PDA

View Full Version : 'Is MJ a superset of other dances?', other dance style comparisons, set theory, etc.



bigdjiver
22nd-April-2009, 09:39 AM
Jive - not a precise dance! Rubbish! You just need the right notation (http://www.jiveoholic.org.uk/mathsjive.asp)!:respect: for the website, but ...

When I went to the Modern Jive championships back in 98 one of things that turned me into a missionary for it was the diversity of styles there. That diversity has increased. Ceroc jive is specified by the Ceroc teaching manual. MJ is wider than that.

I now do bits of cha-cha, tango, mambo, other dances, and nameless and shameless things of my own as part of my dancing.

I would now classify jive as a subset of MJ, and Lindy and WCS and ballroom as subsets of MJ.

It should be again remembered that "Jive" was originally applied to speech, as a derogatory term, with shades of meaning of false, inferior, imperfect etc. It then was applied to jive music, and from thence to the dancing done to that music.

On Sunday I was at an MJ event, and danced with two ladies, and possibly a third, that had never done an MJ lesson. They all loved dancing in their own way, and I just did my best to slip in bits of MJ here and there. It was "Jive" dancing in the loosest and most derogatory use of the word, but it was a real challenge, and great fun.

straycat
22nd-April-2009, 09:56 AM
I now do bits of cha-cha, tango, mambo, other dances, and nameless and shameless things of my own as part of my dancing.

I would now classify jive as a subset of MJ, and Lindy and WCS and ballroom as subsets of MJ.

I think you might need to look at the definition of 'subset'. This would be true if - and only if - jive, lindy, wcs and ballroom were taught to MJ students as a part of MJ. In other words - if, having learned only MJ I could then go out and do all those dances with no extra tuition, this claim would have some validity.

Just because I can fit parts of these dances into the MJ framework, does not mean that they are subsets of MJ. I can quite happily do the reverse, and incorporate MJ into, say, Lindy, should I so choose - and this doesn't make MJ a subset of Lindy. It just means I'm good enough at Lindy and at MJ to do this.

Yes, it's great that one can bring so many other influences into MJ, but MJ is hardly unique in that.

Just enjoy the dances for what they are. Don't try to make them into something they're not.

bigdjiver
22nd-April-2009, 11:26 AM
I think you might need to look at the definition of 'subset'. This would be true if - and only if - jive, lindy, wcs and ballroom were taught to MJ students as a part of MJ. In other words - if, having learned only MJ I could then go out and do all those dances with no extra tuition, this claim would have some validity....I feel the need to rech into the mathematical section of my brain, otherwise known as David Franklin. (I contract that sort of stuff out.)

From my perspective rules create subsets. WCS is like MJ except that you are not allowed to put your partner over there, you are not allowed John Sargant footwork, etc

Another way of putting it would be that MJ is other forms of dance done badly, in that their rules are being broken. This is the core that makes it so accessible and versatile.

straycat
22nd-April-2009, 11:51 AM
From my perspective rules create subsets. WCS is like MJ except that you are not allowed to put your partner over there, you are not allowed John Sargant footwork, etc

So what you're saying is that WCS (and by implication, the other dances mentioned) are fundementally MJ, but with more rules? I think that this is one of the fundemental misunderstandings that MJ people have about other dances. WCS and MJ (I believe I'm right in saying) have differences that run right down to the core of the dances. To shift the focus onto Lindy, which is more comfortable territory for me, this is absolutely the case, and it's worth noting that until I got to grips with this fact, no matter that I thought I was learning it just fine, my Lindy was going nowhere.

As for rules... I can't speak for WCS in this regard, but standard social and common-sense rules aside, I don't see Lindy as consisting of rules. At its core, it consists purely of techniques. Those techniques are geared primarily towards two things: movement - especially in releation to swing music, and connection with your partner. Appearance does come into it, but far less than people generally suppose.

MJ lacks the core techniques that Lindy is built on. It lacks the core techniques that WCS is built on. How can they possibly be subsets?


Another way of putting it would be that MJ is other forms of dance done badly, in that their rules are being broken. This is the core that makes it so accessible and versatile.

I think that's getting warmer, but the way I'd see it is that MJ takes certain moves and connection methods from other dances, then simplifies those to the n'th degree. The goal is accessibility, and the achievement of that goal is MJ's triumph.

NZ Monkey
22nd-April-2009, 12:27 PM
I think that this is one of the fundemental misunderstandings that MJ people have about other dances. WCS and MJ (I believe I'm right in saying) have differences that run right down to the core of the dances.:yeah: I agree 100% with this statement.



As for rules... I can't speak for WCS in this regard, but standard social and common-sense rules aside, I don't see Lindy as consisting of rules. At its core, it consists purely of techniques. Those techniques are geared primarily towards two things: movement - especially in releation to swing music, and connection with your partner. Appearance does come into it, but far less than people generally suppose.Even in WCS, the things that are often thought of as arbitrary rules are related very closely with the way connection works in the dance. I think this is misunderstood often enough by the people who actually dance WCS, let alone the one's who don't. At least, that's the conclusion I've come to over time and a considerable amount of thought.



MJ lacks the core techniques that Lindy is built on. It lacks the core techniques that WCS is built on. How can they possibly be subsets?I think the argument is roughly along the lines of "if anything goes in MJ, then everything can be described as MJ". It's a nice fuzzy feel-good argument in a lot of ways, but acts to devalue MJ in it's own right in my opinion.

bigdjiver
22nd-April-2009, 02:33 PM
... I think the argument is roughly along the lines of "if anything goes in MJ, then everything can be described as MJ". It's a nice fuzzy feel-good argument in a lot of ways, but acts to devalue MJ in it's own right in my opinion.What single element of WCS could you include in a dance at a MJ event that would make someone say "That is not MJ"?
e.g. If I do a rock step its not MJ?
Dance in a slot? Triple step? Anchor? Whatever?

I should also make it clear that I am not devaluing MJ. It is a dance, and in the hands of good dancers it can look superb. It may, or may not, need borrowed techniques to make it so, but one of the glories of MJ is that you are allowed to borrow techniques.

There is a world full of dances that are not WCS, Tango, Lindy etc, but are great dances in their own right.

geoff332
22nd-April-2009, 04:45 PM
I think the argument is roughly along the lines of "if anything goes in MJ, then everything can be described as MJ". It's a nice fuzzy feel-good argument in a lot of ways, but acts to devalue MJ in it's own right in my opinion.I think this says it all:
Expertise in one field does not carry over into other fields. But experts often think so. The narrower their field of knowledge the more likely they are to think so.MJ is MJ. WCS is WCS. Ballroom is ballroom. Salsa is salsa. They have some things in common and some things that are different. Some people can do all of them, some one, and some none.

The other great quote line to keep in mind is: "if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a nail." If the only dance you know (or like) is MJ, then every dance starts to look like MJ. But this is a function of the observer, not the dance.

bigdjiver
22nd-April-2009, 05:29 PM
I think this says it all:MJ is MJ. WCS is WCS. Ballroom is ballroom. Salsa is salsa. They have some things in common and some things that are different. Some people can do all of them, some one, and some none... An elephant is an elephant, a pig is a pig, a donkey is a donkey.

They are all quadrapeds. They are all mammals. They are all vertebrates.

In my view Lindy, ballroom jive, WCS are all jive dances. As they are all contemporary they are all Modern Jive dances.

Robert Austen's modern jive championships incorporated any form of jive, and that is the way I would like to see MJ used. At an MJ event people would be free to do Lindy or WCS or Bugg or any other jive form.

"I do MJ" would then be a similar statement to "I do ballroom", whereas "I do Ceroc MJ" would be a narrower claim.

geoff332
22nd-April-2009, 07:00 PM
In my view Lindy, ballroom jive, WCS are all jive dances. As they are all contemporary they are all Modern Jive dances.Spoken like a true expert in Modern Jive.

NZ Monkey
22nd-April-2009, 07:54 PM
What single element of WCS could you include in a dance at a MJ event that would make someone say "That is not MJ"?
e.g. If I do a rock step its not MJ?
Dance in a slot? Triple step? Anchor? Whatever?What single element of LA style Salsa would you say would make it noticeably different from WCS at a WCS event?

Both dances have triple steps, slots, and syncopation in their basics which on paper at least makes them seem even more closely related than WCS and MJ. Of course, paper doesn't reflect the reality in the slightest, and the same word can have roughly the same meaning but importantly different subtleties or connotations in each scene.


I should also make it clear that I am not devaluing MJ. It is a dance, and in the hands of good dancers it can look superb. It may, or may not, need borrowed techniques to make it so, but one of the glories of MJ is that you are allowed to borrow techniques.

There is a world full of dances that are not WCS, Tango, Lindy etc, but are great dances in their own right.Yes, but they also have easily identifiable characteristics of their own.

To take it to an extreme: if anything goes in MJ, and therefore anything can be described as MJ, then modern jive becomes simply another term for partnered dancing. As a classification for the ease of conversation it's next to useless in this form. Further to that, it's a term for partnered dancing that virtually only MJ dancers understand.

I think that line of reasoning devalues MJ.

straycat
22nd-April-2009, 08:14 PM
What single element of WCS could you include in a dance at a MJ event that would make someone say "That is not MJ"?
e.g. If I do a rock step its not MJ?
Dance in a slot? Triple step? Anchor? Whatever?
If, while dancing MJ, I were to put triples in, or anchor - or lead a standard Lindy shape - yes, you could have some justification in saying it's still MJ.

If, however, given the right music and a partner who can follow it, I use my Lindy technique to lead a full-blown swingout (Lindy Turn)... I'm not doing modern jive. While I can 'fake' a swingout in MJ with many MJ followers, the techniques to do the move properly are not part of Modern Jive. If I am combining all the movement and connection techniques needed to do that move.... it's not MJ.


There is a world full of dances that are not WCS, Tango, Lindy etc, but are great dances in their own right.
I think I missed the part where anyone disputed that :confused:

straycat
22nd-April-2009, 08:21 PM
In my view Lindy, ballroom jive, WCS are all jive dances. As they are all contemporary they are all Modern Jive dances.

:what: That's something of a stretch.

If you can show me classes labelled as 'modern jive' which teach Lindy, ballroom jive, WCS and 'Ceroc-style' MJ properly, I'd be prepared to concede the point on this.

Failing that, you can't simply make these dances into 'modern jive dances' simply by declaring it to be the case. :rolleyes:

bigdjiver
22nd-April-2009, 09:03 PM
... Yes, but they also have easily identifiable characteristics of their own... as do elephants, pigs, dogs, etc but they are all vertebrate quadrapeds.

We could get around the difficulties by defining MJ as the jive based dance that does not meet the criteria for any of the formalised jive dances, which is the way the term is commonly used. We define MJ by what it is not, rather than by what it is.


...To take it to an extreme: if anything goes in MJ,... I never said that


...I think that line of reasoning devalues MJ...My part in this discussion was triggered by the concept of subsets of dancing.

We need a Venn diagram. I do not have the drive to produce one.

I conceive a big circle containing dance. Inside is a smaller circle labelled partner dance. Inside that lead & follow dance.

Inside this circle are interlinked circles, with labels like "requires 3/4 time signature" "requires close hold" "requires footwork more complex than walking and turning around." Where those circles intersect you might expect to find the label "Waltz".

An expert in WCS might be brave enough to draw such a diagram that has the label WCS in the middle of some intersecting circles. Only if there is some dance feature of WCS that is prohibited in MJ can you make WCS as a dance not a dance subset of MJ.

Which is where we come back to MJ being regarded by some as a flawed variant of other dances. "Its like WCS only you don't have to dance in a slot / can use very basic footwork/ etc"

If you looked at such a diagram you could see instantly the strength of MJ. There is so much more room to play.

NZ Monkey
22nd-April-2009, 09:45 PM
as do elephants, pigs, dogs, etc but they are all vertebrate quadrapeds.

We could get around the difficulties by defining MJ as the jive based dance that does not meet the criteria for any of the formalised jive dances, which is the way the term is commonly used. We define MJ by what it is not, rather than by what it is.This illustrates my point above quite well actually. The broader a definition is, the less useful it typically becomes. Defining MJ as what it is not makes it particularly broad. Defining it by what it is not, and then claiming that dances which it doesn’t exclude are a subset of MJ is misguided at best.


I never said thatNot in so many words, but you did say:
In my view Lindy, ballroom jive, WCS are all jive dances. As they are all contemporary they are all Modern Jive dances.…Which amounts to the same thing. Personally I find the assertion that several dances which developed earlier than MJ, and independently on a different continent are forms of MJ arrogant.



Only if there is some dance feature of WCS that is prohibited in MJ can you make WCS as a dance not a dance subset of MJ. Although quoting myself feels a little tacky:
if anything goes in MJ, and therefore anything can be described as MJ, then modern jive becomes simply another term for partnered dancing. As a classification for the ease of conversation it's next to useless in this form. Further to that, it's a term for partnered dancing that virtually only MJ dancers understand.It seems to me that you want to make the circle on that Venn diagram so large that it effectively becomes the one that encompasses all of the partnered lead/follow dances in 4/4 time. Once you’ve drawn that circle you’ve defined MJ is such a broad way that actually naming a specific dance the same thing is laughable.



Which is where we come back to MJ being regarded by some as a flawed variant of other dances. "Its like WCS only you don't have to dance in a slot / can use very basic footwork/ etc"It’s worth noting that I don’t know of anyone who dances WCS who thinks that. Likewise Lindy, Ballroom, Latin American, Salsa or Hustle, all of which you could make similar statements about.

In fact, the only people I know of who make claims like that only dance MJ. I think Geoff has a point with his hammer and nail analogy.


If you looked at such a diagram you could see instantly the strength of MJ. There is so much more room to play.I dispute that this is the case in practice. There is an enormous amount of freedom of expression in far more tightly structured dances than MJ, and that structure gives the dancers the tools to really explore that freedom of expression. MJ’s accessibility is it’s strength, but it’s also it’s Achilles heel IMO.

Gadget
23rd-April-2009, 12:15 AM
What is at the "core" of any dance style?

1 ) self control: the ability to move your body where you want it to be, to make it follow the patterns and shapes you have in your head.

2 ) communication: the skill to understand how to communicate your intent to your partner and how to read her intent.

3 ) Music/timing/rhythm: being able to use the first two in expressing the music.

It's relatively easy to develop skills in any of these disciplines when you have a "right" and "wrong" way to do something: Ballet I think must be about the best teaching for self control. Perhaps Tango for becoming one with your partner. And I think maybe Ballroom for matching movement to rhythms. I'm pointing to these because (from what I know) each of these styles has quite strict rules for "right" and "wrong" in those areas.

If you take someone from one discipline into another, they will be looking at how they can apply the techniques they know from their style into the new one. But the techniques from MJ do not have the "right" and "wrong" so ingrained and bound by rules - technique within MJ (when taught) is taught as technique; a "why" that can be applied to lots of things.

I think a good MJ dancer should be able to pick up just about any dance style because they should have a general grounding in the common aspects of any partner dancing - all they need to do is apply a specific set of rules/guidelines/constraints that define that dance. A good dancer of any other style has to drop the constructs that their technique has been built around and apply the techniques with a different set of rules.



~
I should also make it clear that I am not devaluing MJ. It is a dance, and in the hands of good dancers it can look superb. It may, or may not, need borrowed techniques to make it so, but one of the glories of MJ is that you are allowed to borrow techniques."Borrow techniques"? MJ does not borrow - it may use techniques that other dances use, but it uses them in an MJ context: The source is immaterial, as are the similarities. It does on occasion borrow styling from other dance forms, but I am of the opinion that technique is global and holds a shared source.


If you can show me classes labelled as 'modern jive' which teach Lindy, ballroom jive, WCS and 'Ceroc-style' MJ properly, I'd be prepared to concede the point on this.

Failing that, you can't simply make these dances into 'modern jive dances' simply by declaring it to be the case. :rolleyes:
If I told a WCS couple to ignore the follower's slot and dance off their own parallel slot; if I told them to remove triples and drop the anchor step; if I told them to stop stretching so far from their partner; could they? what would they be dancing? If you strip it back so that all that's left is the self control, connection technique and musicality, then there is very little separating it from MJ.

All I have done is remove the rules; I've not added anything to their knowledge. This is how other dances can be seen as sub-sets of MJ: remove the rules that define them as that dance and what you are left with is MJ.
It therefore follows that if you put constraints on your MJ and focus on developing within the guidelines of a particular style, then you can build upon this base and find other dance styles.


Just because I can fit parts of these dances into the MJ framework, does not mean that they are subsets of MJ. I can quite happily do the reverse, and incorporate MJ into, say, Lindy, should I so choose - and this doesn't make MJ a subset of Lindy. It just means I'm good enough at Lindy and at MJ to do this.
I'm interested in that statement: what exactly do you do to insert MJ into Lindy? You have to stop following the 'lindy rules' - but do you actually follow any other rules in their place, or just 'do the moves'?

(:worthy: for being good enough to swap styles - if I could I wouldn't be asking ;))

NZ Monkey
23rd-April-2009, 05:34 AM
I think a good MJ dancer should be able to pick up just about any dance style because they should have a general grounding in the common aspects of any partner dancing - all they need to do is apply a specific set of rules/guidelines/constraints that define that dance. A good dancer of any other style has to drop the constructs that their technique has been built around and apply the techniques with a different set of rules

"Borrow techniques"? MJ does not borrow - it may use techniques that other dances use, but it uses them in an MJ context: The source is immaterial, as are the similarities. It does on occasion borrow styling from other dance forms, but I am of the opinion that technique is global and holds a shared source.
I think that’s a fallacy. By definition, common aspects of partnered dancing are common to all partnered dances. A good student of one should therefore have a grounding in those aspects, regardless of which dance they did at first.

As to constructs being built around some sort of idea of “pure technique”, MJ is in the same boat as everyone else. The only difference is that where so little of it is taught explicitly, the “right” way to do something simply becomes the “most natural for the majority”. As this is virtually never an example of perfect technique, MJ must have constructs around “pure technique” of it’s own.

In all honesty, while there are certainly some common elements (there are only so many ways the body can move after all), I think the devil is often in the detail once you’re out on the dance floor, and that those common elements are either far fewer or far more fundamental than you might think. I’ve certainly been surprised at just how different some similar looking moves in MJ and WCS actually feel to perform. So much so that I have trouble thinking of them as being really the same move.

Robert Royston has an excellent set of DVD’s, one of which is focused on “Advanced Technique”. The DVD in question focuses on common aspects of dancing. For the Record, RR is qualified to teach just about everything under the sun with regards to partnered dance and is quite rare in this respect. He’s spoken abut universal technique in the past, and from what I remember (it has been a while now) he’d boiled it down to posture for ease of movement, points of contact on the body that were good for control, proximal and distal movement and whether the dance is single or double axis. None of those are directly related to lead/follow conventions, timing or musicality. They are directly related to self-control however.


If I told a WCS couple to ignore the follower's slot and dance off their own parallel slot; if I told them to remove triples and drop the anchor step; if I told them to stop stretching so far from their partner; could they? what would they be dancing? If you strip it back so that all that's left is the self control, connection technique and musicality, then there is very little separating it from MJ.Ignoring the obvious quip that MJ dancers very rarely have self-control, connection or musicality in the first place, I’d say that you’d also be removing the character that makes the dance interesting.

That said, I don’t think it’d be possible to do it anyway. Connection and musicality are great buzzwords, but I think you’ll find that they carry quite different connotations in different dances. If you took your WCS example above and applied it to American Smooth dancing, I think the end product would both look and feel quite different to result of the WCS experiment. In other words, there must be more going on there.


All I have done is remove the rules; I've not added anything to their knowledge. This is how other dances can be seen as sub-sets of MJ: remove the rules that define them as that dance and what you are left with is MJ.
It therefore follows that if you put constraints on your MJ and focus on developing within the guidelines of a particular style, then you can build upon this base and find other dance styles.Here you’re trying to imply links that aren’t really there, and define MJ as, essentially, 4/4 time lead-follow partnered dancing of any nature. That’s a category that transcends even the usual groupings of Swing, Latin American, Ballroom etc. that already only have tenuous links to each other sometimes. I think it’s far too big a stretch to make to be honest - especially from someone who lacks a very strong background in anything other than MJ in the first place.

straycat
23rd-April-2009, 07:33 AM
I think that between us, we've now utterly derailed the thread.

Time for a split, maybe?

bigdjiver
23rd-April-2009, 09:50 AM
... All I have done is remove the rules; I've not added anything to their knowledge. This is how other dances can be seen as sub-sets of MJ: remove the rules that define them as that dance and what you are left with is MJ...:clap: :cheers:

straycat
23rd-April-2009, 10:18 AM
All I have done is remove the rules; I've not added anything to their knowledge. This is how other dances can be seen as sub-sets of MJ: remove the rules that define them as that dance and what you are left with is MJ.
I'll restate what I and NZM have already said. Forget this 'rules' idea. It's a fallacy. Dances like Lindy and WCS are not, in my opinion, defined by 'rules'.


I'm interested in that statement: what exactly do you do to insert MJ into Lindy? You have to stop following the 'lindy rules' - but do you actually follow any other rules in their place, or just 'do the moves'?

(:worthy: for being good enough to swap styles - if I could I wouldn't be asking ;))

Well - as I'm not following any 'lindy rules' in the first place, I simply don't think of it like that. I'd just lead the moves.

I'll do what I should have done earlier, and ask a couple of questions: what exactly do you think these rules are? Are you thinking along the lines of 'thou shalt dance lindy with either basic 6-count or 8-count footwork?' 'thou shalt preface thy moves with rocksteps' etc? That's my assumption, but perhaps you mean something else entirely.

And do you mind my asking how much experience you (and BigD) have with the dances in question (Lindy, WCS, Ballroom Jive and any other relevant ones)?

Agente Secreto
23rd-April-2009, 11:12 AM
I think that between us, we've now utterly derailed the thread.

Time for a split, maybe?

Was that a spelling error, did you mean spliff:wink:

Graham
23rd-April-2009, 11:19 AM
I think a good MJ dancer should be able to pick up just about any dance style because they should have a general grounding in the common aspects of any partner dancing - all they need to do is apply a specific set of rules/guidelines/constraints that define that dance. A good dancer of any other style has to drop the constructs that their technique has been built around and apply the techniques with a different set of rules.

Firstly let me say that I do understand where you're coming from and what leads you to say that. But I have to disagree with you in the sense that it's profoundly misleading, and whilst there is arguably an element of truth at the heart of your argument I believe you have extrapolated this much too far.

There are MJ dancers I have seen who I would say are "good dancers" in the sense that you mean - good self control/co-ordination, good musicality, and good leading (or following) skills. However I would say that without exception these people had developed these skills at least in part outside modern jive, so if I took someone who was a "good MJ dancer" but who had only been trained in MJ, then I think that they'd have to learn a bunch of extra technique to be able to dance another style, whether it be weight distribution, frame, connection or whatever: they would not "already know" these techniques and just have to learn how to apply them.

It's fair to say that MJ borrows from other lots of other dance forms, and therefore to some extent MJ dancers learn snippets of techniques, but it's a bit like English incorporating lots of foreign words - just because you know what a bungalow is, applying the specific set of rules/guidelines/constraints that define the Gujarati language isn't going to be something you can knock off with a couple of hours practice :wink:

MartinHarper
23rd-April-2009, 07:11 PM
http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/showthread.php?p=384674

Modern Jive is recognisably different from mirror-reversed Modern Jive. Therefore there is at least one other dance that is not Modern Jive.

bigdjiver
23rd-April-2009, 11:26 PM
http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/showthread.php?p=384674

Modern Jive is recognisably different from mirror-reversed Modern Jive. Therefore there is at least one other dance that is not Modern Jive. Where does it say that you cannot do the moves mirror reversed? The core of the problem is that there is no recognised authority, or precise definition.

I have been taught mirror reversed MJ at a Ceroc venue.

bigdjiver
23rd-April-2009, 11:59 PM
I'll restate what I and NZM have already said. Forget this 'rules' idea. It's a fallacy. Dances like Lindy and WCS are not, in my opinion, defined by 'rules'....So how do you recognise Lindy? WCS?


... And do you mind my asking how much experience you (and BigD) have with the dances in question (Lindy, WCS, Ballroom Jive and any other relevant ones)? ... It varies from little to none. Which is why I have confined my arguments to set theory, and repeatedly tried to draw upon your and others expertise in those dances without any joy.

I am in the position of not knowing any part of WCS or Lindy that cannot be incorporated into MJ. I agree that if you incorporate enough elements then it is easier to call what is happening WCS or Lindy, but the the prnciple of set theory is that if every element in one set is included in another, then the first set is a subset of the other. I keep asking for just one element of those dances that is forbidden in MJ. That is all that is required to prove your argument.

I do realise that I mmight be wrong, which is why I have continually asked for the evidence that I am. I am willing to learn, to be persuaded. No reply has been forthcoming.

I believe that choreographed shines may ne part of Ballroom Jive. If that is true then I would hope that that dance is not a subset, although most of it would be. I do not want to see choreographed shines as psrt of MJ.

NZ Monkey
24th-April-2009, 03:01 AM
I am in the position of not knowing any part of WCS or Lindy that cannot be incorporated into MJ. I agree that if you incorporate enough elements then it is easier to call what is happening WCS or Lindy, but the the prnciple of set theory is that if every element in one set is included in another, then the first set is a subset of the other. I keep asking for just one element of those dances that is forbidden in MJ. That is all that is required to prove your argument.

I do realise that I mmight be wrong, which is why I have continually asked for the evidence that I am. I am willing to learn, to be persuaded. No reply has been forthcoming. I for one have not answered your question directly because I believe you’re basing your question on false assumptions.

As I see it your position can be surmised as follows: MJ can include anything because there are no rules or conventions.

Because anything can happen, any dance could be replicated entirely under the name MJ.

Because any dance could conceivably happen as MJ, all dances must therefore be a subset of MJ.

You’ve actually defined MJ as being a dance that can include anything from the very beginning, and then using that definition to prove that you’re right about it being all-encompassing. It’s a very circular argument, much like claiming the events of the Terminator movie were/will be real because it says that’s what happens in the movie.

I argued that there are in fact rules and conventions in MJ rather than it being some sort of distillation of “pure” technique and musicality. Frankly, the “anything goes” argument might be the official line (I’m not sure if it is or not – although it certainly get’s treated that way), but in practice that’s rubbish in my opinion. If there really were no rules or conventions by any name you chose, I very much doubt that I could fly to the other side of the world and dance in a virtually identical manner to the way I would here with a complete stranger. For that matter, if anything goes then there is no reason for anyone to take classes where they learn to do things exactly the same as the Ceroc script tells them too.

Just because we pretend there are no rules doesn’t mean they don’t exist in the real world.

David Franklin
24th-April-2009, 09:58 AM
Which is why I have confined my arguments to set theoryOn the 'set theory' point:

I think part of the problem here is people attributing an incorrect 'value judgement' to "subset/superset". That is, that if MJ is a superset of WCS, then MJ is better.

Any experienced mathematician will tell you this is nonsense - in most scenarios, you want to work in the subset, because things "behave better" there.

In this particular case, I don't think any value judgement should be inferred, however.


I am in the position of not knowing any part of WCS or Lindy that cannot be incorporated into MJ. I agree that if you incorporate enough elements then it is easier to call what is happening WCS or Lindy, but the the prnciple of set theory is that if every element in one set is included in another, then the first set is a subset of the other. I keep asking for just one element of those dances that is forbidden in MJ.The thing is, "forbidden" is a very strong word. There is probably nothing in WCS that is "forbidden" in MJ, but then there is probably nothing in MJ that is forbidden in WCS either.

To my mind, MartinHarper gave a good example. 'Mirror-MJ' is obviously closely related to MJ, and you obviously could use 'Mirror-MJ' moves in MJ. But in general, I think those moves would feel extremely strange to most followers - I don't think you would be a popular leader if you used them all the time. In practical terms, I think it's a different dance. But there's nothing there that's forbidden in MJ.

More generally, you must have experienced dancing with someone new, and instantly though "She obviously dances something else instead of MJ". If MJ really was a "superset", this wouldn't really happen, surely?

I don't think it's reasonable for NZ to answer your "forbidden" question, but I am curious what WCS dancers see as the 'show-stoppers' in "just doing WCS in MJ". Abstractly, I'd expect the different time-structure (1&a2) and beat-emphasis would be show-stoppers, but in practice I've found they aren't, at least when leading MJ to 'pure' Westies.


I believe that choreographed shines may ne part of Ballroom Jive. If that is true then I would hope that that dance is not a subset, although most of it would be. I do not want to see choreographed shines as psrt of MJ.They certainly aren't "forbidden" in MJ, though.

straycat
24th-April-2009, 12:11 PM
So how do you recognise Lindy? WCS?

I recognise Lindy from the dancers' technique - the way they move, their postures, and so on and so forth. Similarly for WCS.


It varies from little to none. Which is why I have confined my arguments to set theory, and repeatedly tried to draw upon your and others expertise in those dances without any joy.
:confused: No joy? Myself, NZM and others have been sharing that 'expertise' and our perspective with you pretty constantly throughout this thread.


I keep asking for just one element of those dances that is forbidden in MJ. That is all that is required to prove your argument.
If we could do that, I'm not sure how it would prove our argument - but I don't think there's anything that's 'forbidden'. I would assert that there's a lot within Lindy that you cannot do within 'pure MJ', yes - but this is because the movement / lead & follow techniques required to execute them properly are not present in MJ. Most swingout variations and most Charleston variations would fall straight into that category - but it's nothing to do with them being 'forbidden'.


I do realise that I mmight be wrong, which is why I have continually asked for the evidence that I am. I am willing to learn, to be persuaded. No reply has been forthcoming.
We've been answering all along... I'm just not convinced you understand what we've been trying to say, which is why I asked about your experience. This may well simply be a reflection on my inability to explain things properly.

To be fair - go back five years, and I tended to take a similar viewpoint to yourself. Since then, I've done a lot of heavily technique-based bootcamp style workshops, and that has done much to change my way of thinking.

NZ Monkey
24th-April-2009, 12:20 PM
I don't think it's reasonable for NZ to answer your "forbidden" question, but I am curious what WCS dancers see as the 'show-stoppers' in "just doing WCS in MJ". Abstractly, I'd expect the different time-structure (1&a2) and beat-emphasis would be show-stoppers, but in practice I've found they aren't, at least when leading MJ to 'pure' Westies.
If you're happy to clarify just what you mean by "show-stoppers" then I'm happy to put my thoughts down. I'm afraid I'm not entirely sure I understand what you mean there.

bigdjiver
24th-April-2009, 12:38 PM
On the 'set theory' point:

I think part of the problem here is people attributing an incorrect 'value judgement' to "subset/superset". That is, that if MJ is a superset of WCS, then MJ is better.I think I have hidden drops of wisdom in a flood. I have posted that "sub" has negative connotations that do not apply here, and that being in a subset of the rich, handsome and healthy is not a bad thing.


Any experienced mathematician will tell you this is nonsense - in most scenarios, you want to work in the subset, because things "behave better" there. :devil:Personally I think misbehaving is one of the attractions of MJ :wink:


... More generally, you must have experienced dancing with someone new, and instantly though "She obviously dances something else instead of MJ". .. :blush: I have had a partner say "I have been dancing Ceroc for four years, what was that?" (Whatever it was, she came back for more):waycool:

It was the experience of dancing with ladies that had never had an MJ lesson at a freestyle that has fuelled my interest in the question. They danced their way, and I let them, inserting some MJ moves here and there. I wondered at what mix could we be said to be dancing MJ?

I know of no better place to test MJ questions than this forum.

At last nights Ceroc class we had couples dancing MJ, bits of Tango, bits of chacha and quickstep. I have seen Lindy and rock'n'roll. I guess that somewhere ballroom jive has appeared, and I have done bits of Trad Jive.
At the Le Jive Modern Jive championships all styles of jive were allowed.



I don't think it's reasonable for NZ to answer your "forbidden" question, but I am curious what WCS dancers see as the 'show-stoppers' in "just doing WCS in MJ". Abstractly, I'd expect the different time-structure (1&a2) and beat-emphasis would be show-stoppers, but in practice I've found they aren't, at least when leading MJ to 'pure' Westies.

They certainly aren't "forbidden" in MJ, though.
I think it is reasonable and practicable to use the best description of what we see, use MJ when it is not Lindy, not WCS, not ...

On the dance island MJ might be the 100 ft contour line, and WCS, Lindy and other forms of jive as higher elevations , higher forms of dance, if you must.

From the hills the view may be better, but on the plains there is far more space to roam.

David Franklin
24th-April-2009, 12:39 PM
If you're happy to clarify just what you mean by "show-stoppers" then I'm happy to put my thoughts down. I'm afraid I'm not entirely sure I understand what you mean there.Well, Straycat said:


WCS and MJ (I believe I'm right in saying) have differences that run right down to the core of the dances.

And you said you agreed 100%.

So I guess I'm saying "what are those differences, and why are they so fundamental?"

NZ Monkey
24th-April-2009, 01:50 PM
Well, Straycat said:



And you said you agreed 100%.

So I guess I'm saying "what are those differences, and why are they so fundamental?"That's a fair question.

My gut response to that question is the connection. In simple terms MJ tends to constantly switch from compression to leverage and back again, whereas WCS tends put have a much greater bias toward leverage, and stretches it out more than is typical in MJ.

That sounds really simple. Almost trivial in fact because it sounds like it should be so easy to adapt to. However in my experience it results in a very different feel and look to the dance. Straycat has already used the example of the swing out in Lindy, and I've had exactly the same experiences using whips. Even though the basic whip is a fundamental pattern, the connection involved is relatively complex to develop and entirely reliant on leverage. You can approximate the move, but it feels nothing like the way that it does in WCS on almost every MJ dancer that doesn't also happen to do WCS.

Because MJ dancers don't have any special rules regarding connection, they can quite rightly claim that "we can do that too". In my experience this isn't the case though, because they generally lack the specific skills required to achieve that connection. When leverage isn't followed immediately by compression of some form many followers simply stop following momentarily, which pretty much kills whatever was going on before.



Additionally I find that in WCS I never need to worry about wrong-footing my partner, whereas the timing of the footwork in MJ can make turning in some directions at some points in time quite uncomfortable. The very flexible footwork timing and being conditioned to use triple steps when required opens up a world of possibilities for changes of direction and speed in WCS. Conversely, although the same "we can do that too" argument in MJ still applies, the reality is that nobody teaches any footwork that isn't marching and so the dancers don't have the skills required for some of these movements.

I want to reiterate I'm trying not to put focus on the footwork itself in my last paragraph, so much as options for overall body movement and lead/follow that an added level of sophistication in the footwork that WCS can allow.

Those are examples of connection and movement that I feel are not currently able to be replicated with a pure MJ dancer.

It's worth confessing here that I don't exactly put a lot of energy into improving my MJ separately from my WCS (which is very much more of a personal focus). Most of my MJ these days is adapted from WCS in the first place, and many of the girls think I actually am dancing WCS when I dance with them because of my style of lead and overall body movement. The two dances feel very different to me however.

That's my immediate reaction to the question you've asked anyway. It's very late here and I'm very tired, so it may not be as clearly explained or thought out as I'd like.

NZ Monkey
24th-April-2009, 01:59 PM
From the hills the view may be better, but on the plains there is far more space to roam.Very poetic, and perhaps there's some merit to it on a philosophical level.

On a practical level I think unlimited freedom is actually more of a hindrance than a help. With unlimited freedom I need to do an awful lot more work as a leader to make sure the end result is what I was going for. On the other hand, a few "restrictions" can also give me the tools to do things that are far too difficult to do without that extra structure.

There is so much scope for expression in dances with many more rules than MJ has, that no one person could explore them all in a life-time. As far as I'm concerned that counts as no practical limit on expression at all.

David Franklin
25th-April-2009, 06:14 PM
My gut response to that question is the connection. In simple terms MJ tends to constantly switch from compression to leverage and back again, whereas WCS tends put have a much greater bias toward leverage, and stretches it out more than is typical in MJ.OK. You probably guessed that I do have some thoughts on the differences myself, and this was "on the list".


That sounds really simple. Almost trivial in fact because it sounds like it should be so easy to adapt to. However in my experience it results in a very different feel and look to the dance.What's interesting about this particular difference is that, actually, there are a fair number of MJ dancers (me, for instance) who also bias heavily towards leverage. And, I'm inclined to agree with you that it's a different look-and-feel from MJ. But I would also be inclined to say they are still dancing MJ. That is, I can lead like that with a decent (approx. average level) MJ follow
without it feeling like I'm always having to adjust.


Straycat has already used the example of the swing out in Lindy, and I've had exactly the same experiences using whips. Even though the basic whip is a fundamental pattern, the connection involved is relatively complex to develop and entirely reliant on leverage. You can approximate the move, but it feels nothing like the way that it does in WCS on almost every MJ dancer that doesn't also happen to do WCS.You may well be right - but one move that has moved heavily into my MJ repertoire is "a first move with inside turn", which is essentially a reworking of a WCS whip with inside turn. To my limited feel, it's not that different from the WCS version (but don't forget it's more than 2 years since I've done any WCS).

The bigger issue I notice personally is "MJ doesn't anchor". That is, the follow comes back in, whether or not I want her to. [Feedback from a WCS follow is that this may well be my fault - I'm probably pulling them back in more than I realise. Which in a sense is still the same problem - the MJ bias towards coming straight back in is such that even when I think I'm not leading it, I'm leading it].


Most of my MJ these days is adapted from WCS in the first place, and many of the girls think I actually am dancing WCS when I dance with them because of my style of lead and overall body movement. The two dances feel very different to me however. Would you say your MJ is mainly leverage, or are you still using a lot of compression?

NZ Monkey
25th-April-2009, 11:17 PM
What's interesting about this particular difference is that, actually, there are a fair number of MJ dancers (me, for instance) who also bias heavily towards leverage. And, I'm inclined to agree with you that it's a different look-and-feel from MJ. But I would also be inclined to say they are still dancing MJ. That is, I can lead like that with a decent (approx. average level) MJ follow
without it feeling like I'm always having to adjust.From my perspective, I put a greater emphasis on leverage than compression in MJ and I find I can get away with leading like that with most decent followers. It still doesn't feel like it does in WCS to me though.

I understand what you're saying about this style of dancing still being MJ because you can dance that way with someone who can only dance MJ. I'll also note though that in the sentences I've bolded above you're still drawing a line between this version and what you'd call MJ on any other day. That's probably just a slip rather than something deep and meaningful, but it sums up my experience pretty well.


You may well be right - but one move that has moved heavily into my MJ repertoire is "a first move with inside turn", which is essentially a reworking of a WCS whip with inside turn. To my limited feel, it's not that different from the WCS version (but don't forget it's more than 2 years since I've done any WCS).It's funny you should mention that one, because it's probably the single most used move in my repertoire as well.

In my opinion the feel is quite different from the WCS version. The biggest differences I find is in the buildup of the connection. That triple step for the followers in the middle of the whip should be led rather than simply be there as a matter of convention. It's caused by the buildup of elastic potential between the dancers, and that buildup gives the pattern a notably different acceleration profile. It's certainly possible to adjust yourself to set up something similar looking, but I notice a significant difference in feel.

It's also worth noting that this version of a whip is by far the easiest to perform in MJ. At least it's by far the easiest that I've found. Using outside turns is also relatively easy, but you're less likely to keep it slotted with only an average MJ dancer. Even with a standard basic variety I find most follows struggle with the release in MJ, I suspect because the footwork feels a little strange to them or they're expecting something more complication (I haven't actually asked though). That might be my lead, but even if it is then it still demonstrates my point.

Compare that to another relatively simple whip like this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seEJkIF5E2U&feature=PlayList&p=774233E26C4DCDA3&index=13. The trick here is that the lead for the turn is through the followers left arm (the one holding the hand behind the leaders back). The leader leads it by stepping backward, off the slot, and this causes the followers left side to come in and across starting the turn.

In order to do this pattern in WCS, it's vital that the follower keeps moving backward until she can't go any further and get's drawn forward with that release in the elastic tension. This is what causes the triple step in the middle of the basic whip as I mentioned above. If she doesn't have this she won't feel the lead to turn. It's also vital that she relax the other arm (the one that get's "turned" around her head) and not lock it up looking for connection there. If she requires being turned from the top hand there's a reasonable chance of causing shoulder injury. Neither of these technique points are the most likely response for MJ dancers, and although a couple can figure it out and adapt it, I'd say it's outside the realms of something that could be considered socially leadable in MJ.


The bigger issue I notice personally is "MJ doesn't anchor". That is, the follow comes back in, whether or not I want her to. [Feedback from a WCS follow is that this may well be my fault - I'm probably pulling them back in more than I realise. Which in a sense is still the same problem - the MJ bias towards coming straight back in is such that even when I think I'm not leading it, I'm leading it].

Would you say your MJ is mainly leverage, or are you still using a lot of compression?I have a heavy bias towards leverage, but I still use compression a lot more in MJ than in WCS.

For a start, unless my partner already has enough momentum because I've thrown her out from some move, I'll actively lead every step back because it gives me more control on how the connection is going to feel at the end. That isn't something that is often required in WCS. There also a good number of moves I tend to lead with compression if I have to with most partners in MJ that I wouldn't otherwise, such as manhattens or shimmies, or pretty much anything else that uses a close hold but isn't particularly whip-like. I'd prefer not to do that but sometimes you often have to too make it work on the dancefloor.

Also, I tend to use a "bump" in MJ quite often (depending on my partner of course). Essentially I just stand there and let them run straight into compression through my hand as soon as they step forward, which causes a rock step again. It's a response to the follower coming back in automatically, and I do it mainly because I hate having to play catch up when I'm leading and I'm stubborn enough to stick to it in the hope of my point getting across nicely (and to be fair, a couple of the girls have sheepishly realized why it happens and whose fault it is without me having to actually tell them they're doing something wrong.... but only a few). It is quite possible to make this bump look and feel good, so it's not like it kills the dance if they don't realize.



*NZ Monkey takes a deep breath after writing another small novel and get's ready for his final point.*

It's debatable whether some (most?) of these things really do represent fundamental differences between MJ and WCS. Part of the reason for doubt is that because there is no "one right way" in MJ then you can argue that it's all just style variations. Another is that because so very little in the way of technique is taught to 95% of the dancers, that you can argue that it's still done the same way in MJ, but only a very small number of workshops attendants have ever heard about it and fewer actually utilize it.

Certainly I find that many of the differences seem to stem from poor technique in MJ. However, because I'm so very invested in WCS I'm aware that my opinion on technique probably shouldn't be considered very objective in the grand scheme of things.

In the absence of more structure in the teaching MJ technique in general, I tend to take a long look at what is happening on the dance floors to base my opinions on, and that often puts me at odds with others who look at it more from the workshop teaching point of view.

David Franklin
26th-April-2009, 10:23 AM
I understand what you're saying about this style of dancing still being MJ because you can dance that way with someone who can only dance MJ. I'll also note though that in the sentences I've bolded above you're still drawing a line between this version and what you'd call MJ on any other day. That's probably just a slip rather than something deep and meaningful, but it sums up my experience pretty well.My personal feeling is that there's been a bit of a split in the UK. The way a lot of MJ dancers have 'evolved' is towards a style that has quite a few attributes of WCS (if not all of them) - much less bouncy, predominantly slotted, predominantly leverage. At the risk of controversy, I'd say this is the direction most good dancers have moved in.

Now I still call this dance MJ as opposed to WCS - as much as anything because it's pretty much how I dance, and I really wouldn't call myself a WCS dancer. In fact, I'm not sure it's even "MJ'd WCS", because a lot of the changes I've made haven't come from WCS - they're just things that 'happened'. (For example - the main reason I ended up dancing slotted is that I liked to do a lot of drops, and I was only really comfortable doing them by the side of the dance floor, so I can drop the follow to the 'safe' side. But I think dancing slotted then starts causing a lot of other changes in your dance style as a side effect). Quite a lot of WCS influence as well, I admit.

On the other hand, there are some very good MJ dancers who haven't particularly moved in this direction. In fact, a lot of people right at the "top" of the MJ pyramid don't have much of a WCS look (e.g. Mick, Viktor, Will, Phil, Clayton from 3-4 years ago, which is the last time I saw him really dance). (N.B. I haven't really seen much comp dancing for a couple of years).

And although I think both styles are MJ for practical purposes, when I see someone like Mick dancing MJ it's obvious that it has a lot more "authentic MJ feel" than the way I dance.

Of course, WCS used to have a very different look (with a lot more compression) in the past as well!


It's funny you should mention that one, because it's probably the single most used move in my repertoire as well.For some reason, I think it's the easiest to "set up" for a MJ follow so that the momentum and footwork works out. I find a first-move into backhander (Texas Tommy?) also works OK (apart from usual 'leading a backhander' issues), and actually has more of a 'whip' feel when it works. I find first-move with outside turn to be much much more difficult.


In my opinion the feel is quite different from the WCS version. The biggest differences I find is in the buildup of the connection. That triple step for the followers in the middle of the whip should be led rather than simply be there as a matter of convention.I guess I was really meaning just on the 'grosser' level of it being led pretty much entirely by leverage. I'm not sure my WCS whips were ever good enough to have a good feel for the finer points.


Also, I tend to use a "bump" in MJ quite often (depending on my partner of course). Essentially I just stand there and let them run straight into compression through my hand as soon as they step forward, which causes a rock step again. It's a response to the follower coming back in automatically, and I do it mainly because I hate having to play catch up when I'm leading and I'm stubborn enough to stick to it in the hope of my point getting across nicely (and to be fair, a couple of the girls have sheepishly realized why it happens and whose fault it is without me having to actually tell them they're doing something wrong.... but only a few). Yeah, I do this quite a bit as well, and it was this that actually got the response I mentioned from a WCS follower about me pulling them in. (Roughly: 'instead of pulling me in and then stopping me, just let me anchor'). I probably need to get a (probably WCS) teacher to debug what I'm doing here at some point, as I'm not intentionally leading back in.


Certainly I find that many of the differences seem to stem from poor technique in MJ.Certainly where I dance, the most common problem I find is people bouncing hands to the beat. Which I don't think is a "MJ" problem specifically - you certainly hear enough complaints about it in Lindy forums. But it's very common in MJ, because no-one will tell you *not* to do it until it's become pretty ingrained.

Anyhow, I'm not even sure what we were originally talking about now - although it's been interesting to see the 'parallel evolution' you've obviously been undertaking in NZ w.r.t. first move variations and "bumps".

NZ Monkey
26th-April-2009, 10:59 AM
Anyhow, I'm not even sure what we were originally talking about now - although it's been interesting to see the 'parallel evolution' you've obviously been undertaking in NZ w.r.t. first move variations and "bumps".I believe it was the question "So I guess I'm saying "what are those differences, and why are they so fundamental?" that opened Pandora's box :wink:

straycat
26th-April-2009, 11:01 AM
So I guess I'm saying "what are those differences, and why are they so fundamental?"

OK... a touch of the Lindy perspective on this. If I do more than just touch on it, I'll be writing this post all day, so I'll do my best to be very restrained.

So... just a couple of key differences. In Lindy, there is a pulse. It's not like any kind of Ceroc Bounce™ - it's a whole-body bounce, down into the ground, on every beat. It's generally subtle, but needs to be there the whole time (except on Special Occasions). It is independent of the footwork.... so one needs to be able to maintain that same pulse while doing any kind of footwork, be it single time, 6 beat triples, 8 beat triples,Charleston etc etc etcyadda di yadda di yadda. As for the why - it makes it a lot easier to do the footwork at speed, and it's key for establishing connection and lead / follow.

Another being body leading. Which in Lindy is used for just about everything. Arm leading is seen as something to avoid. The MJ philosophy on that is ... different, I believe.

David Franklin
26th-April-2009, 11:57 AM
I believe it was the question "So I guess I'm saying "what are those differences, and why are they so fundamental?" that opened Pandora's box :wink:Sort of (I remember now what I was thinking). The question I was trying to get to:

Is it really true that MJ is a 'superset' of WCS and Lindy in a 'mathematical' sense?

If not, what are the things in WCS/Lindy that are incompatible with MJ? That is, not just "if you do this, it looks more like WCS than MJ", but more "if you do this, it will not work in MJ". (Or vice-versa)

From personal experience, I'm unconvinced that leading with leverage only is enough to get you into that "will not work" category.

A better example might be leading on every beat as opposed to 'standard' MJ where you lead only on the downbeats. I find this throws a lot of MJ follows, but I also find I've got a lot better at making it work than I used to be - so I'm not sure how much it's a problem with my lead rather than anything else. And I don't know how different this would be in NZ/Aus, where they seem to use a 'proper' count as opposed to the 'slow' UK count.

geoff332
26th-April-2009, 12:17 PM
For ballroom jive, there are three related differences (although I'm rusty on this; so some of the details may be a little vague). The speed of the dance: you step on every beat. In MJ, you step on every second beat. A competitive ballroom jive is danced to music around 44 bars per minute (176 beats); fast MJ is around 30 bars per minute.
The movement pattern. The basic footwork consists of a pair of syncopated triples in every count; the beat is accentuated by both high steps and hip movement.
The bounce. This is putting the first two together, and it is very different from the (evil) ceroc bounce: done properly, your lower body bounces under your rib cage while your shoulders barely move in the vertical plane - you compress your body up to create an illusion of bouncing, accented by the hip swing.But the difference is something more fundamental: if you take a typical intermediate ballroom jive dancer and try and teach them MJ, it'll take a few hours to perform at the level of a typical intermediate MJ dancer. If you take a typical intermediate MJ dancer and teach them ballroom jive, it's likely to take a couple of months before they can perform at the same standard as a typical ballroom jive dancer - about the same time it takes to learn ballroom jive to that level for a complete novice.

NZ Monkey
26th-April-2009, 12:38 PM
If not, what are the things in WCS/Lindy that are incompatible with MJ? That is, not just "if you do this, it looks more like WCS than MJ", but more "if you do this, it will not work in MJ". (Or vice-versa)

From personal experience, I'm unconvinced that leading with leverage only is enough to get you into that "will not work" category. Fair enough.

I've already mentioned that some movements that are natural in WCS really aren't in MJ, in large part due to the footwork. It's very difficult to prove that something's impossible because there's bound to be someone out there who can do it of course.

One example of something that's relatively simple in WCS that is very difficult* in MJ is leading the follower in an anticlockwise spin from the closed position of a first move, using only the hand on the shoulderblade to turn her.

Perhaps a better counter to the "WCS/Lindy is a subset of of MJ" argument is in the vice-versa part of the quote above. If you can't find anything you can do in MJ that you can't do in WCS or Lindy, then presumably that makes MJ a subset of the WCS/Lindy superset as well. I'm pretty sure two entities being subsets of each other is a logical fallacy** so the only conclusion I can come to is that the initial assumption that one is a subset of the other is incorrect.


A better example might be leading on every beat as opposed to 'standard' MJ where you lead only on the downbeats. I find this throws a lot of MJ follows, but I also find I've got a lot better at making it work than I used to be - so I'm not sure how much it's a problem with my lead rather than anything else. And I don't know how different this would be in NZ/Aus, where they seem to use a 'proper' count as opposed to the 'slow' UK count.Firstly, the slow count is still used in classes here, but we lead on the "&" as well. It drives me nuts - I wish we'd just do away with it entirely and count the beats properly. In all honesty, I've never really understood how you can get away without leading on each beat anyway.

In hindsight, if there really is a difference there that might explain why I struggled with so many MJ followers in the UK when others didn't seem to so much. I've never thought about it until now.

*read: I've never been able to do it.
**(1)If anyone on this forum can prove me wrong here it's David Franklin, so if you don't want to go into the details David I'll just accept a yes or no :na:
**(2) Is that even the right word to use here?

David Franklin
26th-April-2009, 01:24 PM
I've already mentioned that some movements that are natural in WCS really aren't in MJ, in large part due to the footwork. It's very difficult to prove that something's impossible because there's bound to be someone out there who can do it of course.Sure. And I'm aware I'm kind of providing a moving target. The thing is, we've had debates about whether you can "stick WCS stuff into MJ and end up with all the virtues of WCS", and the Westies are pretty clear that you can't. And I agree as well, because that's sort of what I've done, and I'm sure what I dance is still basically MJ.


One example of something that's relatively simple in WCS that is very difficult* in MJ is leading the follower in an anticlockwise spin from the closed position of a first move, using only the hand on the shoulderblade to turn her.This is a good example of something that doesn't work, but it doesn't exactly feel "core". On the other hand, I suspect the underlying reason is pretty 'core'. How do you lead it in WCS? Is it essentially "absence of leverage"?


Perhaps a better counter to the "WCS/Lindy is a subset of of MJ" argument is in the vice-versa part of the quote above. If you can't find anything you can do in MJ that you can't do in WCS or Lindy, then presumably that makes MJ a subset of the WCS/Lindy superset as well. I'm pretty sure two entities being subsets of each other is a logical fallacy**No, it can also be the case that the two subsets are actually equal. Note that set theory as we're using it here is very "all or nothing" about whether something is included, so if WCS does "A" 99% of the time, and "B" 1% of the time, while MJ does "A" 1% of the time and "B" 99% of the time, in set theory terms, both dances allow A and B and we don't see any difference between the dances. In real-world experience, this is nonsense, of course.


Firstly, the slow count is still used in classes here, but we lead on the "&" as well. It drives me nuts - I wish we'd just do away with it entirely and count the beats properly. In all honesty, I've never really understood how you can get away without leading on each beat anyway. It's not that there isn't a lead on the '&' counts, but you don't typically lead anything "significant" (compare with the 1-beat lead concept in WCS). MJ follows tend to freak out if you lead significant direction changes on the '&' count, even though once they're used to the concept, it doesn't seem to be anything like as much of a problem. [And of course, you then get the 'moving target' problem - because after a while it is part of MJ after all!].

straycat
26th-April-2009, 01:49 PM
In MJ, you step on every second beat.

Since when? :confused:
Assuming that you mean you only step on every second beat...

straycat
26th-April-2009, 01:52 PM
A better example might be leading on every beat as opposed to 'standard' MJ where you lead only on the downbeats.
:confused:
MJ or Lindy, it matters not... I use a continuous lead. I've never come across leading only on downbeats - could you explain further?

straycat
26th-April-2009, 01:58 PM
Is it really true that MJ is a 'superset' of WCS and Lindy in a 'mathematical' sense?

If not, what are the things in WCS/Lindy that are incompatible with MJ? That is, not just "if you do this, it looks more like WCS than MJ", but more "if you do this, it will not work in MJ". (Or vice-versa)

Even if there is nothing in Lindy that 'will not work in MJ', I simply do not agree that this would make MJ a superset of Lindy. Unless I've missed something, the only argument presented to support this is the idea that the dances are defined purely by their 'rules'... and we've already shown how this simply isn't the case.

Here's one for you - I've given an example of something fundamental to Lindy (the pulse) that doesn't exist in MJ. How does that fit with the superset theory?

David Franklin
26th-April-2009, 02:08 PM
:confused:
MJ or Lindy, it matters not... I use a continuous lead. I've never come across leading only on downbeats - could you explain further?Look at how MJ is taught - "Semicircle and step back. Step in. Turn the lady out. Turn the Lady in. Push and raise to turn the lady. Step in to return. Step out". (or something like that - I am dreadful at writing moves out - it's the wrong bit of my brain or something).

Each part takes 2 beats, each part is pretty much taught as "start here, and end here". Yes, there is (or can be) a continuous lead, but with most follows, once one of those '2-beat sequences' is started, it is going to run on to completion almost whatever the lead does.

I'm not saying you can't lead significant changes on 1-beat quanta, but for most followers, it is disproportionately difficult - it's obviously "going against the grain for them".

David Franklin
26th-April-2009, 02:45 PM
Even if there is nothing in Lindy that 'will not work in MJ', I simply do not agree that this would make MJ a superset of Lindy.Well, OK, but then you're not using the word in the same way that I am (and I wouldn't really use the word this way either, but I am running with the way bigD was using it).


Unless I've missed something, the only argument presented to support this is the idea that the dances are defined purely by their 'rules'... and we've already shown how this simply isn't the case.I don't think that's the argument here.

Put it another way;

You agree (surely) that 'partner dancing' is a superset of Lindy.

So if MJ isn't a superset of Lindy, then there must be some concrete reasons why not. And that reason is going to have more to do with MJ than with Lindy - because it pretty much has to be "you can't do this in MJ, because..."

Which is what I've been looking for answers to, because I think it's an interesting question.


Here's one for you - I've given an example of something fundamental to Lindy (the pulse) that doesn't exist in MJ. How does that fit with the superset theory?If it doesn't exist in MJ, then (on a set theoretic level), it must be incompatible with MJ and you're in the "will not work in MJ" case.

Which, despite your opening paragraph, I would have thought must be the case. If it's fundamental to dancing Lindy, and it doesn't exist in MJ dancers, surely it is something that doesn't work with MJ. :confused:

geoff332
26th-April-2009, 03:09 PM
Since when? :confused:
Assuming that you mean you only step on every second beat...Since it was invented, as far as I'm aware. Certainly as long as I've done it. The basic count is on every second musical beat. As with all dances, you break the basic pattern for variation, but count in MJ is every second beat. And the vast majority of people do step on every second beat.

Ballroom Jive is danced using single beats and swing triples. Swing triples put three pulses in a single beat, but rest the second pulse, giving you the syncopated feel. While you can use these variations in MJ, they are not fundamental to the dance, they are variations.

In terms of which is a superset and which is a subset, the argument is that all forms of jive are subsets of MJ. One could equally argue that MJ is a subset of Ballroom Jive - that, by introducing the appropriate variations to make ballroom jive look like MJ; this is a logically identical claim. Following those premises, we have the position that MJ and Ballroom Jive are equivalent.

If that is not true, then at least one of the premises must be false. Given the two premises are logically identical (Y contains X is X is an acceptable variation of Y), then if one is false, both are false.

David Franklin
26th-April-2009, 03:31 PM
Since it was invented, as far as I'm aware. Certainly as long as I've done it. The basic count is on every second musical beat. As with all dances, you break the basic pattern for variation, but count in MJ is every second beat. And the vast majority of people do step on every second beat.Agree with all but the last sentence, but the last sentence is the critical one here. And (with the possible exception of beginners), I think you'll find the majority of people do step on every beat (certainly the majority of followers).

straycat
26th-April-2009, 07:42 PM
If it doesn't exist in MJ, then (on a set theoretic level), it must be incompatible with MJ and you're in the "will not work in MJ" case.

Which, despite your opening paragraph, I would have thought must be the case. If it's fundamental to dancing Lindy, and it doesn't exist in MJ dancers, surely it is something that doesn't work with MJ. :confused:

OK - what I meant by "doesn't exist" is "isn't taught". Actually - more than that - isn't taught, or advocated or practiced. The pulse being a good example. But you can still dance MJ if you put a pulse in - so I don't really see it as incompatible.


I'm not saying you can't lead significant changes on 1-beat quanta, but for most followers, it is disproportionately difficult - it's obviously "going against the grain for them".

Here's another good example - (and thanks for that explanation, by the way - that does make a lot of sense)
Lindy doesn't have any such convention, and if I ever did adhere to it in MJ, these days I'm so Lindy conditioned, that I suspect I ignore it.

So, interestingly, if one follows the rule-based model, this is an example that shows (if I get this right) that Lindy is not a subset of MJ, since it's a rule that restricts MJ... and not Lindy. Being me, I look at it a bit differently - I can and do lead significant changes on 1 (and, very very occasionally, 1/2) beat quanta (and yes, I'm aware this could be considered a bold claim, but I am making it.) Partly by using a continuous connection so that I know where my partner's weight is, and do not wrong-foot her, partly
by appropriately prepping any 'significant' leads, and very much using tension/compression & body leads. So from my perspective, it works just fine in MJ.

I'm not 100% sure how this affects the whole superset / subset debate,

NZ Monkey
26th-April-2009, 08:00 PM
This is a good example of something that doesn't work, but it doesn't exactly feel "core". On the other hand, I suspect the underlying reason is pretty 'core'. How do you lead it in WCS? Is it essentially "absence of leverage"? Actually, this one is led with compression.

Normally when the leader takes his follower down the slot for some sort of throwout from closed, by beat two his centre is still a little ahead of his followers centre.

In order to lead the anticlockwise turn, on the second step he shifts his weight back a little up slot (i.e. almost to where he started from), so that his centre is now in line with the followers.

From the followers point of view, this is not only holding back one side of her body, but as long as she's maintained a good frame it creates quite a noticeable compression in her left shoulder/arm/shoulder blade. That pressure acts like a spring, causing her to unwind turning anticlockwise. The leader can help a bit by turning his body slightly during the release if it's needed, but if it's done right that shouldn't be necessary.

Most MJ follows will release their arm soon as they're stepped forward, and those that don't have typically never been asked to turn that way from this position before and can't interpret the lead.

David Franklin
26th-April-2009, 08:15 PM
Actually, this one is led with compression.

Normally when the leader takes his follower down the slot for some sort of throwout from closed, by beat two his centre is still a little ahead of his followers centre.

In order to lead the anticlockwise turn, on the second step he shifts his weight back a little up slot (i.e. almost to where he started from), so that his centre is now in line with the followers.

From the followers point of view, this is not only holding back one side of her body, but as long as she's maintained a good frame it creates quite a noticeable compression in her left shoulder/arm/shoulder blade. I'm not really understanding this - where is the compression coming from?

[To add detail: I was taking your original statement to mean "I can lead this using only a standard 'hand on the shoulder blade' connection". And the difficulty I was foreseeing was "Hmm... you really want compression to lead this, and you can't apply compression with a 'hand on the shoulder blade' connection, so this must be something clever in WCS". But now you're saying you do have compression.

I can see ways of getting compression by using a non-standard connection at the shoulder blade. When I do this, it's generally 'cheating' because I can't lead what I want any other way.]

NZ Monkey
26th-April-2009, 09:24 PM
I'm not really understanding this - where is the compression coming from?

[To add detail: I was taking your original statement to mean "I can lead this using only a standard 'hand on the shoulder blade' connection". And the difficulty I was foreseeing was "Hmm... you really want compression to lead this, and you can't apply compression with a 'hand on the shoulder blade' connection, so this must be something clever in WCS". But now you're saying you do have compression.

I can see ways of getting compression by using a non-standard connection at the shoulder blade. When I do this, it's generally 'cheating' because I can't lead what I want any other way.]No, I simply meant that you’re not allowed to use the other hand to spin your partner out with like you would in a return.

The compression is in the shoulder. Imagine clipping a wall with your shoulder when running and you’ll get a more violent version of the same idea. It’s an odd feeling because the follower isn’t being pushed anywhere, but it’s still a compression. Her body wants to go forward because that’s where you’ve told it to go on beat 1, but by beat you’ve told one side of her body that it’s not going forward after all by compressing that shoulder (i.e. moving your centre back in line with hers rather than staying in front of it). In fact the follower may even perceive it as a stretch rather than a compression depending on how flexible she is in the muscles around the shoulder and upper arm that get engaged there.

David Franklin
26th-April-2009, 09:38 PM
Sorry - still not really following this.

Can you tell me which (body) part of the lead is in compressive contact with which part of the follower?

NZ Monkey
26th-April-2009, 10:17 PM
I'll PM it. This is probably derailing the thread too much.

straycat
26th-April-2009, 11:43 PM
I'll PM it. This is probably derailing the thread too much.

I think we crossed that line a long time back. Thread split, anyone? Pretty please?

Plus - I'd like to see the answer too. I think I know what the compression feels like - it sounds very much like the Lindy pop turn... but it also sounds like you lead it a little differently. Does the turn start on 2? Or is the compression on 2 the prep?

David Franklin
27th-April-2009, 12:11 AM
OK - what I meant by "doesn't exist" is "isn't taught". Actually - more than that - isn't taught, or advocated or practiced. The pulse being a good example. But you can still dance MJ if you put a pulse in - so I don't really see it as incompatible.Well, what I was meaning is if pulsing lets you do things in Lindy due to better connection, etc., then surely that side of it is not going to work in MJ (because the follow won't do her side correctly). So although simply pulsing might not be incompatible with MJ, pulsing and using all the consequences would be.


So, interestingly, if one follows the rule-based model, this is an example that shows (if I get this right) that Lindy is not a subset of MJ, since it's a rule that restricts MJ... and not Lindy.Yes. Well up until the bit where you said "actually, I can do it in MJ without any problems".


Being me, I look at it a bit differently - I can and do lead significant changes on 1 (and, very very occasionally, 1/2) beat quanta (and yes, I'm aware this could be considered a bold claim, but I am making it.)I must admit, I'm very surprised to hear you claim this when dancing with MJ followers. Because I've certainly experienced a fair degree of "***?" responses when I've tried it. That is, things went wrong not because of the lead (IMHO), but because the follow started thinking "You're leading on the wrong beat" and trying to stop me and get back to standard MJ timing.

NZ Monkey
27th-April-2009, 12:55 AM
I think we crossed that line a long time back. Thread split, anyone? Pretty please?

Plus - I'd like to see the answer too. I think I know what the compression feels like - it sounds very much like the Lindy pop turn... but it also sounds like you lead it a little differently. Does the turn start on 2? Or is the compression on 2 the prep?OK then, I've posted the PM below. Minus the part where I bad mouth Lindy Hoppers of course :wink:

I don't know what a Lindy pop turn is, but "pop" does seem like a fitting term for what I'm trying to describe. The compression on the 2 is definitely a prep. The footwork for the followers is the standard 6 count, but I'm not 100% certain my partner would say the turn actually starts on the 3. It'd be pretty close to it either way.


If you imagined pushing a pencil sideways along a frictionless surface so that it isn’t rotating at all, and then making one end run into your finger, the pencil would keep moving forward only now it will be rotating. That’s the basic idea with this lead, except that in practice you can’t just stop moving and expect her to sail though the turn nicely on her own. She probably doesn’t like being called a rigid body either….

Remember that she’s in a closed position at the moment, so her arm is resting on the outside of yours and she’s hopefully using this to help maintain a nice connection through her whole frame. When you step to place your centre next to hers rather than ahead of it on the second beat, her arm and shoulder are going to end up just a little bit behind your centre as her chest opens up a bit more. It’s the sort of position you might get if you were stretching your own pec against a wall, except that the follower isn’t straightening her arm to make it better.

The differences in distance I’m talking about here are really small by the way but she’s essential walked into this position, which means the momentum change comes quite quickly. You need to let this position get loaded up like a spring before releasing, and it’s this release that makes the follower spin off rather than the leader pushing or stirring her around.

The compression is that build up. It isn’t compression in the obvious way a sugar push is though. The leader is only applying it on one side, so the natural response should be rotation if the follower isn’t thinking too hard about it.

When my partner and I started working on this the whole position felt very cramped and it took a bit of figuring out just how much allowance for error we had in each phase for it to be truly lead and follow. It feels very easy when you’ve got the connection, but you both need to be quite connected to your own centre and it pretty much has to be body led. I think part of the trouble I have leading it in MJ is just that actually – the followers either aren’t used to particularly sensitive leads, or just don’t trust themselves to follow something subtle that they don’t recognize.

As an aside, another thing I find to be a massive difference is leading the follower with her left arm. In WCS it’s just another arm, but in MJ it’s the “wrong” one and usually results in a Wurlitzer or a roll-in from a Wurlitzer (whether I wanted one or not). I have had to catch many women throwing themselves into dips or leans from there…..

bigdjiver
27th-April-2009, 09:08 AM
I have been trying to come up with something that is part of Lindy but would not be acceptable as MJ, according to my limited understanding of both.

Way, way back I now remember an MJ lesson where we were allegedly taught a move derived from Lindy. As I recall the partners split and did opposing independent shimmying circles away from each other meeting back where they started after a few beats, all hopefully synchronised.

I would definitely label this as non-MJ.

As for the spinning pencil turn I have my own take on that which I used several times at the Bedford Corn exchange last Friday.
R to R
Lead twists into mans nelson position, arm behind his back, lead and follow side to side.
Walk around, lead going backwards, follow forwards
At the right psychological moment, (when the follow is just starting to wonder "what is this") and when the follow is in position to spin, I release right hand and using my shoulder on the top of the follows right arm I spin couter clockwise, sending her into a spin.

straycat
27th-April-2009, 09:09 AM
I don't know what a Lindy pop turn is, but "pop" does seem like a fitting term for what I'm trying to describe.

Thanks for that. I slightly misunderstood your previous explanation - from this one, I'd say it is pretty much the same as the pop turn. I've not tried leading it in MJ, but I agree that doing so would likely be a tough proposition.

David Franklin
27th-April-2009, 09:11 AM
I don't know what a Lindy pop turn is, but "pop" does seem like a fitting term for what I'm trying to describe. The compression on the 2 is definitely a prep. The footwork for the followers is the standard 6 count, but I'm not 100% certain my partner would say the turn actually starts on the 3. It'd be pretty close to it either way.What you've posted makes a lot more physical sense than what I'd been imagining. I think I'd have to try it to see where it goes wrong with MJ follows, and from what you said, it wasn't actually that simple to get working with a fixed WCS partner.

Way back in the distant past, Viktor used to teach a move like this at Ceroc - I don't remember the exact details, but it was similar, albeit with probably a much less subtle 'pop' of the chest/shoulders to start the move. I do remember that no-one could get it to work in freestyle (except Viktor).

straycat
29th-April-2009, 09:32 AM
I don't know what a Lindy pop turn is, but "pop" does seem like a fitting term for what I'm trying to describe. The compression on the 2 is definitely a prep. The footwork for the followers is the standard 6 count, but I'm not 100% certain my partner would say the turn actually starts on the 3. It'd be pretty close to it either way.

Playing with pop turns at Lindy last night. I think the key difference between what I've been doing in Lindy, and what you describe here, is that I'm doing the prep on 1, and leading the turn on 2. So from jockey, I do a forwards rockstep, while leading my partner into a rotational backwards rockstep, which (if done right) gets the required compression. The more common way of doing it is as a swingout variation (compression is on 5, turn on 6)
Video of that one here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyRthSv8Ak4), skip to 2:44

I found it a funny move to learn, because I went through a long stage (of several weeks) where most times I led it, it didn't work, and my partner just became confused. When it started working, I couldn't work out what I'd been doing wrong before.

Now I have to see if I can make it work in MJ... :whistle: It'll be an interesting test on the quanta front, because I'll need to lead two quick changes of a completely unfamiliar move on consecutive beats...

straycat
30th-April-2009, 04:56 PM
Yes. Well up until the bit where you said "actually, I can do it in MJ without any problems".

I must admit, I'm very surprised to hear you claim this when dancing with MJ followers. Because I've certainly experienced a fair degree of "***?" responses when I've tried it. That is, things went wrong not because of the lead (IMHO), but because the follow started thinking "You're leading on the wrong beat" and trying to stop me and get back to standard MJ timing.

Hey ho. I've lost count of the number of times I've started to respond to this post, then had to abandon it due to various distractions (or occasionally, brain meltdown)

I suppose one of the key things is that nowadays, I don't remember many MJ moves, and my lead is probably a little different from most. Pretty often when I dance MJ, I'll be leading a fair few moves that my partner isn't all that familiar with, either because I've swiped them from Lindy, or because I've made them up on the spot. And in most dances, I'll spend some time simply messing around to the music, not really doing any specific moves at all. And I constantly vary the timing of moves, generally in response to what the music's doing, what my partner's doing, or both.

Anyway. I'm not convinced that most followers consciously expect to be led on particular beats. On the other hand, most things are a whole lot easier to follow if the follower's weight is in the right place (and / or she's already moving in the right direction) It's quite common for me to prep a lead, feel in my partner's response that she's not quite ready yet, do a spot of weight-shifting for one or more beats, building up to the planned move then leading it.

What all this boils down to, is keeping a constant awareness of where my partner's weight is, and where it's moving to... and to maintain a constant lead. One way to describe it is that at any one moment, you're simultaneously leading your partner, and prepping her for what you're doing next. Get that right, and it's fairly simple to lead these 'changes' on whatever beat you like.....

Sorry - that all got a bit wordy. One of these days I'll learn to be a bit more concise... I hope.

DavidY
30th-April-2009, 11:09 PM
I think we crossed that line a long time back. Thread split, anyone? Pretty please?Done as requested.

robd
1st-May-2009, 11:51 AM
Re: the pop turn / inside roll from closed

I agree this is a tricky one to lead in MJ and it's a tricky one to lead in WCS without a good connection at the shoulder blade

Personally I wonder when I lead this how much of it is now convention for some of the follows I dance with, they recognise what I am leading and go with it rather than a 'pure' lead if that makes sense? Paul W teaches these quite frequently, both for the follow to then travel down slot but also a variation where the lead is face on to the follow and the follow spins in for a chest hit - the latter much harder to achieve :blush:

I'd say the lead is partly in prepping the left side of the follower forward on 2either by moving your centre back towards them or by closing in the connection through the arm - this creates the spring off for the ACW turn. Some follows consciously keep their left arm off the leaders's bicep and this makes the connection at the shoulder even more vital for successfully leading this move.

The leading off the follower's left arm is a good distinction between MJ and WCS - no reason you cannot do it in MJ but in practice it doesn't happen much (though I have a few regular MJ patterns I use that are left arm led) and there is often confusion for follows transitioning between MJ and WCS when they experience left arm leading for the first time.

StokeBloke
1st-May-2009, 01:34 PM
I think someone has done one too many 'fusion' workshops :whistle:

straycat
1st-May-2009, 02:25 PM
I think someone has done one too many 'fusion' workshops :whistle:

Who? :innocent:

jiveoholic
3rd-May-2009, 10:50 PM
I think you might need to look at the definition of 'subset'. This would be true if - and only if - jive, lindy, wcs and ballroom were taught to MJ students as a part of MJ. In other words - if, having learned only MJ I could then go out and do all those dances with no extra tuition, this claim would have some validity.

Just because I can fit parts of these dances into the MJ framework, does not mean that they are subsets of MJ. I can quite happily do the reverse, and incorporate MJ into, say, Lindy, should I so choose - and this doesn't make MJ a subset of Lindy. It just means I'm good enough at Lindy and at MJ to do this.

Sorry - blinked and missed this thread so may be a bit late......

....Perhaps the concept of "inheritance" in the programming language C++ would be more appropriate than "subset".

A "Ford" is not so much a subset of a "car" as an object that inherits 4 wheels, and engine and holds passengers. However a Ford also "refines" the basic concept of a car to have a particular shape, an "electrically heated front windscreen" (patented, so only ford have them!) etc.

If dances X, Y and Z all inherit exactly the same features from dance A, then clearly X, Y and Z all have something in common that is derived from a "parent", but they may be different to, hence calling them sub-sets of A might not be the right model.

straycat
5th-May-2009, 12:17 PM
Brought back home from the competition thread:


If you mixed 51% of world beating WCS with 49% of world beating waltz, how many WCS contests would you win?

Still doesn't make it bad.


AFIK Nobody knows when "Jive" was first used as an epithet for music or dance. Apart from the people who were on the scene at the time, some of whom are still around today. They might not be able to tell you the exact date, but they'd have a pretty good idea when it started to become common parlance. Most of the references I've found suggest the term came into general use in Europe in the 40s, to describe swing dances in general after they'd been brought over by the G.Is.


Having seen "Modern" applied to jazz and art which is decades old I prefer to keep its meaning as contemporary. So, in my view, modern jive dances could include Lindy and WCS as they are performed now.

If you were to define and find the first piece of art ever created, I doubt you'd have much luck persuading people to refer to it as 'modern'.

Besides which - I wouldn't, myself, refer to Lindy as a 'Jive dance', let alone a 'modern jive dance'. I wouldn't be surprised if the WCS crowd feel similarly... :cool:

David Franklin
5th-May-2009, 12:36 PM
....Perhaps the concept of "inheritance" in the programming language C++ would be more appropriate than "subset".Mathematically, I think they're effectively equivalent.


A "Ford" is not so much a subset of a "car" as an object that inherits 4 wheels, and engine and holds passengers. But the set of all "Fords" is a subset of the set of all "cars" (assuming we're making certain simplifying assumptions that we would normally make in inheritance discussions). Explicitly, you would normally only say "Ford inherits from car" if the "IsA" relationship holds. That is, every "Ford" IsA "car". Which is exactly equivalent to the subset thing.

While we're trying different analogies, here's one about language.

Suppose we define a "language" called infinite-monkey-language (IML). Nothing to do with NZ Monkey; the idea is from the infinite monkey theorem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem). What are the rules of this language? None. Anything you can type on a keyboard is valid. Absolutely anything - symbols, punctuation, etc. (We won't get into how you make sense of any of it).

Now, there is a very obvious sense in which English is a subset of IML. Because anything you can write in English can also be written in IML.

This remains true even though English has all kinds of concepts, like words, and sentences, and grammar that don't exist in IML.

Anyone using this argument to infer that IML is superior to English would, however, be misguided. To my mind, it's similar to the MJ argument: "Yes, in principle, someone unrestrained by any rules (or knowledge) of English might come up with a great novel. But it's far far more likely they'll come up with crap".

NZ Monkey
5th-May-2009, 09:11 PM
Suppose we define a "language" called infinite-monkey-language (IML). Nothing to do with NZ Monkey; the idea is from the infinite monkey theorem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem). What are the rules of this language? None. Anything you can type on a keyboard is valid. Absolutely anything - symbols, punctuation, etc. (We won't get into how you make sense of any of it).
There are occasions when I re-read one of my posts and wonder if I didn't just roll my head over the keyboard a few times and hope for the best..... so I wouldn't be so sure :na:

jiveoholic
5th-May-2009, 11:41 PM
Mathematically, I think they're effectively equivalent.

But the set of all "Fords" is a subset of the set of all "cars" (assuming we're making certain simplifying assumptions that we would normally make in inheritance discussions). Explicitly, you would normally only say "Ford inherits from car" if the "IsA" relationship holds. That is, every "Ford" IsA "car". Which is exactly equivalent to the subset thing.

I am no expert on this type of thing, but a trip to http://archive.eiffel.com/doc/manuals/technology/oosc/inheritance-design/section_05.html quickly indicated that there is inheritance that restricts and inheritance that extends.

A square inherits rules from a rectangle and adds a new one: adjacent sides are of equal length. Nothing new is added.

Extension inheritance would seem to be more common or a combination of the two, eg my Canon EOS 400D is a Camera, but it has added detail, it ultrasonically cleans the mirror. This is a feature that is in the sub-set B, but not in the set A.

All I want to say now is that I am TOTALLY confused and it is not clear to me anymore what "B is a sub-set of A" means when used to model some real life concept about Jive, Swing, Dance, hand-jive or whatever!

David Franklin
6th-May-2009, 12:00 AM
I am no expert on this type of thing, but a trip to http://archive.eiffel.com/doc/manuals/technology/oosc/inheritance-design/section_05.html quickly indicated that there is inheritance that restricts and inheritance that extends.But in either case the subset relation applies (with the 'child set' being a subset of the 'parent set').

In fact, the entire discussion about "the paradox of extension inheritance" in your link is basically the same issue that is causing trouble here. That is, it seems paradoxical to say "A has all the attributes of B, plus more, and therefore A is a subset of B". (But it is nevertheless correct).

LilyB
6th-May-2009, 01:21 AM
I was going to post something *relevant*, but after the previous 6 posts, I have now changed my mind :what::sick::doh:

jiveoholic
6th-May-2009, 07:32 AM
But in either case the subset relation applies (with the 'child set' being a subset of the 'parent set').

In fact, the entire discussion about "the paradox of extension inheritance" in your link is basically the same issue that is causing trouble here. That is, it seems paradoxical to say "A has all the attributes of B, plus more, and therefore A is a subset of B". (But it is nevertheless correct).

This is my point. The use of "sub-set" is ambiguous, it could refer to a constraining inheritance, or extending inheritance or a mixture. Hence (getting back to the topic!) the use of a specified form of inheritance is more relevant for describing jive. i.e. there are aspects of modern jive that extend swing dance with additional attributes (e.g. no rules about footwork? - put in some Tango or Salsa here and there) and there are aspects that constrain swing dance to only use certain of its attributes (e.g. only 4/4 time version of swing used in MJ)?

I find this language more helpful even if my maths is a bit ropey!

P.S. I like your paradox point!

straycat
6th-May-2009, 08:29 AM
I was going to post something *relevant*, but after the previous 6 posts, I have now changed my mind :what::sick::doh:

Oh go on... :flower:

bigdjiver
6th-May-2009, 11:38 AM
This is my point. The use of "sub-set" is ambiguous,..:white flag smiley:

Being at the bumbling beginner stage in ballroom and not knowing the technical aspects of the dances I used to guess the marks in Strictly Come Dancing by starting at 36 and deducting a point or two every time something did not look right to me. This crude method was suprisingly good at predicitng total scores.

If I was doing my own personal asessment of an advanced MJ dance I would do the same thing. Sticking my ideas between hammer and anvil has been educational. Thans to all.

www.dictionary.com (http://www.dictionary.com) has one definition of modern as:


... reject traditionally accepted or sanctioned forms and emphasize individual experimentation ...If I accept that then my quest for rule based subsets was very misdirected.

Perhaps the only way of judging MJ is "does it feel right?", and it also deserves the "modern" tag because it is up to this years judges.