PDA

View Full Version : Aerials - are they fair ??



Paul F
19th-January-2004, 02:31 AM
Ive just been browsing through my dance video collection of recent champs and it got me thinking about aerials.

All the way through all major event videos you can see the same aerials being trotted out again and again. This would be fine but it got me thinking.

Im sure people would agree that to be able to be thrown around
1. the lady must be of a relatively slight stature and
2. the guy must have a certain amount of strength.

The fact that people will be 'judged' in whatever way through doing these , is it fair to discriminate against people who cant do them due to natural (or otherwise) reasons??

At least with drops the lady can counter some of the weight with her legs.

TheTramp
19th-January-2004, 02:40 AM
Originally posted by Paul F
Ive just been browsing through my dance video collection of recent champs and it got me thinking about aerials.

All the way through all major event videos you can see the same aerials being trotted out again and again. This would be fine but it got me thinking.

Im sure people would agree that to be able to be thrown around
1. the lady must be of a relatively slight stature and
2. the guy must have a certain amount of strength.

The fact that people will be 'judged' in whatever way through doing these , is it fair to discriminate against people who cant do them due to natural (or otherwise) reasons??

At least with drops the lady can counter some of the weight with her legs. Firstly, don't agree with points 1 or 2. Look at Andy and Rena. They are both about the same size. And Andy isn't exactly a muscle-bound hunk.

At Bognor, just for a laugh, I did one of the moves that David and Lily taught, using David for a partner.

I think that trust and technique/timing are far more important than just brute strength.

Also, as other people have said, in most competitions, you will be more likely to lose marks by using aerials. The only competition that I think you'd gain from doing them, is in the Jive Masters, where a lot of the audience/judges are of a lower standard (than the competitors), and hence would be more impressed by them. At Blackpool, with judges like Nigel and Nina, Simon, Marilene, James, Bridget etc., I think that you'd stand to lose more by doing them (if done badly (including the in's and exits)), than you could ever gain than by including them, even if you do them well.

Steve

Paul F
19th-January-2004, 02:50 AM
Yeah, i see what you mean.

The last vid I watched was the ceroc champs this year which is the last memory of it. I noticed quite a few aerials there.

I just cant help but think some people will be naturally excluded from doing them which is a bit unfair but as you say Steve, this might be to their benefit!

Hmmmm, will give me something to look out for at blackpool.

Will
19th-January-2004, 04:11 AM
Originally posted by Paul F
Ive just been browsing through my dance video collection of recent champs and it got me thinking about aerials.

All the way through all major event videos you can see the same aerials being trotted out again and again. This would be fine but it got me thinking.

Im sure people would agree that to be able to be thrown around
1. the lady must be of a relatively slight stature and
2. the guy must have a certain amount of strength.

The fact that people will be 'judged' in whatever way through doing these , is it fair to discriminate against people who cant do them due to natural (or otherwise) reasons??

At least with drops the lady can counter some of the weight with her legs.
I think this is a very interesting topic.

On one hand, ariels gaining marks does give an advantage to couples consisting of strong guys and slight girls. On the other hand, if you take the arguement of banning them as they discriminate against those who aren't built for them to its logical conclusion, you'd have to ban dance competitions all together as they discrimate against people who have disabilites that prevent them can't dance at all I suppose. I guess it's a question of "Where do you draw the line?" (Which I for one don't know).

Perhaps you should have a rule that any couples entering a freestyle catagory that allows ariels must be within 3 stones of each others weight. The only drawback to that is that we'd all get fed up of having to watch the Tramp and DavidB dance together in competition after competition! (Ahhh, 2 birds with 1 stone :nice: )

David Franklin
19th-January-2004, 09:25 AM
Originally posted by Paul F
Ive just been browsing through my dance video collection of recent champs and it got me thinking about aerials.

Im sure people would agree that to be able to be thrown around
1. the lady must be of a relatively slight stature and
2. the guy must have a certain amount of strength.
As Steve says, this isn't really true. Most people can do almost any airstep you are likely to want to do in a freestyle competition. The only move in the Open that would be beyond most people physically was the overhead (barbell) lift that Ben and Deb did.

Conversely, if you look at Nigel and Nina, although they're not airstep specialists, they make their trademark lifts look effortless. And Nigel is certainly not a huge guy. But they do practice. And practice. And practice...

On the other hand, allowing aerials seems in practice to have made people feel they are required in order to compete at the top level. The rules may say otherwise, but at least as far as audience reaction goes, aerials seem to have a bigger "wow" factor than any amount of snazzy footwork or musical interpretation. There are good dancers who hate aerials who feel they have to learn them just to be competitive - which does seem unfair.

Dave

Lounge Lizard
19th-January-2004, 11:25 AM
Please have an aerials catagory in comps and ban the big moves from open and advanced catagories.
It seem strange that to win a MJ/Ceroc comp above intermediate level you almost always have to use aerials.
Pease let the competition relfect the social dance floor and become something that all dancers can aspire to, as opposed to using moves that would not be allowed in most venues on a dance night - not everyone can, likes or wants to perform aerials (or bid drops and seducers).

peter

Minnie M
19th-January-2004, 11:38 AM
Originally posted by Lounge Lizard
Please have an aerials catagory in comps and ban the big moves from open and advanced catagories.

AND DEFINITELY SENIOR CATAGORIES !

Hear hear :cheers:

It is not fair on big girls like me -:tears: :sad:

Whether they are executed well or not you always get the audience gasping or clapping and it clouds the rest of the dancing. Whereas without these tricks the 'non-aerial' dancers don't get so noticed:sad:

David Franklin
19th-January-2004, 12:12 PM
Originally posted by Lounge Lizard
Please have an aerials catagory in comps and ban the big moves from open and advanced catagories.A while ago I said there should be a "masters" category which only allowed beginner moves - I was half joking at the time, but have come to think this would be a fantastic idea. On the other hand:


It seem strange that to win a MJ/Ceroc comp above intermediate level you almost always have to use aerials.
Pease let the competition relfect the social dance floor and become something that all dancers can aspire to, as opposed to using moves that would not be allowed in most venues on a dance night.Even before Ceroc opened the "airstep floodgate", there had been a lot of "drop inflation" - people were really pushing the boundaries, with some moves really being full lifts except that 1 toe just scrapes the ground. I would rather see well controlled lifts that don't use much space than drops that need half the dance floor, and are actually more dangerous because of the need to keep a toe on the ground. Where you draw the line is always difficult, and at least the one toe on the ground line is unambiguous. But I could defend allowing small lifts, and I could also defend not allowing any drops or airsteps at all.

Dave

Dreadful Scathe
19th-January-2004, 12:22 PM
Originally posted by Paul F
Im sure people would agree that to be able to be thrown around
1. the lady must be of a relatively slight stature and
2. the guy must have a certain amount of strength.


Absolutely true, but only because both points are meaningless :). relatively slight and a certain amount covers any lead who is strong or skilled enough or simply bigger than their partner - i think theres more to it than that :).


Originally posted by Paul F

The fact that people will be 'judged' in whatever way through doing these , is it fair to discriminate against people who cant do them due to natural (or otherwise) reasons??


Of course it's fair, discriminate is a funny way to put it - you can choose which moves you do during a competition. Lets say you cant do a pretzel but others can, it doesnt mean you are a victim of discrimination because the judges mark them for it :).

Even if theres no specific requirement for aerials in the competition, they are still valid moves and should be judged like any other move - anyway, as others have pointed out you could do more harm than good to your chances by badly executing an aerial. The fact that aerials are not specifically disallowed in a specific catagory means that they judges should view them as just another move, albeit one that may gain higher marks because of the relative difficulty.

ChrisA
19th-January-2004, 12:23 PM
Originally posted by TheTramp
At Bognor, just for a laugh, I did one of the moves that David and Lily taught, using David for a partner.

You couldn't manage a sugar push in the class then?? :D

Chris

DavidB
19th-January-2004, 07:52 PM
If I thought that aerials were the only thing that counted in a competition, I might start entering again. But other than the Jive Masters, or an actual aerials competition, I don't think they count for much. I know they don't when I judge.

On the other hand I know that several couples feel pressurised into doing aerials, just because they are allowed. I don't think this is right.

Personally I would allow aerials in the most advanced division, but also have at least one track per round where no aerials or drops were allowed. Then you get to see if a couple can dance, as well as doing flashy tricks.

I'd ban aerials from the other categories, but also introduce the same idea with respect to drops - ie see if the men can keep a lady vertical for a whole song.

Interestingly enough, a similar discussion has been happening in the US following the US Open last year. However it was someone saying that aerials weren't rewarded enough compared to the dancing...

David

Chris
19th-January-2004, 08:20 PM
Originally posted by DavidB
I know that several couples feel pressurised into doing aerials, just because they are allowed. I don't think this is right.

But so much more fun when they're not allowed! (My fave was a tiny and very pretty little jump by the wonderful Tania R - seemingly got her blown out of the advanced freestyle at Blackpool two or three years ago.)

Will
19th-January-2004, 08:29 PM
I've heard talk that we are about to see the Seniors Catagory opened up to airsteps too. Something to do with a new sponsorship deal with Stenna Chair Lifts.

Chris
19th-January-2004, 08:42 PM
Originally posted by Will
I've heard talk that we are about to see the Seniors Catagory opened up to airsteps too. Something to do with a new sponsorship deal with Stenna Chair Lifts.

Well I think that's sick - just cos they've been doing them longer why should they get all the sponsorships?

Chris
19th-January-2004, 08:55 PM
Originally posted by Paul F
The fact that people will be 'judged' in whatever way through doing these , is it fair to discriminate against people who cant do them due to natural (or otherwise) reasons??


It's an MJ competition (as opposed to say The Olympics?) so you milk it!

I noticed Nicky and Robert milked the Jive Masters semi-finals with a wide range of high-precision aerials and noticed seemingly afterwards that it had been a fabulous track for musicality that could have been interpreted more - but they corrected this in the finals and added more musical interpretation ('he he - if this is what the Brits think is cool he he') and so won and it would be hard to say they didn't deserve it.

Taken to its limits we could say is it fair to discriminate against people who can't actually dance very well lol.

I've yet to throw Tramp in the air but I'd be up for having a shot (this is on the 'I have more fab theory than common sense' model)

TheTramp
19th-January-2004, 09:28 PM
Originally posted by Chris
I've yet to throw Tramp in the air but I'd be up for having a shot (this is on the 'I have more fab theory than common sense' model) Do I have any say in this then??

Steve

Chris
19th-January-2004, 09:36 PM
Originally posted by TheTramp
Do I have any say in this then??
Steve

I would always ask nicely before doing aerials with a new partner :innocent: :innocent:

Gary
19th-January-2004, 11:57 PM
Originally posted by David Franklin

On the other hand, allowing aerials seems in practice to have made people feel they are required in order to compete at the top level. The rules may say otherwise, but at least as far as audience reaction goes, aerials seem to have a bigger "wow" factor than any amount of snazzy footwork or musical interpretation. There are good dancers who hate aerials who feel they have to learn them just to be competitive - which does seem unfair.

Dave

Audience reaction is (I hope) different from how the judges score. I hope and believe that most judges will mark you down for a big move if it's sloppy or inappropriate. I'd also hope that a big move if it's sharp and really hits the right spot in the music should win the couple some extra marks.

If I have to dance inappropriately to win, then I'll dance the way I think the music should be danced and happily lose. (Which is a lot easier to say when I know I've got not much chance of winning no matter what I try :wink: )

Paul F
20th-January-2004, 12:53 AM
Originally posted by Gary
.....I'd also hope that a big move if it's sharp and really hits the right spot in the music should win the couple some extra marks......


This is why i started the thread you see.

IMHO I think most people would agree with you BUT

I dont think everyone would be able to do aerials. People say look at (whoever) as they dont look muscle bound but, after learning about physiology, its not a case of how someone looks that determines their strength.

As for the reason i started this thread (i knew there must have been one :wink: )

The point I was (badly :grin: ) trying to get across was that, say, you had a couple dancing and they were fantastic. Very smooth, very skilled dancers but the lady may be of a considerable size.

I know its about technique but, and im probably wrong, surely in this situation it would be impossible for the couple to execute aerials.

I know a bit about conditioning and realise the body can accept stress/weight in varying degrees but there is a limit.

It just worries me a bit that, with the ever larger population, that some people will be excluded.
As a result, if this couple were dancing in the finals against another who were doing aerials I wondered if it would be fair.

I guess you can say that about people who just cant dance or those who have a limp etc. but it doesnt make it right.

(btw, that was just a general comment. not aimed at you gary)

ChrisA
20th-January-2004, 01:07 AM
Originally posted by Chris
I've yet to throw Tramp in the air but I'd be up for having a shot
What, like clay pigeon shooting?

Chris

Gary
20th-January-2004, 01:17 AM
Originally posted by Paul F

It just worries me a bit that, with the ever larger population, that some people will be excluded.
As a result, if this couple were dancing in the finals against another who were doing aerials I wondered if it would be fair.

I guess you can say that about people who just cant dance or those who have a limp etc. but it doesnt make it right.

(btw, that was just a general comment. not aimed at you gary)

Heck, I wouldn't take it personally even if I was an aerials expert, which I'm so very not.

Allowing aerials is "fair" in the sense that the same rules apply to everyone who competes. Completely banning aerials would be a shame -- they can add great spectacle to an evening, and kudos to the folks who can get them smooth/sharp (is there some word that conveys both smooth and sharp, by the way?).

I think what you're looking at though is more something like weight divisions in boxing -- putting people into a division they've got a chance of winning in. I think all the comps I've been to have an Advanced Classic (no aerials) division and an Advanced Open (anything goes) division. I actually prefer watching the Classic, but the Open stuff gets more gasps from the crowd (and occasionally gasps from me).

My favourite dancing performance (clip on my computer) is Kyle Redd and Sarah Van Drake from a US Open swing competition -- no aerials, no dips, no drops, just fantastic dancing and interpretation.

Minnie M
20th-January-2004, 01:57 AM
Originally posted by Gary
My favourite dancing performance (clip on my computer) is Kyle Redd and Sarah Van Drake from a US Open swing competition -- no aerials, no dips, no drops, just fantastic dancing and interpretation.


I totally agree :cheers: they are my favourite dancers in all dance styles - I could watch them forever they won the Open this year and well deserved. I am trying to persuade Katy Baxter of Rebel Yell to get them over here this year.

Quite amazing :really: and they are so young too !

Paul F
20th-January-2004, 02:12 AM
Originally posted by Gary
I think all the comps I've been to have an Advanced Classic (no aerials) division and an Advanced Open (anything goes) division. ........

Wow. I had absolutely no idea these 'Classic' rounds existed.

:cheers:

I hope they get introduced over here at some point.

Roger C
25th-January-2004, 05:01 PM
Originally posted by Lounge Lizard
Please have an aerials catagory in comps and ban the big moves from open and advanced catagories.
It seem strange that to win a MJ/Ceroc comp above intermediate level you almost always have to use aerials.
Pease let the competition relfect the social dance floor and become something that all dancers can aspire to, as opposed to using moves that would not be allowed in most venues on a dance night - not everyone can, likes or wants to perform aerials (or bid drops and seducers).

peter

I find myself agreeing with peter about keeping the Open/Adv catagories free from lifts, allowing the dancing to show. If people want to do lifts, then lifts/showcase are the catagories for them. Allowing everyone the chance to show what they can do on a level playing field.

Roger C.

DavidB
25th-January-2004, 06:25 PM
Originally posted by Roger C
Allowing everyone the chance to show what they can do on a level playing field. Allowing people "the chance to show what they can do", but then saying 'as long as you don't do this, or this, or this' is not a level playing field. It is a competition biased towards only certain skills.

You could similarly argue the case for a division that just concentrated on moves, and gave no credit for musical interpretation. After all, most people only get taught moves, so surely it reflects more closely what people do.

Even if you allow everything, it is still not 'level'. What skills do you mark? What standard do you mark against? How do you combine the marks? What happens when someone does something completely different?

I'm glad I'm not an organiser. There is no way you can satisfy everyone, or even come close.

Having said all this, aerials and drops do cause particular problems. They are dangerous, and you shouldn't force people into risking injury just to do a competition. But aerials probably get more crowd reaction than anything else, and a big part of a competition is the audience.

I like Gary's idea of an Advanced Classic and Advanced Open. If there isn't sufficient time to do this, I'd allow aerials in only the top category, but make it very clear how they (and everything else) are to be marked.

TheTramp
25th-January-2004, 06:37 PM
Originally posted by DavidB
I like Gary's idea of an Advanced Classic and Advanced Open. If there isn't sufficient time to do this, I'd allow aerials in only the top category, but make it very clear how they (and everything else) are to be marked. Gary's idea of the Advanced Classical and Advanced Open are the categories for Nicky's competition in Sydney in June.

Only 'trouble' is, that the Advanced Classical (ie. WITHOUT aerials), is run to the same rules as the Advanced at Blackpool, ie. One of the ladies feet must be below the gentlemans waist at all times. It just wouldn't be Australia if no aerials were permitted at all!! :na:

This runs through all levels of the competition, including the DWAS (I'm pretty sure about this, please correct me if I'm wrong).

In the Open, of course, you are allowed to do anything you (both)want.

Steve

Graham W
25th-January-2004, 07:38 PM
I felt a bit dissapointed at a recent comp that they had gone to the trouble of saying can have x number of aerials & so made an effort in pratice them & it seems wasnt partic rewarded for including them...

mm, just got a lot to learn I guess

:-)

G

Lounge Lizard
25th-January-2004, 10:44 PM
Originally posted by DavidB
Allowing people "the chance to show what they can do", but then saying 'as long as you don't do this, or this, or this' is not a level playing field. It is a competition biased towards only certain skills.
No I disagree it would be a competition reflecting the social dance floor. Showing examples of great moves, techniques, music interpretation for other dancers to emmulate.

I still prefer to watch competitions with dancers like Ben, Dan, Adam, Taz etc. who dont rely on aerials
peter

Paul F
26th-January-2004, 02:11 PM
Originally posted by Lounge Lizard

I still prefer to watch competitions with dancers like Ben, Dan, Adam, Taz etc. who dont rely on aerials
peter


Absolutely agree.

Maybe one or two areials now and again but in recent comps some couples had nothing but aerials!!! (well not quite but not far off :sad: )

Would much prefer to see musical interpretation reflected in groundwork.

TheTramp
26th-January-2004, 02:28 PM
What's the difference between a good aerial, done in line with the music, with a good into, and exit. And any other move done in exactly the same way?

Personally, I don't think that whether a move involves lifting the girl off the floor (or taking her down towards it) or whether both couples keep their feet on the floor makes any difference. As long as whatever you do, you do well.

I do agree that there shouldn't be any additional marks for doing aerials though. They just become parts of the dancing.

The only benefit, is that you will get the crowd making noise, if you do a nice aerial, and probably all the judges turning to watch you. But that does also happen for other good moves, which aren't aerials.

Though, this could also be a downside, if your dancing immediately after the aerial sucks. You get everyones attention with the 'big move'. And then, while they're all watching you, you screw up. And then you're out!

Steve

DavidB
26th-January-2004, 03:04 PM
Originally posted by Lounge Lizard
it would be a competition reflecting the social dance floor. Showing examples of great moves, techniques, music interpretation for other dancers to emmulate. Moves yes, but which social dance floor (or competition floor) shows 'technique' and 'musical interpretation' to anything like the same extent? (Incidentally, which floor doesn't show drops?)

I'm against any restrictions other than on safety grounds. Restrictions stifle creativity. Allowing aerials and drops (as long as there is room, and there is no requirement to do them) satisfies my safety concerns.

The alternative is to place restrictions on a competition to make things 'fair' in some arbitrary person's eyes. Then surely the only fair restriction is to allow only what gets taught at a normal class. At the moment that would just be moves. And drops.


I still prefer to watch competitions with dancers like Ben, Dan, Adam, Taz etc. who dont rely on aerials I love watching them as well. But in a competition I'd mark them in the same way as I'd mark everyone else. Excelling at one thing (in their case individual contemporary musical interpretation) is not enough to get first place, even in my musical interpretation marks. How are they at partnered interpretation? How are they to a range of musical styles? Can they express a range of emotions or movements, or is it always just a variation on the same theme? Is what they do as an individual complementing their partner, or getting in the way? Does their technique suffer as a result of their style? Are they just 'feeling the music' or are they 'showing me the music'. (The acid test of musical interpretation is to watch without the music. If you can work out the style of music, the rhythm, the highlights, the emotion, the lyrics etc, then the dancers are interpreting everything they can.)

Assuming that musical interpretation is worth 25% of the overall mark, their individual movement is probably worth less than 5% of my marks.

I'd treat aerials and drops in the same way. Are they executed safely? Are they danced into and out of? Are they danced through? Do they complement the music? Are they getting in the way of anyone else on the floor? Even if you do them perfectly - so what? There isn't a section in the judging criteria for aerials and drops. They might get you marks in other criteria (technique, variety of moves, hitting the breaks), but you can easily get these marks in other ways. And you can lose these marks instantly by doing aerials & drops badly. At the moment the only reason for doing them in freestyle competitions is to get a reaction from the crowd.

To say that a competition is biased towards aerials, and against musical interpretation, is incorrect.

David

Sonic
28th-January-2004, 03:03 PM
Originally posted by DavidB
Moves yes, but which social dance floor (or competition floor) shows 'technique' and 'musical interpretation' to anything like the same extent? (Incidentally, which floor doesn't show drops?)

I think the point is that aerials is a specialist area. Speaking personally, there are only 2 couples in the UK I would trust to teach me aerials (but then, I don't know of any other aerials teachers). On the other hand, musical interpretation can be learned simply by watching other dancers. So I think the point LL was making is that MJ is a social dance, and competitions should reflect its accessibility. IMHO the ideal, and appeal, of an amateur social dance competition should be that anyone can turn up, dance well and win without the need to seek out specialist workshops. However, I accept that we've probably already gone way beyond this ideal anyway.


I'm against any restrictions other than on safety grounds. Restrictions stifle creativity. Allowing aerials and drops (as long as there is room, and there is no requirement to do them) satisfies my safety concerns.

The alternative is to place restrictions on a competition to make things 'fair' in some arbitrary person's eyes. Then surely the only fair restriction is to allow only what gets taught at a normal class. At the moment that would just be moves. And drops.

But don't restrictions define the dance? There are always arbitrary rules (e.g. the Blackpool rules require 70% MJ. Why 70? Why not 80?), so we're back to the question, are aerials (or banning them) fair?

The danger is that once something is accepted as part of a dance, it becomes expected, and then required. For example, in figure skating, after the first man landed a triple axel, others soon followed. Now it is a staple part of everyone's repertoire. As far as I know, it's not a requirement, it's just that if you don't do one, you won't score as many points. Could the same happen with aerials? I think it has happened with drops.

For example, the Ceroc competition rules (Adv, Int, DWAS) state that no extra points will be awarded for drops, yet I can't think of any couples who have won without doing drops. I think couples do drops because - apart from the fact they get you noticed - it will get extra marks in presentation/musical interpretation, rather than for the drop itself. Now everyone does them, they're expected and if you want to win, I would go as far as to say they're required. I have never been to those How to Win Competitions workshops, but I wonder how much emphasis is placed on flash moves (ie. drops/aerials)?


To say that a competition is biased towards aerials, and against musical interpretation, is incorrect.

Say couples A and B are equal in terms of dancing ability, but couple A do aerials and couple B don't. All other things being equal (e.g. they are equally good at musical interpretation), I think couple A would win because (1) they would score higher in the complexity of moves category, and possibly the technique category, (2) they would get more points in musical interpretation for hitting an aerial in time with the music, and (3) they would have that extra "wow" factor. Assuming couples A and B improve their dance technique at roughly the same rate, then in order to compete, couple B would have to do aerials.

The perception, which started off this thread, is that big moves win the day. IMHO they are a requirement in any couple's repertoire if they want to win.

Mary
28th-January-2004, 03:23 PM
In reading the last post there is a reference to ice skating. I wonder if ice skating is marked in the same way as trampoline or gymnastics? I used to do trampoline competitions (many, many years ago!!!) and we were judged on performance and degree of difficulty. i.e as well as the comulsory routine we had to do a voluntary routine. Each move has a tariff according to difficulty, and the total tariff of the moves in the voluntary routine was then added to the score given by the judges. An easier move with a lower tariff may be executed brilliantly, resulting in a higher score overall, than a difficult move with a high tariff executed a bit scruffily. This I always took into consideration when compiling my routine. So it was always possible to win by having the "less flashier moves" if you like.

Bearing this in mind I wonder if it's possible to apply the same method of marking in an aerial category. (I know this is getting away from the question of whether or not aerial should be allowed in the freestyle category).

Just a thought.

M

Gadget
28th-January-2004, 10:54 PM
Originally posted by Mary
Each move has a tariff according to difficulty,
therein lies the problem: who knows enough to set a "complexity tariff" on each move? And by doing this, you would need to record all possible moves and then MJ would be defined by them. Perhaps the ceroc "bible" would be the place to start? {...and soon global domination...:devil:}

Graham W
31st-January-2004, 06:45 PM
Maybe the obvious thing, following from a point made earlier in thread (by DavidB) is to have an advanced with and without aerials, both categories open to all..it seems like Formula 1 & 2 cars competing in the same category otherwise - okay Ben (& kate) does look great with/without aerials but he only (reluctantly, I was told) did 1 aerial at Britroc (& the Masters?) & this could have affected his chances of a medal..? Adam & Tas did include aerials at Britroc

G from bristol where there is a paucity of aerials..:-)

DavidB
1st-February-2004, 12:49 PM
Originally posted by Graham W
okay Ben (& kate) does look great with/without aerials but he only (reluctantly, I was told) did 1 aerial at Britroc (& the Masters?) & this could have affected his chances of a medal..?The only time any drops or aerials did affect anything (other than the Airsteps division!) was when they were done badly. There was nothing that said you have to do aerials, and no judging criteria to specifically reward them. The only thing we could do with aerials was deduct marks.

I can't remember Ben doing an aerial at Britroc, so I know he didn't get marked down because of that.

David

Martin
1st-February-2004, 01:03 PM
Originally posted by DavidB
The only time any drops or aerials did affect anything (other than the Airsteps division!) was when they were done badly. There was nothing that said you have to do aerials, and no judging criteria to specifically reward them. The only thing we could do with aerials was deduct marks.

I can't remember Ben doing an aerial at Britroc, so I know he didn't get marked down because of that.

David

Ariels are 100% fair, it has become part of the dance and is technically difficult. So are dips and drops.

As to dancing like Ben, if I could do that and never do my ariels I would still be a very happy bunny. I love watching his dance ability.

All is fair and to be honest I would like the judges always to be the audience, that is my main criteria. Does Jo public love this, judges, well they will do what they will do. Me happy if my friends loved it.

dee
1st-February-2004, 07:20 PM
:sick:

Martin
1st-February-2004, 11:31 PM
Originally posted by dee
:sick:

A fair comment Dee

My point being it is a shame to restrict a dance form that is still growing.

The one to one dancing is about looking after your lady and ensuring she has a great dance, the "show" stuff IMHO is about putting on a show...

Gus
2nd-February-2004, 07:01 PM
Originally posted by TheTramp
What's the difference between a good aerial, done in line with the music, with a good into, and exit. And any other move done in exactly the same way?

Well ... when I see "a good aerial, done in line with the music, with a good into, and exit" ... I'll let you know:devil: :devil:

Sorry ... couldn't resist that one:wink:

Must admit ... that I've never seen aerials incorporated well ... not even at Blackpool., though to be fair only seen a little of the Aussies so I admit I'm making a comment based on limited experience.

Chris
2nd-February-2004, 07:21 PM
Originally posted by TheTramp
What's the difference between a good aerial, done in line with the music, with a good into, and exit. And any other move done in exactly the same way?

I do agree that there shouldn't be any additional marks for doing aerials though. They just become parts of the dancing.


If a difficult move is attempted and done well then that's probably a bonus whether the move is an aerial or not. Many aerials seen in competition fall down (no pun intended) because they aren't in time with the music. I would expect badly performed moves to be marked down whether they are aerials or not.

I've seen some nice aerials in MJ but nothing approaching those in salsa for my money. There's good ones in cabarets with appropriate music (David & Lily will come to mind for many of us), and for sheer showmanship (Robert and Nicky). What is nice in salsa I think is the nonchalance and perfect timing, fitting occasional aerials to a fast record, making them look easy and natural. Hope we get some more of that this month at the annual salsa ball here in Edinburgh as we did last year.

TheTramp
2nd-February-2004, 07:31 PM
Originally posted by Gus
Well ... when I see "a good aerial, done in line with the music, with a good into, and exit" ... I'll let you know:devil: :devil:

Sorry ... couldn't resist that one:wink:

Must admit ... that I've never seen aerials incorporated well ... not even at Blackpool., though to be fair only seen a little of the Aussies so I admit I'm making a comment based on limited experience. Oh. C'mon.

You're telling me that you've never seen Andy and Rena doing an aerial well?? This is of course just the extreme. There's plenty of people who do aerials well. Although, I will go so far as to say that there's far more who do them badly :D

Steve

DavidB
2nd-February-2004, 08:33 PM
Originally posted by TheTramp
You're telling me that you've never seen Andy and Rena doing an aerial well?? To be fair, Gus said 'incorporated', not 'done'. I took this to mean something more than just executing the move well and in time. I'd agree with Gus's point - as long as he was just talking about 'Freestyle with aerials' and not choreographed routines. I have not seen freestyle aerials combined with musical interpretation anywhere, in any style.


Originally posted by Chris
I've seen some nice aerials in MJ but nothing approaching those in salsaI haven't seen anything in Salsa that is particularly revolutionary or difficult or artistic when it comes to aerials. Drops maybe, but not air-steps. Now I'll be the first to admit that I haven't seen every top salsa performer - can you recommend some good names to look out for?

Salsa aerials may be better than Modern Jive, but that is not the ultimate test. There are 5 standards to aim for in aerials:
- Sports Acrobatics
- European Rock'n'Roll
- Professional Cabaret
- Cirque Du Soleil
- Ice Skating

Each of these disciplines has something that something that makes it stand out. Not everything is applicable or desirable for MJ - instead they represent a source of inspiration, and ultimately a standard to be judged against. (I'm talking about Aerials comps, not open freestyle.)

David

Gus
2nd-February-2004, 08:46 PM
Originally posted by DavidB
To be fair, Gus said 'incorporated', not 'done'. I took this to mean something more than just executing the move well and in time. I'd agree with Gus's point - as long as he was just talking about 'Freestyle with aerials' and not choreographed routines. I have not seen freestyle aerials combined with musical interpretation anywhere, in any style.

Thanks Dave ... thats what I meant to say ...

I feel the same may about aerials as I do about any other 'showboating' techniques .... they can (sometimes) be gilding the lilly [OK .... point out the unintended pun at your peril].

In MJ there is maybe too much focus on just doing moves. Somewhere along the way we seem to have forgotten we're supposed to be dancing:sick: . I know its been mooted before but I think that dancing to the music should be the dominant part of a dance ... or am I being too simplistic again?

Chris
2nd-February-2004, 09:11 PM
Originally posted by DavidB
I haven't seen anything in Salsa that is particularly revolutionary or difficult or artistic when it comes to aerials. Drops maybe, but not air-steps. Now I'll be the first to admit that I haven't seen every top salsa performer - can you recommend some good names to look out for?

Salsa aerials may be better than Modern Jive, but that is not the ultimate test.

I'd agree about salsa probably not setting any ultimate standards in this area - especially compared to the other disciplines you mentioned - but I was mostly expressing a personal taste as an observer. Smooth incorporation with musical interpretation, high accuracy on hitting the beat (intro and exit) - I noticed these at the last Ball and that was just by a couple who are amongst the leading Edinburgh salseros, not international or even national standard afaik. There were similar 'good' (ie same criteria) aerials in the rock n roll (?) performances in the last NZ comps, but that style of dancing doesn't do much for me. The NZ ones were more difficult (eg full length aerial somersault straight into a death dive) but the more basic ones in salsa look more like 'dance' I think, rather than the more 'acrobatic' feel of some MJ/Lindy big aerials.

TheTramp
2nd-February-2004, 09:24 PM
Originally posted by DavidB
To be fair, Gus said 'incorporated', not 'done'. I took this to mean something more than just executing the move well and in time. I'd agree with Gus's point - as long as he was just talking about 'Freestyle with aerials' and not choreographed routines. I have not seen freestyle aerials combined with musical interpretation anywhere, in any style.Oh. C'mon to you too.

Simply hitting a break is an example of musical interpretation. It may not be up to your immense standards. But it's still musical interpretation. We know that you don't like drops, dips, lifts, or indeed the man actually moving when dancing :wink: But you can't deny that it is still basic musical interpretation.

So, hitting a break with an aerial is musical interpretation. And if it's entered well, and exited well, then you could say that it's been incorporated into the dancing.

I don't see the difference between big moves, aeriels, and normal dancing. Some people seem to think that their ideas are right, and the only way to go. I'd like to think that there's room for everyone's ideas within MJ. Provided they are done well, and safely of course :whistle:

Steve

Stuart M
2nd-February-2004, 09:28 PM
Originally posted by DavidB
I have not seen freestyle aerials combined with musical interpretation anywhere, in any style.

Which is another reason why they have no place on the social dancefloor IMO. And, if you view competitive dancing as a reflection of the social dancefloor, no place in dance competitions either. Except choreographed showcases and cabarets.

I enjoy watching aerials in showcases - David and Lily's one in Perth was superb, as were some of those in Blackpool and London last year. Watching Aerials freestyle competitions, however, has been the dance equivalent of watching a badly-dubbed film, for me. Or one of those euro-adverts (Ferrero Roche, Campino etc.) - any connection between the visuals and the soundtrack is purely coincidental!

I've only seen a couple of Aerials competitions, and DavidB's opinion based on more experience than me has confirmed one thing - in future the Aerials comp will be an ideal opportunity to head for the bar...:cheers:

DavidB
3rd-February-2004, 01:10 AM
Originally posted by TheTramp
So, hitting a break with an aerial is musical interpretation. And if it's entered well, and exited well, then you could say that it's been incorporated into the dancing. I'd agree 100%. But this is exactly what I don't see. I know it isn't easy - you have to think a lot further ahead than you would in normal dancing or even drops. But I can't see any reason why it can't be done.

I don't think this is entirely the fault of the dancers. Who was it that decided that the only criteria for the music for aerials competitions was 'fast and boring, and 5 minutes long'? And I doubt any of the experts in the other styles I mentioned would be much better at freestyle aerials - all of those styles are choreographed.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I thought I'd try to summarise what I thought, because sometimes I confuse myself.

Freestyle competitions
- I don't think aerials should be allowed in intermediates or DWAS.
- If there is an Open and an advanced, then I wouldn't allow them in the Advanced.
- Ideally I'd have 2 open divisions - one with aerials, and one without.
- If there was only time for one Open division, then there should be at least one track per round where no aerials or drops are allowed.
- If there is only a single Open division, there should be no marks specifically for aerials. However there should be some indication on what aerials can count towards, and what you need to do if you don't do aerials.

Aerials competitions
- There should be a clear breakdown of what you get marked on. This should include the dancing as well as the aerials.
- There should be bonus marks for combining musical interpretation and aerials.
- There should be bonus marks for difficulty, but only when the move is executed safely.

Contrary to popular belief, I do like aerials, lifts, drops, complicated moves and even the man to dance. These can be just as much a part of a Modern Jive 'ideal' as variety of moves, lead & follow skills and musical interpretation. I just want to see a combination of everything, and not one thing dominating the whole dance.

David

Martin
3rd-February-2004, 01:16 AM
Originally posted by Stuart M

I've only seen a couple of Aerials competitions, and DavidB's opinion based on more experience than me has confirmed one thing - in future the Aerials comp will be an ideal opportunity to head for the bar...:cheers:

This and other comments...

Fortunately there are only a few opinions here from a minority.

As to the rest... we know ariels are not for the social dance floor (not enough room)

If ariels are so bad, then why do the crowd love them so much (i.e., the vast MAJORITY). Why standing ovations, why Jive Masters winners:wink: - although to be honest seeing the video they only used "baby" ariels.:na:

Are you trying to please a few cynics (most of who cannot perform great ariels [DavidB and Trampy excluded in this one]) or are you trying to entertain.

Chris
3rd-February-2004, 09:15 AM
I've just been reading a lovely book on development of dance that a dance friend gave me recently for my birthday and came across a thought I'd like to share with you -

If you had to choose, would you rather watch a dancer who could
[list=a]
perform amazing acrobatic feats
reveal to you a sad or beautiful aspect of being human, or
present intriguing patterns and shapes with no literal or narrative reference?
[/list=a]
All three seem valid to me. There's an element of choice there, what you prefer. I can think of stunning aerial performances I've enjoyed that I would put in each category (some contrasts that come to mind immediately - Andy & Rena - DavidB & Lily - DavidF & Bryony - Nicky & Robert - to mention just four very different styles). I'm not so much making a comment on the question under discussion as maybe widening the debate.

Stuart M
3rd-February-2004, 10:26 AM
Originally posted by Martin
This and other comments...

Fortunately there are only a few opinions here from a minority.

As to the rest... we know ariels are not for the social dance floor (not enough room)

If ariels are so bad, then why do the crowd love them so much (i.e., the vast MAJORITY). Why standing ovations, why Jive Masters winners:wink: - although to be honest seeing the video they only used "baby" ariels.:na:

Are you trying to please a few cynics (most of who cannot perform great ariels [DavidB and Trampy excluded in this one]) or are you trying to entertain.
I'd never assume my opinions were representative of the majority - even on this unrepresentative Forum :wink:

My view is that having Aerials in freestyle competitions can, to some, imply they are acceptable in non-competition freestyle. More and more, good competition dancing differs from good social dancing, it seems to me, and I've only been going to comps for 2 years. Is that a good thing?

TheTramp
3rd-February-2004, 10:44 AM
Originally posted by Stuart M
I'd never assume my opinions were representative of the majority - even on this unrepresentative Forum :wink:Ah. Join the club. But in my case, I guess that's not really surprising ;) Was just thinking about the 'unrepresentative' thing. First thoughts are that it is fairly representative. Even if dominated by some more than others :blush: The only group of people that really aren't represented, are those dancers that don't have computers with internet access. There are a fair sprinkling of people across the dancing spectrum though - from teachers, to people who have only been dancing a few weeks. I'm probably wrong about that too though!


Originally posted by Stuart M
My view is that having Aerials in freestyle competitions can, to some, imply they are acceptable in non-competition freestyle. More and more, good competition dancing differs from good social dancing, it seems to me, and I've only been going to comps for 2 years. Is that a good thing? I don't think that MJ is different to anything else in this regard. Competitions in any sport are not going to be representative of the social aspect. Was dancing with a young lady on Saturday at Marco's, and we were talking about a foxtrot. And I asked her what the form was for a foxtrot, and her immediate answer was something along the lines of 'Classic or Social' (I've probably got the words wrong)?

I think that most people would accept that it's generally unacceptable to be performing aeriels on most social dance floors. It's just the odd person (very odd). And they may well not be influenced by competitions.

Steve

Gadget
3rd-February-2004, 10:45 AM
Originally posted by Chris
I'm not so much making a comment on the question under discussion as maybe widening the debate.
I think that you are narrowing the debate rather than expanding it; I'm with DavidB - what MJ should be is a blend of all the above - no emphisis on one aspect of the dance over another. What you are trying to do is categorise and seperate elements of the whole.

{there is no "black" or "white" - only shades of grey. :wink:}

Chris
3rd-February-2004, 11:25 AM
Originally posted by Gadget
I think that you are narrowing the debate rather than expanding it; I'm with DavidB - what MJ should be is a blend of all the above - no emphisis on one aspect of the dance over another.
Well you can take it either way I suppose - being aware of different elements can make a richer whole when you combine and blend them (Solve et coagula as the old saying goes). Different ideas work for different people. One of the reasons that some of the top dancers are so interesting IMO is that they have blended so many elements. But often the elements were learnt individually. And even after blending, a dancer may choose to emphasise one or another aspect - otherwise they'd all be the same. Just my opinion - you can read it to mean the opposite as well.

Gus
3rd-February-2004, 11:50 AM
Originally posted by TheTramp
Was just thinking about the 'unrepresentative' thing.
ODA Alert

Representative/Unrepresentative?

One way of looking at it is this way:


Only a small minority of MJ workshops involve aerials

No mainstream MJ teachers teach aerials

Aerials are at least frowned upon, if not banned, at most venues


Fair comment?

Oh ... just to put this in context ... I REALLY like aerials, started doing them after about 3 months of dancing at Peterborough ... found them fairly easy to do because of the ability of the girls I was dancing with .... BUT, in deference to etiquette, only do them now when we've been co-opted into to doing some theatre work

TheTramp
3rd-February-2004, 12:09 PM
:yeah:

Can't argue with what you said Gus.

Only thing is, that you've taken my quote out of context. That quote was talking about the alleged unrepresentativeness (is that a word?) of people who post on the forum as a reasonable sample of the MJ world.

Steve

Gus
3rd-February-2004, 12:34 PM
Originally posted by TheTramp
:yeah:

Can't argue with what you said Gus.

Only thing is, that you've taken my quote out of context.

Steve

Cant really argue with your point either .... but first of all to say if the Forum is unrepresentative ... wouldn't we have to define what the MJ population is and what is then representative of that:sick: :tears:

After all these debates we still go round in circles ... no-one can categorically define what MJ is or what represents who does it. Mind you ... as a dancer .. who cares? The only ones who should worry are the dance organisations and none of them have got the nouce to understand the market properly.

Martin
3rd-February-2004, 02:23 PM
Originally posted by Stuart M


My view is that having Aerials in freestyle competitions can, to some, imply they are acceptable in non-competition freestyle. More and more, good competition dancing differs from good social dancing

Having taught and shown Ariels to dancers of various disiplines including the IDO World Salsa Champions 2001.

No, it is not expected to dance to the top of your full range of ability on a crowded dance floor with people who do not know your full repetiour - in fact it is 100% dangerous.

I can never freestyle socially and show my full range of ability (even with a regular partner). It simply cannot be done on a social dancefloor.

As to comps - this is the chance to show your range of dance, floorcraft, style, interpretation, lifts and dips.

If you look at Nicky and Robert's performance on the jivemasters finals they did what I would consider "non-strength" moves. Available to most dancers, yes I can perform them all confidently with someone my own weight (very few girls weigh that much though:blush: ) AND they do teach them.

A comp allows people to show what they can dance. Badly executed, yes, they will be marked down. IMHO one couple did do several lifts badly and lacked timing, entry and exit also poor, on the Jivemasters.

Good comp dancing does differ from "social" dancing, as it is simply not possible to do "all that" socially.

As a guide, Nicky and Robert do NOT do "big" moves, dips and drops when not appropiate socially, in a social setting.

Martin
3rd-February-2004, 02:26 PM
Originally posted by Gus


Oh ... just to put this in context ... I REALLY like aerials

Happy to show you "loads" Gus, you going to Southport?

Gus
3rd-February-2004, 02:33 PM
Originally posted by Martin
Happy to show you "loads" Gus, you going to Southport?

Thanks for the offer but:

a) Got enough of a challenge learning to dance normally at the moment
b) No where and no one to do them with
c) Don't think I'd be overly welcome at Southport after my run-in with Johnah
d) For a change I think I've actualy got some 'real life' social events that weekend.

HOWEVER ... a very generous offer ...and would love to take you up on it sometime in the future :nice:

Martin
3rd-February-2004, 02:38 PM
Originally posted by Gus
Thanks for the offer but:


c) Don't think I'd be overly welcome at Southport after my run-in with Johnah

HOWEVER ... a very generous offer ...and would love to take you up on it sometime in the future :nice:

Politics hate that side of things...

I will PM you and see if there is a chance of meeting up. ALWAYS happy to share moves and stuff...:cheers: