (contract law, if nothing else). Business is a wonderfully ambiguous term - but generally, it requires the engagement in commercial activities (which, again, are embeded within other frameworks, most both economic and legal). Success probably connotes things like growth and profitability - but sounds suspiciously like a standard to me. Franchises and businesses operate within standards (you don't want to argue this one with me: I can bore you in detail).

Of course, a definition like this tells us very little about what differentiates ceroc from every other successful franchise business in the world. From that definition, I could logically conclude that every successful franchise business is ceroc. Not a particularly sensible, or useful, conclusion; but perfectly valid according to the definition.


An organization promoting a style of MJ that enables both sexes to socially interact on the dance floor,This one at least it differentiates ceroc from Maid2Clean. And it's pretty close to a definition I'd use. But the reference to 'a style of MJ' implies a few ideas that aren't clear. Firstly, what is 'MJ'? (and this needs to make it clear what makes MJ not WCS, AT or Salsa). Secondly, what makes ceroc a distinct style of MJ? (more on that later...).

My point - before it gets lost - is 'things', like 'ceroc' require definition to have meaning (definition tells you what something is and what it is not). Getting back to a more practical example, I can watch a couple dancing on a dance floor and work out if they're doing MJ, WCS, AT or are just really, really drunk. And I suspect the same is true for most experienced dancers. The fact we can do that suggests there are definitive characteristics, or standards, that make a dance one dance or another. If there were not, how would we be able to tell if someone is doing MJ or not?

Assuming that what MJ is can be established (and I would expect it will require a bunch of standards to create a meaningful definition), we then go back to ceroc: what differentiates ceroc from all other forms of MJ. It could be as little as the fact it is a franchise business and brand name (the way xerox was, for a while, photocopier). Or it could be that ceroc has a unique style that is clear subset of all MJ. My thinking is along the lines of ceroc, at least in the UK, is differentiated from other forms of MJ by the way it standardises the structure and teaching of the classes (and other learning and dancing opportunities), rather than by the style of dancing.

Oh, and I'm bored today. Can you tell?

[David Bailey]

Even with argentine tango you find that they dont all agree on how to do things even at the top level.
Especially with AT :) - but that's mostly* because they're all climbing up the cliff face via different routes - and some routes suit people better than others.

Unfortunately, most AT teachers don't explicitly state this "there is no right way" caveat from the start - possibly most of them aren't even aware of it. Amir's started to emphasize this recently, however.

* Sometimes they're simply genuinely wrong of course.

[Dreadful Scathe]

So, here's the challenge: define ceroc without any reference to any minimum standards.

Ceroc is a franchise business model, designed to promote classes of an ever changing type of Modern Jive (that you can't quite put your finger on), primarily to beginner dancers.

Do I win the teddy? :)

Although really, you can define Ceroc with "a franchise dance teaching company" with the same objectives as any other franchise dance teaching company :)

[Simon r]

Its ok im bored too

So a dance company will always exhibit a style mainly influenced by its primary teacher /trainer.

This can be exhibited in most dance schools and hence when you train teachers nationally through a central training ground it stands that the underlying style first exhibited and taught by its pupils will be from that ethos

Over time individual flair and confidence will dilute the style first exhibited giving a broader teaching standard and regional feel.

[geoff332]

Ceroc is a franchise business model, designed to promote classes of an ever changing type of Modern Jive (that you can't quite put your finger on), primarily to beginner dancers.

Do I win the teddy? :)Not quite. You've referred to MJ as well - which hasn't been defined. And no-one's convinced me that the concept of dance doesn't require some sort of basic standards.

Personally, I'd define dance as some sort of expressive movement. The sort of dancing we're talking about is, at a minimum, rhythmic movement, accompanied by music. As we move towards a useful definition, we start bringing in standards (there has to be movement, it has to be rhythmic, and it should be accompanied by music), which has excluded treeman. But that still fails to explain how I know the difference between MJ and AT.

[Simon r]

Personally, I'd define dance as some sort of expressive movement. The sort of dancing we're talking about is, at a minimum, rhythmic movement, accompanied by music. As we move towards a useful definition, we start bringing in standards (there has to be movement, it has to be rhythmic, and it should be accompanied by music), which has excluded treeman. But that still fails to explain how I know the difference between MJ and AT.

I think you might find this quite a hard detail to find other than style and naming convention, and what we believe one or the other to be.

Like what makes a Rolls Royce or Audi what they are: they both hold the same mechanical attributes,

But it’s the details that makes and sets them apart.

Take American smooth, if it was not labeled or you had no knowledge of what it should look like could you identify it.

Sometimes we can not simplify to this level dance forms are what they are and the feel of each is what either makes us rush to learn or repulse with disgust.

[geoff332]

So a dance company will always exhibit a style mainly influenced by its primary teacher /trainer.

This can be exhibited in most dance schools and hence when you train teachers nationally through a central training ground it stands that the underlying style first exhibited and taught by its pupils will be from that ethos

Over time individual flair and confidence will dilute the style first exhibited giving a broader teaching standard and regional feel.No argument there. Ceroc UK has been strongly influenced by the early teachers. Ceroc in NZ and Australia are quite different from Ceroc UK, which reflects the people who started them in each country. Ceroc UK has evolved quite a bit since I first started; Ceroc NZ, less so. This is most likely a simple numbers game: there just aren't that many people in NZ.

But I still don't see that it suggests there isn't a standard - something that makes ceroc (or MJ) distinct from other forms of dance. Is some basis that we can say, "this is MJ" vs "this is not MJ"? What are the defining characteristics that makes ceroc not salsa, jive or west coast? The argument that got me on this line of thought is that there is no basis for this statement - and that there should not be.

I'm suggesting that there is an implied (and probably quite lose) set of standards that defines MJ, whether people chose to acknowledge them or not. I've also argued that MJ in general, and Ceroc in particular, would benefit greatly from clarifying some basic standards. Others have suggested that this would then damage the social aspect of the dance, which is an argument I really don't understand. When I've questioned it, it seems that the mere suggestions of having any standard would frighten people off.

One further clarification: I'm not suggesting that any 'standard' will be static. The cross-pollination is another thing I enjoy about MJ. Any standards would have to allow for that individual flair to continue to evolve the dance. But all dances evolve over time; so I don't think the idea of it stopping MJ evolving is a particularly serious concern.

[geoff332]

I think you might find this quite a hard detail to find other than style and naming convention, and what we believe one or the other to be.

Like what makes a Rolls Royce or Audi what they are: they both hold the same mechanical attributes,

But it’s the details that makes and sets them apart.

Take American smooth, if it was not labeled or you had no knowledge of what it should look like could you identify it.

Sometimes we can not simplify to this level dance forms are what they are and the feel of each is what either makes us rush to learn or repulse with disgust.The point I'm getting at is there is a way of differentiating them. The details that differentiate them may become critical when you get on the dancefloor: if I'm trying to dance with someone, we need some sort of common vocabulary to communicate with. Are there a set of characteristics that tell us that this is MJ? I suspect there is a list that we each have in our heads (even if we've never articulated it). For each of us, that will be shaped and informed by our experience with MJ and other forms of dance and probably a bit different.

[Andy McGregor]

So, here's the challenge: define ceroc without any reference to any minimum standards.As said earlier, Ceroc is the name of the company. It is not the name of a dance and can, therefore not have a minimum standard of dance.

In terms of the teaching of MJ, I would say, and not in a bad way, that Ceroc actually set the minimum standard of dance and teaching. Because Ceroc are everywhere you need to offer a better product to stand a chance in the market place. Those who fall below this minimum will not compete with Ceroc. The only places where lesser classes can survive is in areas where Ceroc do not have a class.

[ducasi]

We've had many discussions before about "what is MJ?", but I'll try to give a minimum definition here...

"Modern Jive is a lead & follow partner dance, usually danced to 4/4 music – dancers usually step on each beat. Typical elements of the dance include open and closed holds; tension and compression; and free, assisted or connected turns and spins."

How's that? It unlikely to go down in the annals of MJ history as the canonical definition, but it covers the main stuff without being too prescriptive.

[geoff332]

"Modern Jive is a lead & follow partner dance, usually danced to 4/4 music – dancers usually step on each beat. Typical elements of the dance include open and closed holds; tension and compression; and free, assisted or connected turns and spins."I don't expect everyone to agree with any given definition, but that's a good starting point.

What hits me right away is that there are a bunch of things in there that are fairly basic (turns and spins, tension and compression, and holds). To me, these are exactly the sort of standards that I was talking about. These sorts of things are essential to MJ. While other people may disagree on the details (ie the specific list); that's a debate that would be interesting to have. What I object to is the idea that there are absolutely no standards on which the dance is founded.

I ran across my old NZ dance cards. They have a list on what you should know to progress from beginner to intermediate. It includes a list of basic moves, plus:
Timing
Leading/Following
Freestyle ability
Single Spin
Tension (arms/hands)
FloorcraftThat list is pretty similar to the one you offered, which I think suggests it's not far off the mark.

[NZ Monkey]

I ran across my old NZ dance cards. They have a list on what you should know to progress from beginner to intermediate. It includes a list of basic moves, plus:
Timing
Leading/Following
Freestyle ability
Single Spin
Tension (arms/hands)
FloorcraftThatNot only that, but they now run a monthly workshop covering all these points in closer detail for new intermediates and those planning on moving up soon. They’re typically sold out every month. At least, this is the case at the HQ. I expect smaller franchises handle things a little differently.

I’m impressed by what a difference taking literally one minute at the beginning of every class makes to the ability to spin. The intermediate girls typically have little problem with double free spins, and they’re taught how to handle assisted spins in classes virtually each night as well. Even the guys can handle a single spin on one leg well, and a few can handle doubles. Sure, they’re not Jamie, but we’re just talking about regular intermediates on a class night here…..

[Moo]

Just wanted to say thanks to everyone here who has replied and helped. Last night I was more attentive for want of a better description with some of the points (mainly feeling the weight and leading into moves that would be clearer with it), and it seemed to feel better. Step in the right direction anyway I think!

Interesting with the Ceroc discussion when it comes to MJ. I have 2 near me (although not been to one for a wee while) and about 3 other venues. At Ceroc they have never taught me any moves with "steps" and footwork which is want I want to improve on currently. I guess they do at some point and I just haven't been there at the time, but the other venues do seem to teach variations like those a lot more.

It's funny how different things take you, but Ceroc so far I've found a bit cheesy for want of a better description, and it feels like most are on a quest to see how many moves can you pack into a song, rather than how to do them well. That could be as the age group is quite young at one of them and they don't care, they're just having fun which is fine. Regarding the semicircle, I actually do it at Ceroc lessons (as I tend to think they are expecting it), but don't at any other venues.

Fwiw, I'd actually like to see something akin to the consolidation lesson, or a little technique class after the normal intermediate classes where you can go over a few bits (or you could just freestyle if not wanting to).

The lessons I tend to find ok, but a lot of them don't seem to get down to where the real lead and technique is, and as all the partners there are expecting the same move, it seems common to have moves work fine in a lesson, then you go into freestyle only to find it quite hard for the move to actually work, as you aren't leading the move quite right. Feels quite hard to know how to improve (other than workshops) from this point.

The one minute spin before a class sounds a great idea as well.

[Dreadful Scathe]

Not quite. You've referred to MJ as well - which hasn't been defined.

Thats why I suggested Ceroc taught "an ever changing type of Modern Jive (that you can't quite put your finger on)" as part of the definition. The definition of MJ, or lack of one, is not relevant to the definition of Ceroc.



And no-one's convinced me that the concept of dance doesn't require some sort of basic standards.

But what have basic standards of dance got to do with it ? are we not talking about the definition of Ceroc - who could change the style of dance they teach entirely at any time they want.

"Due to the credit crucnh Ceroc Enterprises are moving away from Modern Jive into Morris Dance, traditional olde English prancing nonsense. Free bells for the first class only"

[Gadget]

You really do bite every time someone suggests that Ceroc is less than perfect. Quite funny, really.Not just Ceroc :na: - I bite every time anyone suggests that MJ is a second rate dance with no skills taught or talent involved :wink:

Your argument of standing in the middle of the floor being a tree couldn't be Ceroc because you don't have a partner (or bird perched on your shoulder :wink:).


So, here's the challenge: define ceroc without any reference to any minimum standards.

ceroc: A style of MJ taught by Ceroc the company. This style differs from generic MJ in the following ways:
- A 'static' return is inserted between most moves.
- Each move will normally start with a step back.
- There is a core of 11 'basic' moves that will be used as a base for the majority of the dance.
- Moves will normally involve partners coming together and breaking away from each other either on the same axis or swapping places.
- Weight is transferred from foot to foot on every count.
- This style is taught in a 'beginners class' within every Ceroc venue up and down the country.

(Note that Ceroc teach both ceroc and MJ: the intermediate class is designed to remove the definitions that the beginner's class uses and that form ceroc the dance; ie it teaches MJ. Why have the definition? because it's easier to teach and easier to learn.)

Defining MJ is a bit more tricky: Every other dance style can be defined by three main factors -
1) The music. MJ is danced to every genre of music and you can even find MJ dancers that are not tied to a 4/4 beat. Only by saying it can be danced to any music can you use this as a definition.

2) The timing of footwork. MJ has a basic marching step at it's core, but this is only a loose definition to help find the beat and dance in time with the music. Only by saying that you can use any footwork that is in time with the music can you use this as a definition.

3) The hold/relationship between dancers. MJ can have a close hold, an open hold, can be danced in slots, circles, lines, progressively, static, etc. Only by saying it can encompass any hold or movement on the dance floor can you use this as a definition.

MJ is simply dancing to music with a partner. As soon as you start putting definitions and rules on it, you are making it into another dance. If you can watch a couple dance and say "that's WCS/Salsa/Tango/Funky Chicken" then you are seeing the definitions and rules that the couple have applied to their dance. If you can't see the definition, then they are either doing that dance badly, or it's MJ. This is why you can define ceroc the dance style: there is a set of rules that can be conformed to. Dissolve these rules and you break out into MJ.

If you take away the things that define one dance style as being that style, then what you are left with could be described as MJ. It's almost as if every other dance style is a sub-set of MJ: the core principles behind them all can be applied to MJ.
MJ is just raw dancing without boundaries or rules boxing it into a definition. Easiest dance to learn, hardest dance to master. :worthy:

[Simon r]

hmmmm


Gadget you seem to imply only Ceroc has set rules for MJ and that is what makes Ceroc a different dance from MJ.

Can not agree to this statement as it is simply wrong.

My apologies if that is not what you are trying to imply but please re word your definition.

I think you will find definition is found in many independent jive organizations of moves and footwork
placement, the fact that the level names and ideas differ from one another are simply there interpretation of the dance.

Also do we now count contempory Ballet as Mj as this also fits into the same realm as does break dancing, Snapping, etc....

[Dreadful Scathe]

MJ is just raw dancing without boundaries or rules boxing it into a definition.

er...I think "moving about to music" predates the label Modern Jive :)
(and you forgot the fact that you still need a partner in your "summary definition" at the end there ;) )

[Lory]

I'm wondering if everyone knows what foot their partner (thinking more from a lead perspective) and weight is on at any given time.


I know your talking from a leads perspective but I'd like to add, that as one becomes a more experienced follow, we can start to feel where the lead's weight is and adjust our weight to match, (even if its not really how it should be) which I find helps when dancing with a beginner, to make the dance feel smoother and less disjointed and in turn, gives them more confidence. :)

[Andreas]

I know your talking from a leads perspective but I'd like to add, that as one becomes a more experienced follow, we can start to feel where the lead's weight is and adjust our weight to match, (even if its not really how it should be) which I find helps when dancing with a beginner, to make the dance feel smoother and less disjointed and in turn, gives them more confidence. :)

Nonesense, you just become more predictable and you know it. :whistle::wink::lol:

I haven't quite read all posts of this topic because, as so often, people got themselves entangled in semantics rather than continuing to be helpful. :p Though, the one thing that I find is not only an easy way but - depending on how subtle you do it - also a very good way in many moves where weight distribution is important, hasn't been mentioned. Place your fingers or finger tips at the lady's hip during the move. It will tell you like nothing else where her weight is. Don't do it like Basket ballers but subtle and non-intrusive, please. :innocent:

[geoff332]

Not just Ceroc - I bite every time anyone suggests that MJ is a second rate dance with no skills taught or talent involved
I've never said that of MJ in general. I have said that MJ as taught by ceroc requires a significantly lower level of skills and talent than most other dance forms I have tried. This isn't surprising - ballet dancers start as young children. So do most of the best ballroom dancers. By the time they're the age range that people might start MJ, they might have 10-15 years of dance experience behind them; 10,000 plus hours. Are you seriously suggesting that MJ is harder to master than dances that require that sort of discipline and training?

Individual MJ dancers vary widely in their ability, but the best dancers (the ones who win the competitions) have all learnt their dancing in other styles, then applied it to MJ. Of the people I dance with, without question the most able are people who have learnt dancing in other styles. And they are the most enjoyable to dance with. Most of the very good ceroc dancers have a solid foundation in other dance styles.

A number of MJ teachers and organisations who are making an effort to develop the dance into something significantly more sophisticated - and unique (I don't believe ceroc is on that list, despite having some very talented teachers and dancers). I think this sort of approach is not only good, but essential to allow MJ stand on its own two feet. The challenge is to do it in a way that doesn't rob it of the fun/social aspect.


MJ is just raw dancing without boundaries or rules boxing it into a definition.So we're back to treeman - who could readily claim to be doing raw dancing by standing and pretending to be a tree. You need a partner and music, but nothing else seems to be required. Similarly, someone doing hip hop (with a partner), ballroom, latin, salsa, WCS are all doing MJ. As long as they consider it raw and it's partner dancing, then it's MJ. According to your 'definition', MJ is any form of partner dancing.

Seriously??

In practice, if you went along to a MJ competition of any description and attempted to dance according to your definition, you would get kicked out for not dancing ceroc. If you attempted to dance at a freestyle event according to your definition, you would have a great deal of trouble finding anyone who could dance with you or who would enjoy that experience. Instead, and I suspect you do this as well, we dance a reasonably standard set of moves and have a reasonably standard understanding of lead and follow. Ceroc itself provides a standard set of 16 beginners moves.

[Gadget]

Gadget you seem to imply only Ceroc has set rules for MJ and that is what makes Ceroc a different dance from MJ.My mistake: Basic ceroc as a dance has a set of rules. Other dances have other sets of rules. Other MJ organisations impose there own set of rules (I think - certainly Andy seems to.)

The 'rules' give a common lexicon that allows the lead and follow to start to communicate with each other. Once communication has been opened, the strive is to find the elusive universal language that allows you to understand any partner and communicate effortlessly with them. The language of "partner dancing" is only one language - it's just that there are hundreds of different dialects. {IMHO}


Also do we now count contempory Ballet as Mj as this also fits into the same realm as does break dancing, Snapping, etc....If they are partner based dances, why not incorporate them? If they involve elements of lead and follow, then I can't see them being excluded.

{I need to learn some lead and follow break-dancing - that would be cool :cool: So would contempory ballet :D}

[Lory]

Nonesense, you just become more predictable and you know it. :whistle::wink::lol:

That's me all over! :tears:

[Alan Doyle]

Hi all,

New to these forums to please take it easy! Feeling brave today to ask a question.

I'm wondering if everyone knows what foot their partner (thinking more from a lead perspective) and weight is on at any given time.

I've been trying to learn some moves with steps in them. First move with steps seems fine for example, as typically both will be at a stage with outside feet back, which you can then move from with a certain amount of confidence.

However, a few other moves I've been trying, with maybe steps leading from a sway or basket as an example, I find I can do a reasonable amount of the time with no problem, but often I have to actually look down to figure what my partner (follower) is doing for sure. As although typically the move would have standard footwork, it doesn't seem to always be the case (maybe I'm not leading a move back enough for example so its ambiguous where a weight change is? Just guessing here, as it happens so fast I can't seem to be sure).

So are there any tips for this type of thing? Do most people instinctively know where their partners feet/weight is and its just something with experience, or is it generally from certain moves so you are fairly sure of that then lead into another ?

I fully realise I'm likely doing something else wrong to not even know in the first place, but any advice greatly appreciated.

Hi Moo,

Welcome to the forum :nice:

When dancing , some beats of the music receive a weight change and some don't.

Dance Rhythm is the number of weight changes in two beats of music
(except waltz e.g. single rhythm, double rhythm, triple rhythm).

Rhythm patterns tell your feet when to move, when to change weight. Rhythm patterns alone do not define the dance because they do not tell us what direction to move (it's possible to have 2 or more dances with the same rhythm pattern)

To identify rhythm patterns, simply ask, how many steps have been taken in 2 beats of music.

Single Rhythm is one weight change in two beats of music. You step on the first beat (downbeat), but you do not step on the second beat (upbeat)

We can verbally call single rhythm "Step Touch"

Musical Count 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Verbal call Step Touch Step Touch Step Touch Step Touch
Rhythm Pattern Single Single Single Single

Double Rhythm is two weight changes in two beats of music. You step on the first beat and another step on the second beat.

We can verbally call double rhythm "Step Step"

Musical Count 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Verbal call Step Step Step Step Step Step Step Step
Rhythm Pattern Double Double Double Double

Modern Jive uses these rhythms (also the meringue, one of the latin dances)

Triple Rhythm is three weight changes in two beats of music. So far all steps have been made on a beat of music; triple rhythm in addition to a step on each of two beats (downbeat & upbeat) there's a step between two beats of music labelled &-count (for simple time). The freedom to step between beats on the &-count many new possibilities known as syncopations.

We can verbally call triple rhythm "Step-Three-Times"

Musical Count 1 & 2 3 & 4
Verbal call Step-Three-Times Step-Three-Times
Rhythm Pattern Triple Triple

Musical Count 5 & 6 7 & 8
Verbal call Step-Three-Times Step-Three-Times
Rhythm Pattern Triple Triple

Swing dancing uses these rhythm patterns (e.g. 6-beat rhythm pattern would be double-triple-triple. 8-beat rhythm pattern would be double-triple-double-triple)

Dancing a triple (three steps) takes the same amount of time as dancing a double (two steps), so it requires your feet to move faster.

Triples require more technique than singles and doubles, movement to execute a triple is not a natural walking step

In additional to rhythm pattern & direction, styling and music play a part in defining a dance. There can be many similarities between dances, you can use your experience in one dance to learn another.

[straycat]

It's almost as if every other dance style is a sub-set of MJ: the core principles behind them all can be applied to MJ.

You could only say a dance was a sub-set of MJ if every aspect of that dance & skill required for that dance was encompassed in MJ teaching.

So if your local MJ classes have inspired you to say that all dances are a sub-set of MJ, count me in...

[Dreadful Scathe]

aaargh aaaaarrrggghrhrhrhrhuuuurgle

[NZ Monkey]

Hi Moo,

Welcome to the forum :nice:

When dancing , some beats of the music receive a weight change and some don't.

Dance Rhythm is the number of weight changes in two beats of music
(except waltz e.g. single rhythm, double rhythm, triple rhythm).

Rhythm patterns tell your feet when to move, when to change weight. Rhythm patterns alone do not define the dance because they do not tell us what direction to move (it's possible to have 2 or more dances with the same rhythm pattern)

To identify rhythm patterns, simply ask, how many steps have been taken in 2 beats of music.

Single Rhythm is one weight change in two beats of music. You step on the first beat (downbeat), but you do not step on the second beat (upbeat)

We can verbally call single rhythm "Step Touch"

Musical Count 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Verbal call Step Touch Step Touch Step Touch Step Touch
Rhythm Pattern Single Single Single Single

Double Rhythm is two weight changes in two beats of music. You step on the first beat and another step on the second beat.

We can verbally call double rhythm "Step Step"

Musical Count 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Verbal call Step Step Step Step Step Step Step Step
Rhythm Pattern Double Double Double Double

Modern Jive uses these rhythms (also the meringue, one of the latin dances)

Triple Rhythm is three weight changes in two beats of music. So far all steps have been made on a beat of music; triple rhythm in addition to a step on each of two beats (downbeat & upbeat) there's a step between two beats of music labelled &-count (for simple time). The freedom to step between beats on the &-count many new possibilities known as syncopations.

We can verbally call triple rhythm "Step-Three-Times"

Musical Count 1 & 2 3 & 4
Verbal call Step-Three-Times Step-Three-Times
Rhythm Pattern Triple Triple

Musical Count 5 & 6 7 & 8
Verbal call Step-Three-Times Step-Three-Times
Rhythm Pattern Triple Triple

Swing dancing uses these rhythm patterns (e.g. 6-beat rhythm pattern would be double-triple-triple. 8-beat rhythm pattern would be double-triple-double-triple)

Dancing a triple (three steps) takes the same amount of time as dancing a double (two steps), so it requires your feet to move faster.

Triples require more technique than singles and doubles, movement to execute a triple is not a natural walking step

In additional to rhythm pattern & direction, styling and music play a part in defining a dance. There can be many similarities between dances, you can use your experience in one dance to learn another.Cut and pasting more internet reference documents now Alan? While it makes for interesting reading, do you really think this makes you look more intelligent or help anyone?

Here's a challenge for you - explain exactly how this quote of yours addresses Moo's question.

I'll give you a place to start; Moo would like to know how to figure out which foot his partner is on, not figure out how many times he should be stepping is a dance that has "Double Rhythm". These are different questions.

Just how did the training in the states go by the way? :rolleyes:

[ducasi]

I've never said that of MJ in general. I have said that MJ as taught by ceroc requires a significantly lower level of skills and talent than most other dance forms I have tried. This isn't surprising - ballet dancers start as young children. So do most of the best ballroom dancers. By the time they're the age range that people might start MJ, they might have 10-15 years of dance experience behind them; 10,000 plus hours. Are you seriously suggesting that MJ is harder to master than dances that require that sort of discipline and training? ...
I imagine, with the right teaching, someone with talent, and 10-15 years of MJ dancing, 10,000+ hours, will be a seriously fab dancer. As good as those folks who have done 10,000 hours of some other dance form.

The key here is "the right teaching". Most MJ teaching is aimed at beginners and relative beginners. To find MJ classes aimed at people beyond this stage, who want to develop their dancing, sometimes requires some searching and travelling (maybe to Scotland. ;)) MJ dancers can also learn something from almost every dance style. Not sure you can say that of many other dancers.


Individual MJ dancers vary widely in their ability, but the best dancers (the ones who win the competitions) have all learnt their dancing in other styles ...
I'm sure there are plenty of competition winners who have their dance roots in MJ. (Though, as I said, they could learn useful technique from other dance forms.)


... we dance a reasonably standard set of moves ...
I think the only "standard" (as taught by Ceroc) moves I do are things like the step-across, the travelling return, and um... there must be others.

It's not the moves that are standard (or not), it's the conventions and methods of lead and follow used in MJ that allows a random follower to dance with a random leader.

[Andy McGregor]

aaargh aaaaarrrggghrhrhrhrhuuuurgle

:yeah:

[Andy McGregor]

Cut and pasting more internet reference documents now Alan? While it makes for interesting reading, do you really think this makes you look more intelligent or help anyone?I think that this does make him seem more intelligent - if you know nothing about Modern Jive! Unfortunately, it makes it sound like MJ is danced with frequent variations in footwork. From observation this is simply not the case. If you watch MJ freestyle you will see women stepping once on every beat - you rarely see variations to this footwork. Furthermore, considering where the steps come in the bar you will see the ladies stepping right on the odd counts and left on the even counts: talk of "up" and "down" beats just confuses people - however, it might make you sound more intelligent :whistle:

To answer moo's question, you know what foot your partners weight will be on if you can hear the bar structure in the music. Their feet will be placed as I've said in the above paragraph. If your partner is not placing their feet as above it's because you've led a variation or, most commonly, because your partner doesn't know what is expected of her due to inexperience or some other problem.

On the subject of variations such a triple steps or not stepping on every beat, yes, they can be done on MJ. But they have to be led and they have to be followed. If you are not leading these variations the follower should dance the basic step as I've said in the first paragraph of this post.

I've not said anything about the guy's footwork. That is not the question we've been asked and it is a more complex subject because the guy or leader can vary his footwork once he knows, with confidence, what the lady's footwork will be - and he knows that, hopefully, because that is what he has led.

[Gav]

So are there any tips for this type of thing? Do most people instinctively know where their partners feet/weight is and its just something with experience, or is it generally from certain moves so you are fairly sure of that then lead into another ?

I'm not sure if it's any use to you Moo, but for me, I just started feeling it one day.

I think it was the same day that I finally relaxed enough to hear the music and "feel" the patterns that told me a change was coming.
I don't think I've ever been a "yanker", but that evening I found I could feel which foot my partner was on and where their balance was. This meant that I could wait until she was ready (or even direct her to be ready sooner) before trying to do anything else.
It just made for a smoother dance overall.

I have no idea where you are with your dancing, but I'd suggest that until anyone reaches that point where they can relax and hear and feel the music, concentrating too hard on something else will probably just delay that special moment.

Good luck.
:hug:

[Alan Doyle]

Cut and pasting more internet reference documents now Alan? While it makes for interesting reading, do you really think this makes you look more intelligent or help anyone?


Here's a challenge for you - explain exactly how this quote of yours addresses Moo's question.

I'll give you a place to start; Moo would like to know how to figure out which foot his partner is on, not figure out how many times he should be stepping is a dance that has "Double Rhythm". These are different questions.

Just how did the training in the states go by the way?

I'm heading over on the 27th December for 3 weeks. I'll let you know when I come back.


Hi all,


New to these forums to please take it easy! Feeling brave today to ask a question.

I'm wondering if everyone knows what foot their partner (thinking more from a lead perspective) and weight is on at any given time.

I've been trying to learn some moves with steps in them. First move with steps seems fine for example, as typically both will be at a stage with outside feet back, which you can then move from with a certain amount of confidence.

However, a few other moves I've been trying, with maybe steps leading from a sway or basket as an example, I find I can do a reasonable amount of the time with no problem, but often I have to actually look down to figure what my partner (follower) is doing for sure. As although typically the move would have standard footwork, it doesn't seem to always be the case (maybe I'm not leading a move back enough for example so its ambiguous where a weight change is? Just guessing here, as it happens so fast I can't seem to be sure).

So are there any tips for this type of thing? Do most people instinctively know where their partners feet/weight is and its just something with experience, or is it generally from certain moves so you are fairly sure of that then lead into another ?

I fully realise I'm likely doing something else wrong to not even know in the first place, but any advice greatly appreciated.

Say for the first move, you can step in closed (feet together) and it doesn’t matter whether you step LR or RL because you end up with your feet together.

There are some conventions that you have to take into account for modern jive

The lady steps back on the foot she turns/spins on.
Some moves don’t have a return before it
Some moves don’t have a return after
Some moves don’t go directly into another (because the lady ends up being on the wrong foot).

What I quoted is adequate (there is no need to reinvent the wheel). A step is a weight change. Knowing when to step (change weight) can be defined by a rhythm pattern (single, double, triple). It doesn’t change the move, it just changes the timing and footwork.

The first move (basic, tuck turn exit and inside turn) can be danced using:
Single Rhythm: Single Time East Coast Swing
Double Rhythm: Modern Jive
Triple Rhythm: Triple Time East Coast Swing


I think that this does make him seem more intelligent - if you know nothing about Modern Jive! Unfortunately, it makes it sound like MJ is danced with frequent variations in footwork. From observation this is simply not the case. If you watch MJ freestyle you will see women stepping once on every beat - you rarely see variations to this footwork. Furthermore, considering where the steps come in the bar you will see the ladies stepping right on the odd counts and left on the even counts: talk of "up" and "down" beats just confuses people - however, it might make you sound more intelligent

Andy & NZ Monkey, I've studied Music Theory for over 13 years, I've been playing music for over 20 years. I teach music theory to both musicians & dancers.

[straycat]

aaargh aaaaarrrggghrhrhrhrhuuuurgle

Awww. Have a strepsil. :hug:

[Dreadful Scathe]

:yeah:
Most intelligent post I've ever made :)

[Gav]

Most intelligent post I've ever made :)

:yeah: You're on a roll today. :worthy:

[Andy McGregor]

Andy & NZ Monkey, I've studied Music Theory for over 13 years, I've been playing music for over 20 years. I teach music theory to both musicians & dancers.I don't know about NZ Monkey, but I've studied dancing for over 30 years. I've seen dance students with no knowledge of music getting confused when musicians talk about up and down beats. If there was a cunductor they could possibly watch the baton. In the absence of that a simple numbering system seems to be easier to understand - something like 12345678 seems to work quite well :whistle: Musicians often count an eight beat phrase "5&6&7&8&". This means beat one in the phrase is counted as "5" and beat 7 in the phrase is counted as "8" with beat 8 in the phrase marked by final "&" :confused: I think it is much clearer to talk to dancers about the beats as numbers rather than "up" and "down" beats - however, if you are a musician it is understandable that you might use this way of describing the beat.

Moo asked us to tell him about his partner's weight change and which foot she is on. To give an answer which confuses is worse than not answering at all. To give an irrelevant but associated answer which makes you sound intelligent is a laudable objective - however, you should not be surprised or annoyed when someone points this out :whistle:

[Gerry]

Having danced MJ for eight years I would have to say I don't have a clue what foot my partner is on , I lead they follow, if it works I presume I have led it properly.
I think if the follower ends up on the wrong foot and they do some type of skippy footwork it means that they have then somehow got back to their normal foot work, I believe this called sycopation.

I sometimes dance as a follower and the only person to comment on my wonderful foot work:lol: is the one and only Andy McGregor :awe:, I thought we had a magical dance or two in La Palma :wink:

[Alan Doyle]

I don't know about NZ Monkey, but I've studied dancing for over 30 years. I've seen dance students with no knowledge of music getting confused when musicians talk about up and down beats. If there was a cunductor they could possibly watch the baton. In the absence of that a simple numbering system seems to be easier to understand - something like 12345678 seems to work quite well :whistle: Musicians often count an eight beat phrase "5&6&7&8&". This means beat one in the phrase is counted as "5" and beat 7 in the phrase is counted as "8" with beat 8 in the phrase marked by final "&" :confused: I think it is much clearer to talk to dancers about the beats as numbers rather than "up" and "down" beats - however, if you are a musician it is understandable that you might use this way of describing the beat.


I teach music theory to dancers differently than I do to musicians. They only need to know the bare minimum - how to count the beat and how the beat is broken down (simple time 1& 2& 3& 4& and compound time 1&a 2&a 3&a 4&a).

A downbeat and upbeat for musicians is different than a downbeat and upbeat for dancers. Not every beat sounds the same, some beats are accented (some are not). 1 2 3 4 (strong, weak, medium, weak) 5 6 7 8 (strong, weak, medium, weak). The accents are there you just have to listen to the music to hear them.

E.g. if you are counting 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & and the accents are in the wrong place, then you're counting it out of time...

[NZ Monkey]

Andy & NZ Monkey, I've studied Music Theory for over 13 years, I've been playing music for over 20 years. I teach music theory to both musicians & dancers.In any of those lessons have you ever felt the need to tell your students about the rhythm of the weight changes they should be making while playing? I imagine it'd be a little difficult for the cellist to be honest..... unless they're allowed to make weight changed on their backsides rather than by taking steps.

Edit: For clarity - I refer to musicians of course.

Second edit: What in the blue blazes does any of this have to do with answering a quoted question with something irrelevant? Purple Russian monkeys can harvest cacti only in temperatures less than that of the surface of the sun.

[Dreadful Scathe]

I've studied Music Theory for over 13 years, I've been playing music for over 20 years. I teach music theory to both musicians & dancers.

Are we playing one-upped ? I've studied music my whole life (hey, i have ears) and drive a ferrari (albeit in GTA iv for the PC - great game (ok its probably a nondescript sports car rather than a ferrari. cool though.)). I'm also only 5 degrees of seperation from Hitler (bloke at work, his friends dad met King Edward who had met Hitler and shaken his hand)


but I've studied dancing for over 30 years

Bah, poor. In a past life, I was Johan Sebastian Bach.

[NZ Monkey]

Bah, poor. In a past life, I was Johan Sebastian Bach.Yeah, but could you dance? :whistle:

[geoff332]

I'm sure there are plenty of competition winners who have their dance roots in MJ.Name them.

[Alan Doyle]

In any of those lessons have you ever felt the need to tell your students about the rhythm of the weight changes they should be making while playing? I imagine it'd be a little difficult for the cellist to be honest..... unless they're allowed to make weight changed on their backsides rather than by taking steps.

Edit: For clarity - I refer to musicians of course.

Second edit: What in the blue blazes does any of this have to do with answering a quoted question with something irrelevant? Purple Russian monkeys can harvest cacti only in temperatures less than that of the surface of the sun.

As I've already stated, musicians don't need to know how to dance to play music and dancers don't need to know how to read and compose music to dance, so they need to know different things but that doesn't change music theory - what they need to know in music theory is different so I teach it differently to musicians than I do to dancers.

I've already stated that a step is a weight change. i.e. when you take a step you change your weight. I've also explained when your weight should be changed based on the rhythm pattern. Different moves (step pattern) can have a different rhythm patterns (different weight changes). It is the direction of movement that defines where place your foot.

[Gerry]

I've already stated that a step is a weight change. i.e. when you take a step you change your weight. I've also explained when your weight should be changed based on the rhythm pattern. Different moves (step pattern) can have a different rhythm patterns (different weight changes). It is the direction of movement that defines where place your foot.

Does that mean that I should automatically know where my partners weight is over a particalar foot, whether she or he is central weighted, over their heals or on the balls of their feet??

[Alan Doyle]

Does that mean that I should automatically know where my partners weight is over a particalar foot, whether she or he is central weighted, over their heals or on the balls of their feet??

Yes you should know where her weight is over a particular foot (or centrally weighted over both feet)

If your feet are centrally weighted (equally between both feet) then the weight goes through your centre.

A weight transfer is movement so that the weight is moved from one supporting foot to another either fully or partially (weight is transferred over the ball of the foot)

[straycat]

and drive a ferrari

Well - I own two Porsches. So :na:

(and in case you don't believe me, one of them looks like this (http://www.1a-versand.de/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=19))

[Dreadful Scathe]

Yes you should know where her weight is over a particular foot (or centrally weighted over both feet)

If your feet are centrally weighted (equally between both feet) then the weight goes through your centre.

A weight transfer is movement so that the weight is moved from one supporting foot to another either fully or partially (weight is transferred over the ball of the foot)

ho hum - I think when we all dance we should be able to tell when our partner is off balance or not, but no in-depth analysis of weight is otherwise needed. In fact, I tried to comment on my partners weight distribution once, and all I got was a slap. :)

[Double Trouble]

Well - I own two Porsches. So :na:

(and in case you don't believe me, one of them looks like this (http://www.1a-versand.de/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=19))

You're just too sharp for me straycat.:D

[Astro]

I've already stated that a step is a weight change. i.e. when you take a step you change your weight. I've also explained when your weight should be changed based on the rhythm pattern. Different moves (step pattern) can have a different rhythm patterns (different weight changes). It is the direction of movement that defines where place your foot.
:yeah:
So if you and I are dancing to different beats or stepping on and off the beat in a different pattern, we will not be centred and connected. (the exception being is the dance is choreographed)

This would cause the lead not to know his partners foot/weight/placing.

[Alan Doyle]

Yes you should know where her weight is over a particular foot (or centrally weighted over both feet)

If your feet are centrally weighted (equally between both feet) then the weight goes through your centre.

A weight transfer is movement so that the weight is moved from one supporting foot to another either fully or partially (weight is transferred over the ball of the foot)

The direction...

you're either going to be walking forward, backwards, left or right.

To move anywhere...you move your frame first.

To walk forward, you step onto your heel and transfer your weight from you heel to your toe
To walk backwards, you step onto your toe transfer your weight from your toe to your heel.
To step to your left, you step onto your left foot and transfer your weight onto your left foot
To step to your right, you step onto your right foot and transfer you weight onto your right foot

Ladies, to turn clockwise, you step back on your right foot and look in the direction you are going to turn, you transfer your weight onto your right foot (your centre is over the ball of your foot), you turn (while placing your left foot just beside your right foot as you turn), you break with your right foot, you anchor (change weight) onto your left foot (feet together) and then you wait for the man to lead you (your left foot is now free either to step forward or step back depending on what style of dance you're dancing).

Ladies, to return anti-clockwise, you step forward on your left foot and look in the direction you are going to turn, you transfer your weight onto your left foot (your centre is over the ball of your foot), you turn (while placing your right foot just beside your right foot as you turn), you break with your left foot, you anchor (change weight) onto your right foot (feet together) and then you wait for the man to lead you (your left foot is now free either to step forward or step back depending on what style of dance you're dancing).

[Alan Doyle]

:yeah:
So if you and I are dancing to different beats or stepping on and off the beat in a different pattern, we will not be centred and connected. (the exception being is the dance is choreographed)

This would cause the lead not to know his partners foot/weight/placing.

Both lead and follow need to have a good frame (and all movement comes from your centre)

[Astro]

The direction...

you're either going to be walking forward, backwards, left or right.

To move anywhere...you move your frame first.


There's also the cross when going backwards and forwards that is diagonal.

It's possible that a couple dancing can move in anyone of the 360 degrees directions IMO.

[Alan Doyle]

There's also the cross when going backwards and forwards that is diagonal.

It's possible that a couple dancing can move in anyone of the 360 degrees directions IMO.

Yes that's true.

[Dreadful Scathe]

Yes that's true.
can we get diagrams ? i like pictures :)

[Alan Doyle]

can we get diagrams ? i like pictures :)

I'm going away for the next 3-4 weeks, I'll see what I can do, I prefer video. :nice:

[Astro]

can we get diagrams ? i like pictures :)


I'm going away for the next 3-4 weeks, I'll see what I can do, I prefer video. :nice:

You'll just have to be a patient Smurf. :)

[Caro]

To move anywhere...you move your frame first.


Hopefully Skippy will soon have you known that to move anywhere, you move your center first. :rolleyes:

Mind you if I want to test the temperature of the pool, I'll move my foot first. ;)

[straycat]

To walk forward, you step onto your heel and transfer your weight from you heel to your toe

[pendantic mode]Not necessarily, especially not when I'm dancing.[/pedantic mode]

[Dreadful Scathe]

[pendantic mode]Not necessarily, especially not when I'm dancing.[/pedantic mode]
when i want to walk forward, i ask the universe to step back 1 foot :)

[Gadget]

To move anywhere...you move your frame first.

To walk forward, you step onto your heel and transfer your weight from you heel to your toe
Walking? Dancing? In dancing I always step onto the ball of my foot when stepping forward. ... actually it might be the anywhere on that front bit of the foot, depending on where I'm travelling to. I only place heels down when "grounding" to take some of my partner's weight, or for slow tracks.*

And I would have thought that with a frame engaged, you don't actually move the frame; it moves as a result of other things moving, eg the push from the back foot or as Caro said, the 'center'.

*This is the intent; whether it transpires into the deed is another thing ;)

[Alan Doyle]

when i want to walk forward, i ask the universe to step back 1 foot :)

:lol:

[Andy McGregor]

(simple time 1& 2& 3& 4& Progress at last, well partial progress. We now have beat 1 counted as beat one - so far so good. However, beat 3 is called beat "2", beat 5 is now beat "3" and beat 7 is called beat "4". Almost, but not quite as confusing as "5&6&7&8&" - The new count scores 1/8 rather than 0/8. If all you are doing is making a sound to mark the beat I believe that it's very wrong to count when that count bears no relationship to any number in the real world - or is Mr Doyle claiming that the counts have a meaning other than to make a sound that marks a beat.

[Andy McGregor]

and look in the direction you are going to turn, In the real world of dance this is not usually correct for followers. Your body usually turns first and your head follows. You can turn your head at the same time as your body if you like. I think I've seen body-popping and robotic dancing where the head is turned in anticipation of the body following. But I don't think this is the usual way people are taught to dance - I certainly wouldn't teach that way and have never been taught that way or heard other teachers recommend this :confused:

[David Bailey]

In the real world of dance this is not usually correct for followers. Your body usually turns first and your head follows.
Yeah - I wasn't sure about the "looking" thing either.

[Alan Doyle]

Progress at last, well partial progress. We now have beat 1 counted as beat one - so far so good. However, beat 3 is called beat "2", beat 5 is now beat "3" and beat 7 is called beat "4". Almost, but not quite as confusing as "5&6&7&8&" - The new count scores 1/8 rather than 0/8. If all you are doing is making a sound to mark the beat I believe that it's very wrong to count when that count bears no relationship to any number in the real world - or is Mr Doyle claiming that the counts have a meaning other than to make a sound that marks a beat.

That seems to be the way people count modern jive :doh:
I see a lot of teachers counting Modern Jive as 1&2&3&4&5&6&7&8& (I don't agree with this)
(the & is actually a beat) so there are 16 beats there or 2 sets of 8. It should be counted:

12345678 (beat 1 & beat 5 have an accent)
12345678 (beat 1 & beat 5 have an accent)

[Alan Doyle]

In the real world of dance this is not usually correct for followers. Your body usually turns first and your head follows. You can turn your head at the same time as your body if you like. I think I've seen body-popping and robotic dancing where the head is turned in anticipation of the body following. But I don't think this is the usual way people are taught to dance - I certainly wouldn't teach that way and have never been taught that way or heard other teachers recommend this :confused:

I agree with what you, you wouldn't turn your head before your turn your body.

[Andy McGregor]

That seems to be the way people count modern jive :doh:
I see a lot of teachers counting Modern Jive as 1&2&3&4&5&6&7&8& (I don't agree with this)
(the & is actually a beat) so there are 16 beats there or 2 sets of 8. It should be counted:

12345678 (beat 1 & beat 5 have an accent)
12345678 (beat 1 & beat 5 have an accent)You don't have to slavishly follow what "seems to be the way people count in modern jive". I think that people count the way they do because they haven't thought. Speaking for myself I count from one to eight with emphasis on the 1 and 5 - if I count. Most of the time I say something more meaningful than just counting the beat - most of the people in the lesson can hear the beat and would rather hear an instruction: something like "to the left" or "smile and smile" seem to communicate much more.


I agree with what you, you wouldn't turn your head before your turn your body.How could a follower know to turn their head before it had been led? :confused:

However, that seems to be the instruction in Alan Doyle's earlier post.

[Alan Doyle]

You don't have to slavishly follow what "seems to be the way people count in modern jive". I think that people count the way they do because they haven't thought. Speaking for myself I count from one to eight with emphasis on the 1 and 5 - if I count. Most of the time I say something more meaningful than just counting the beat - most of the people in the lesson can hear the beat and would rather hear an instruction: something like "to the left" or "smile and smile" seem to communicate much more.


Yes you can use short calls (but if you're counting using numbers I think it has to be counted correctly).




How could a follower know to turn their head before it had been led? :confused:

However, that seems to be the instruction in Alan Doyle's earlier post.

Sorry if that's what it sounded like but that's not what I meant :doh:

[Andy McGregor]

(but if you're counting using numbers I think it has to be counted correctly).
:yeah:

However, almost every MJ class I've ever attended goes "5&6&7&8&". I used to do it myself until I gave it some thought - I even started a thread about it here (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/showthread.php?t=16622&highlight=5%266%2A).

[Astro]

That seems to be the way people count modern jive :doh:
I see a lot of teachers counting Modern Jive as 1&2&3&4&5&6&7&8& (I don't agree with this)
(the & is actually a beat) so there are 16 beats there or 2 sets of 8. It should be counted:

12345678 (beat 1 & beat 5 have an accent)
12345678 (beat 1 & beat 5 have an accent)

I'm not very good at numbers, but just counting 1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2 is the basic count that is good for beginners and will serve any beat IMO.

(It's not 1212121212 and it's not 1&21&21&21&2)

[Martin]

FWIW as a follow there are few things more frustrating than being led off on the wrong foot, which is also up there with being led off again when still in weight change transition and the lady hasn't had chance to fully settle back onto the foot, when, bang, she's being led off again. Although to my mind that is an indication of someone dancing to the metronome in their head rather than to the timing of the music being played. Even so a leader should be able to feel when the lady has completed her weight change. Or am I just being picky? :devil:

M

Spot on.

After a while you can "feel" where the ladies weight is and time the next move, as to where the lady is.

On new moves, if it is not flowing, I often ask the girl if she feels wrong footed, and to tell me what I am doing that does not help her, sometimes I do the move as a follow to see how it feels.
The same goes in linking two moves together.

If they are doing a hop and skippity jump, then the trick is, to allow them to finish and then bring it back.



Name them.

Oh Geoff there are loads of examples.. not that is is particularly helpful to the question by Moo, but for the sake of some clarity, for a lot of guys, MJ is thier roots, for some of the girls, they have done some individual dancing, but MJ is thier partner dancing roots.

Now to be fair a lot of people have wiggled on thier own before trying partner dance... but just looking at partner dance, which is what we are talking about... lead and follow...

Some prominant comp winners... MJ being the root...

Peter and Amy (multiple Aussie and recent UK winners)
Clayton and Jannine (multiple UK winners)
Simon De Lisle (the first guy to win both UK and Aussie title in the same year)
Robert (the first winner of jive masters [with Nicky Haslam])
Louise (placed in top 3 in the second jive masters, and winner of multiple comps in Aussie)
Clinton (one of the most prolific Aussie winners)

Probables..

Nigel and Nina... I think Nigel's roots were MJ, he then went on to learn Lindy (happy to stand corrected)... Nina, individual dancer, with partner dance roots in MJ I think (again happy to be corrected)

Most of the top dancers do go on to learn other styles to enhance thier MJ.. to bring "new" things into thier dance. In the same way a lot of the top dancers from Salsa and WCS bring other dance styles into thier dancing.

So yes, a lot of kick ass dancers in MJ, have thier roots in MJ, attend lessons, then seek all influences they can to progress.