PDA

View Full Version : Technique in Modern Jive



Gadget
19th-March-2004, 02:54 PM
I was digging around the net and came up with an interesting quote from DavidB (The Orical)...

DavidB - rec.arts.dance - Re:Modern Jive - 2002-04-23
There is undoubtedly technique in Modern Jive. It is not
understood, and certainly not taught enough yet, but it is there.

So, two years have passed: is it understood yet? Is it taught? What is it?


{Not that much digging actually - typed in "Modern Jive" into Google groups and it was the first/second item :wink:}

ChrisA
19th-March-2004, 03:27 PM
Originally posted by Gadget

DavidB - rec.arts.dance - Re:Modern Jive - 2002-04-23
There is undoubtedly technique in Modern Jive. It is not
understood, and certainly not taught enough yet, but it is there.

So, two years have passed: is it understood yet? Is it taught? What is it?


Given that Ceroc still teach that it makes no difference which foot the lady steps back on, I would say it's reasonably safe to suggest that it isn't taught much.

Chris

Gadget
19th-March-2004, 04:55 PM
Originally posted by ChrisA
Given that Ceroc still teach that it makes no difference which foot the lady steps back on, I would say it's reasonably safe to suggest that it isn't taught much.
You made a pivitol assumption in that statement which I dissagree with:
- That technique revolves around footwork.

I also don't understand why stepping back on a specific foot would indicate bad or good tecnique: surely it depends on the move being led into/out of? :confused:

Jayne
19th-March-2004, 05:07 PM
Originally posted by Gadget
You made a pivitol assumption in that statement which I dissagree with:
- That technique revolves around footwork.

Is the natural extension of this therefore that the "technique" in modern jive is for the man to move his hand and the girl will follow?

If you believe that footwork isn't technique then how can technique be about body movement, musical interpretation or anything else???

J :confused:

eastmanjohn
19th-March-2004, 05:22 PM
Originally posted by Gadget
You made a pivitol assumption in that statement which I dissagree with:
- That technique revolves around footwork.

I also don't understand why stepping back on a specific foot would indicate bad or good tecnique: surely it depends on the move being led into/out of? :confused:

You're right. It depends on the move.

I think when it comes down to technique and specific moves we need to concentrate on the link between moves. The technique in making the dance flow revolves around how you finish each move and therefore how you start the next. This includes when to use returns and when not to (no it's not just to stop the lady getting dizzy!)

If the step back at the start of the First Move is the same as the step back at the end, then surely that should happen on the same foot in each instance (for the leader and the follower). Try dancing a first move with a return and stop on beat 8 (if 1 was stepping back). Which foot is back? Well if it's the same every time then surely that is the foot you should teach to step back on beat 1.

Isn't this where technique and footwork come together. The technique with the arm/upper body lead is then synchronised with the footwork so that there is little delay between the lead in the arm/upper body and the reaction in the follower to interpret that in movement (through footwork).

ChrisA
19th-March-2004, 05:27 PM
Originally posted by Gadget
You made a pivotal assumption in that statement which I disagree with:
- That technique revolves around footwork.

Actually, I didn't make that assumption at all. You inferred that from something I didn't say :nice:

Here's a clue, though:

Take 100 beginner ladies. Tell them to step back, without telling them which foot to step back on. I don't know what the actual proportion is, but many will step back left, and many will step back right.

However, if you take 100 beginner ladies, and spend two or three minutes teaching connection, with the guy holding the lady's right hand, the results are very different when you then step the lady back maintaining some compression.

Ceroc teaches that there is no difference between ladies stepping back left foot or right foot. There manifestly is, if there is some connection established; I'm just suggesting (so far, anyway) that it's worth thinking about what this implies about other things they teach or don't teach.

Chris

Gadget
19th-March-2004, 05:36 PM
Originally posted by Jayne
Is the natural extension of this therefore that the "technique" in modern jive is for the man to move his hand and the girl will follow?
I would say that the natural extension is for the man to lead and the lady to follow. The lead is much more than just moving the hand, but that's not what I was trying to say:
Technique does not revolve around footwork. I don't think that it is an important or vital part of MJ technique: Some very good dancers barely move their feet. :innocent:


If you believe that footwork isn't technique then how can technique be about body movement, musical interpretation or anything else???:confused:
Admittedly a loose definition of footwork can be a small part of the over-all technique. It is not the placing of your feet that define technique, but the placement of the body as a whole. The feet are just a tool to prevent you falling over and move your body into the right position.{IMHO}

Spinning and turning technique I conceed is aided greatly by footwork, but that's only a fraction of what modern jive is about.

Jayne
19th-March-2004, 05:41 PM
Originally posted by Gadget
The feet are just a tool to prevent you falling over and move your body into the right position.{IMHO}
Whilst I appreciate that this is your opinion, my opinion is that this is the most absurd thing I've heard for a long time.

Gadget: have you done *any* dance other than MJ?

J :nice:

Jayne
19th-March-2004, 05:46 PM
Originally posted by Gadget
that's only a fraction of what modern jive is about.
Whilst I don't want to turn Friday afternoons into regular sparring sessions between Gadget and myself...

...Gadget. What (IYHO) is modern jive about? Maybe once we've established this starting point we can have a proper discussion?

J :nice:

Bill
19th-March-2004, 05:47 PM
Originally posted by ChrisA
Actually, I didn't make that assumption at all. You inferred that from something I didn't say :nice:


Chris

ah but your're forgetting that Gadget can read minds.......so maybe you almost thought it :D :na:

Bill
19th-March-2004, 05:49 PM
Originally posted by Jayne
Whilst I appreciate that this is your opinion, my opinion is that this is the most absurd thing I've heard for a long time.

J :nice:

how polite and well considered................ :whistle: :rolleyes:

spindr
19th-March-2004, 05:52 PM
Isn't repeatability and consistency a hallmark of good technique.

Randomness doesn't seem a "solid" base upon which to build consistent technique.

SpinDr.

Aleks
19th-March-2004, 05:58 PM
Originally posted by Gadget
I would say that the natural extension is for the man to lead and the lady to follow. The lead is much more than just moving the hand, but that's not what I was trying to say:
Technique does not revolve around footwork. I don't think that it is an important or vital part of MJ technique: Some very good dancers barely move their feet. :innocent:


Admittedly a loose definition of footwork can be a small part of the over-all technique. It is not the placing of your feet that define technique, but the placement of the body as a whole. The feet are just a tool to prevent you falling over and move your body into the right position.{IMHO}

Spinning and turning technique I conceed is aided greatly by footwork, but that's only a fraction of what modern jive is about.

Could "footwork" also refer to the transfer of weight from one foot to another? If so, my opinion is that footwork is intrinsically part of MJ.

ChrisA
19th-March-2004, 06:05 PM
Originally posted by Bill
ah but your're forgetting that Gadget can read minds.......so maybe you almost thought it :D :na:
:rofl:

Maybe I did; how would I know if I almost thought it???

:confused:

Gadget
19th-March-2004, 06:05 PM
Originally posted by ChrisA
Actually, I didn't make that assumption at all. You inferred that from something I didn't say
My inferance was deduced from the statement - I thought it a logical conclusion: was I wrong?

Take 100 beginner ladies.~snip~ and spend two or three minutes teaching connection,[/b]Ceroc teaches that there is no difference between ladies stepping back left foot or right foot.
...and you are teaching a lead/follow, not footwork. The lady is simply responding to the connection and moving accordingly. The lead can dictate which foot the lady steps back on if it's needed. The teaching that it makes no difference (I think ) is correct: the movement is the same, the result is the same - you do not need to think on two 'seperate' moves - one for each foot. This way it does not matter what foot you start/end a move on. This is especially relevant for the beginners that are the {percieved} target of Ceroc.

I'm just suggesting (so far, anyway) that it's worth thinking about what this implies about other things they teach or don't teach.[/B]
That statement implys to me that Ceroc is witholding the recipe for secret sauce that will make my dancing better. I'm not saying that the "Ceroc" way is the only, or even the best way of teaching. In fact I was just talking about technique in MJ.

Trying to follow your breadcrumbs - there is poor technique displayed by most MJ'ers - most have been introduced to MJ through Ceroc - most beginners at Ceroc display poor techique - Ceroc is teaching poor technique. (or at least in a method that encourages poor technique). Yes?

eastmanjohn
19th-March-2004, 06:12 PM
Originally posted by spindr
Isn't repeatability and consistency a hallmark of good technique.

Randomness doesn't seem a "solid" base upon which to build consistent technique.

SpinDr.

Absolutley. This is one of the first things I try to hammer home to people who come to me to train as teachers.

Well said. And great to see you on Friday. Eric said you liked his choice of music. PM me if you have any other comments on the night.

eastmanjohn
19th-March-2004, 06:17 PM
Originally posted by Gadget
..... The lead can dictate which foot the lady steps back on if it's needed. The teaching that it makes no difference (I think ) is correct: the movement is the same, the result is the same .............. This way it does not matter what foot you start/end a move on. This is especially relevant for the beginners that are the {percieved} target of Ceroc.

Yes the lead can dictate which foot to step back on. However you cannot say that the movement is the same whichever foot you step back on. It is most definitely different. The final result might be the same (i.e. you end up in a side by side position etc) but HOW you get there is VERY different.

spindr
19th-March-2004, 06:23 PM
Originally posted by Gadget The lead can dictate which foot the lady steps back on if it's needed.

I've heard other people make this statement before -- but I've never managed it. However, I am genuinely intrigued that I am missing something, so: "From a neutral starting position: how do you dictate that the follower steps back on her left foot when you lead her to move directly backwards (without swivelling), e.g. with a left-to-right handhold? How does that lead differ from one where the follower steps back on her right foot?"

I'd contend that the only way to lead the follower to be stepped back on a particular foot would be to lead a rotatation == turn / spin / swivel -- and assume that the lady followed "natural footwork" -- stepping back on the left (equivalently forwards on the right) after an ACW rotation and back on the right after a CW one (equivalently forward on the left).

However, this probably only has real consequences if the next step is also rotational in nature -- the natural "lead/follow" is then a step rotating in the opposite direction. If there's little or no rotation, then it doesn't matter as much which foot the follower is on.

SpinDr.

ChrisA
19th-March-2004, 06:23 PM
Originally posted by Gadget
That statement implys to me that Ceroc is witholding the recipe for secret sauce that will make my dancing better.
I've never seen your dancing, so I have no idea what would make it better :nice:


Ceroc is teaching poor technique. (or at least in a method that encourages poor technique). Yes?
I certainly believe this to be the case in some areas. I know we've flogged it to death elsewhere, but all the nonsense about visual signals for neckbreak-based moves, for instance.

Stop signs are completely unnecessary to lead any form of neckbreak, and teaching these signals reinforces the specious idea that lead/follow on the social dance floor has got anything to do with "I'm making this silly shape with my arm, so you need to do move X".

We've also done the semicircle to death elsewhere, but the same applies.

I'd be the last one to claim any great knowledge of dance technique, but I do spend a lot of time dancing with and teaching beginners, which includes basic work on connection. As soon as they get that, miraculously they start stepping back much more consistently on the right foot, and much of the confusion about where to place their feet disappears since it all becomes much simpler.

IMHO, Ceroc attempts to simplify things in an effort to make the dance more accessible to new beginners, but while, overall, I admire the formula, in some respects the attempted simplifications are counterproductive.

Chris

spindr
19th-March-2004, 06:24 PM
Originally posted by eastmanjohn
And great to see you on Friday. Eric said you liked his choice of music. PM me if you have any other comments on the night.

Well, how many venues can boast 140 consecutive monthly dances!

Hope you're planning something special for the 150th -- be sure and remind us.

SpinDr.

TheTramp
19th-March-2004, 06:25 PM
I think that this whole discussion depends on how tightly you want to use the word 'technique'.

Yes, there is a technique in Modern Jive. The technique is to step back, on either foot. It's still a technique. Although, it's obviously not as tight a technique as in some other form of dances (eg, salsa, man steps forward on left foot, woman steps back on right foot).

Question is, does anyone want Modern Jive to be taught to such a degree. I'm sure that it could be. But I, for one, am quite happy with the technique the way that it is. It's designed to be a social dance, that is easy to learn. If you want more technique, then take up another dance as well :D

Trampy

ChrisA
19th-March-2004, 06:33 PM
Originally posted by eastmanjohn
Yes the lead can dictate which foot to step back on.Are you referring to the leader moving the follower's weight on to one foot or the other, thereby freeing up the other foot...?

If so, that sounds pretty hard at beginner level, for both the leader and the follower, especially with only one hand. With a frame it's much easier, but many moves don't start with a frame.

Dammit, it's pretty hard at intermediate level, too :tears:

Chris

Gadget
19th-March-2004, 06:48 PM
Originally posted by Jayne
Whilst I appreciate that this is your opinion, my opinion is that this is the most absurd thing I've heard for a long time.
Glad to cheer up your fridays :D :wink:

(IMO) It's all about balance and your 'center'. Your legs/feet are used to move yourself into position. Anticipatory positioning, like stepping, is only a method of preventing yourself from falling: the placement of the foot will depend on where you want the rest of your body to be because it has to take the weight.
if a specific move (Like the first move eastmanjohn quotes) is entered in the same manor every time, then footwork would be exact placement and timing with the music. If this is true, then both the lead and follow's footwork must be identical on every occasion and the move would only be able to be performed with technical expertese that one way. It leaves no room for improvisation or deviation without beeing classed as "Poor Technique". Rather like ballet.

Extension, kicks, drags, etc can be added for style flourishes, but 'footwork' is only moving your self for better ballance, style or in anticipation.

What is MJ about for me? Dancing. Interperating music. Moving music from just one sense into a physical and visual expression. What I use to do this is my partner. My guidance to the general direction, her embelishment of the specifics. How I do this is through listening, feeling, leading and watching: At no point am I interested in what my feet are doing unless I am taking something from my partner or wanting to form a specific shape.



I like EastManJohn's concept that technique should be looked for "inbetween" the moves (or if it wasn't him, I still like it :wink: )



{I'll ignore Jayne's point about having done any dance other than MJ because it might have some relevance :wink::whistle:}[/B][/QUOTE]

Mary
19th-March-2004, 07:37 PM
What foot to step back on? First move: I step back on the R, to then step forward I have to step forward on my R foot, I then have to bring my L foot forward (now at the man's side). My weight is on the L foot which is the foot I have to pivot on to then have the R foot back and transfer the weight, then weight on the L foot to pivot back round and xfer weight onto the R foot etc. etc. (Sorry, not really explained that one too well) To me this is a fundamental technique in just transferring the weight from one foot to another, but it does matter which foot the lady starts on to end up with the weight on the correct foot for the pivot.

What I don't understand is if the man's semi-circle to the Left (with correct connection) puts the lady's weight over on to her R foot, it then forces her to step back on the L.:confused: :confused:

If the simplicity of MJ footwork just involves going L, R, L or R, L, R then surely it does matter which foot we step back on at the start of the move? Maybe.

M

Dreadful Scathe
19th-March-2004, 11:53 PM
Originally posted by Gadget

Technique does not revolve around footwork. I don't think that it is an important or vital part of MJ technique: Some very good dancers barely move their feet. :innocent:

i think ChrisA was suggesting that Ceroc was not strong on teaching technique, he only used footwork as one example. I dont think Ceroc claim to be teachers of better dance technique but they certainly teach dance. The original question was about Modern Jive though not Ceroc and footwork and technique IS taught in other places- i remember my first Jive class taught me footwork.


Originally posted by Gadget

It is not the placing of your feet that define technique, but the placement of the body as a whole. The feet are just a tool to prevent you falling over and move your body into the right position.{IMHO}

I think i see where you're coming from but i would argue that if you truly see your feet in that way, then youre not dancing...you're... er..moving your feet to stop you falling Which i do believe is what you meant anyway, it is indeed a part of the whole.

spindr
20th-March-2004, 03:36 AM
A historical rumination and some vaguely on-topic thoughts.

When I learnt the first move in 1988 -- the footwork Michel used to teach in Bristol was something like...

Man:
#1 right foot backwards with weight.
#2 slide left foot forwards on its heel drop weight onto it and close the right foot to the left foot (timing was almost "and 2").
#3 back on the right foot with weight
#4 close right foot to the left foot

Lady: (ok this is how I would reconstruct it).
#1 back left with weight.
#2 slide right foot forwards on its heel and drop weight onto it and close the left foot to the right foot with weight ("and 2").
#3 pivot on left foot, bringing right foot backwards.
#4 pivot on right foot, bringing left foot forwards closing to the right foot -- to end directly in front of the man.

1). You get a nice mirror'd body position on #1, #2 (technique / style) -- makes it look like you're doing similar movements. If the lady steps back right, as the man steps back right there's possibility of skewing body positions, as they rotate slightly.
2). There's room for lady to swivel into because the man is stepped back right on step #3
3). Being stepped together on #4 means that you've got a good reach for leading the return -- if the man's stepped back that'll reduce his effective reach.

However, all that aside the important footwork is that the lady pivots on her left foot on #3/#4 and takes the right foot backwards / forwards -- I think it's only this type of "rotational footwork" that is key.

Ok we were originally taught with a "C" -- however if you want a quiet handhold -- then stepping back on the left foot for the man may not be ideal (for beginners) as you step back on the left foot, this raises the left hip and might make it more likely to disturb the handhold. Yes, you can keep knees slightly flexed as in Lindy/Jive and step back on the left -- but that's more complicated footwork / control of centre of mass than I would expect beginners to be taught initially.

[Finally, and this is suggested by looking at a book on drawing cartoons -- honestly -- I'm still trying to work out if the author's right, or not?]

For men (beginners) stepping back, probably means that they will tend to step to the side slightly, to move their leg around their (as delicately phrased on another thread) dangly bits. I.e. if they step back left, then they will tend to actually move the left foot (and hence their body / arm, etc). very slightly to the left. Stepping on the right foot means that the first move handhold can stay quiet.

Of course this could all be a complete load of dangly bits :)

SpinDr.

bigdjiver
20th-March-2004, 05:28 PM
Originally posted by ChrisA
So, two years have passed: is it understood yet? Is it taught? What is it?


Given that Ceroc still teach that it makes no difference which foot the lady steps back on, I would say it's reasonably safe to suggest that it isn't taught much.

Chris [/QUOTE]

Wrong.

In my neck of the woods, when appropriate, they teach which foot, which part of the foot, and in which order each part of the foot, and what the hips are doing meanwhile.

We had a relief teacher for the beginner class at the freestyle last night, lined to go into the first move, and the teacher said that she could tell it was a Michaela class, just look at the spare arms.

A slightly croaky Michaela took the second class "Tango al la Ceroc" (my title), and it was littered with style words, "pouty", "sharp" "smooth" etc

ChrisA
20th-March-2004, 06:07 PM
In my neck of the woods, when appropriate, they teach which foot, which part of the foot, and in which order each part of the foot, and what the hips are doing meanwhile.

:worthy: :worthy: :worthy:

But this is something of a rarity, surely?

Chris

Mary
20th-March-2004, 06:57 PM
Originally posted by bigdjiver


In my neck of the woods, when appropriate, they teach which foot, which part of the foot, and in which order each part of the foot, and what the hips are doing meanwhile.

We had a relief teacher for the beginner class at the freestyle last night, lined to go into the first move, and the teacher said that she could tell it was a Michaela class, just look at the spare arms.

A slightly croaky Michaela took the second class "Tango al la Ceroc" (my title), and it was littered with style words, "pouty", "sharp" "smooth" etc [/B]

Where is this - I want to go.:worthy:

M

bigdjiver
20th-March-2004, 07:47 PM
Originally posted by Mary
Where is this - I want to go.:worthy:

M St. Neots, Priory community centre, a nice riverside venue. I believe Michaela is teaching at the Bedford Corn Exchange next, first Sat in April.Ceroc Central (http://www.ceroccentral.com)

The previous lesson at the Corn Exchange was a superb Double trouble.

Warning: these freestyles are, and always have been, tremendously popular.

bigdjiver
20th-March-2004, 08:01 PM
Originally posted by ChrisA
[B]
:worthy: :worthy: :worthy:

But this is something of a rarity, surely?

Chris

Michaela (Mick) is teaching a Style workshop tomorrow.(sold out)

I don't know. I don't about much anymore. All of my jive needs are met locally. Emma, winner of the Blackpool Showcase, does the job for the North of the area. I have rarely managed to get to her events, but treasure the two Daventry freestyles I did manage to get to.

Andy and Kim, winners of the Blackpool Arials have picked up some style from somewhere, and neither Emma or Michaela teach at Milton Keynes. Style certainly plays it part in this franchise.

ChrisA
21st-March-2004, 02:59 AM
Originally posted by bigdjiver
Style certainly plays it part in this franchise.
Delighted to hear it. But, point of order...

... this thread is about technique.

Nobody has said that you have to have good technique to be stylish.

I expect you can have either without the other. I don't claim to have much of either. All I said was that Ceroc (generally) doesn't teach much in the way of technique, and in some ways, teaches stuff that gets in the way of good technique.

I did not say anything about style. Indeed, I've danced with lots of Ceroc teachers that have more style in their little finger than I have in my whole body. I just wish more of it would rub off...

Chris

Chris
21st-March-2004, 06:56 AM
Originally posted by bigdjiver
In my neck of the woods, when appropriate, they teach which foot, which part of the foot, and in which order each part of the foot, and what the hips are doing meanwhile.


Sounds kinda nice. :)

What cracks me up is when they actually bother to add instructions on 'where to put your feet' and then call it 'footwork' - a bit like saying which arm to put in which sleeve and then calling it 'fashion'. There's some cerocers that freestyle by actually dancing with their feet as well as moving them in time to the music - some wouldn't even be offended if I referred to them as cerocers. :devil:

bigdjiver
21st-March-2004, 09:52 AM
Originally posted by ChrisA
Delighted to hear it. But, point of order...

... this thread is about technique.

Nobody has said that you have to have good technique to be stylish.

I expect you can have either without the other. I don't claim to have much of either. All I said was that Ceroc (generally) doesn't teach much in the way of technique, and in some ways, teaches stuff that gets in the way of good technique.

I did not say anything about style. Indeed, I've danced with lots of Ceroc teachers that have more style in their little finger than I have in my whole body. I just wish more of it would rub off...

Chris I suppose technique could be taught that does not look stylish - where safety was an issue for instance, and in a dance that is for each other and not an audience. In the examples I cited technique was being taught in order to look stylish, as well as technique in order to be safe.

Ceroc appears to me to be teaching people to enjoy dancing as its first priority, and leaves the teaching of dancing for others to enjoy watching until later, and I am in full agreement with that.

Cite me an example of style without technique, because I cannot think of one.

bigdjiver
21st-March-2004, 10:02 AM
Originally posted by bigdjiver
Andy and Kim, winners of the Blackpool Arials have picked up some style from somewhere, I will have to try and learn that the spoken hint of sarcasm does not work in text.

Andy and Kim have a lot of style (and technique). I had the pleasure of seeing them dance at Bedford the week before the championships. What gave me even more pleasure was that they were dancing freestyle, no hint of a routine. There was the ocassional stop to review technique on a move.

ChrisA
21st-March-2004, 12:53 PM
Originally posted by bigdjiver
Cite me an example of style without technique, because I cannot think of one.
I'm not sure I can, either.

Some people I've danced with look pretty stylish but are virtually connection-free when dancing, so it's hard work to lead them - does that count at all?

Good technique certainly makes for tidy dancing. In my own limited way with beginners when I'm taxiing, I work with them on the basics of connection and a little about where to put their weight. After they've got that, they certainly look lots better but is the removal of an unattractive style (that comes from not knowing how to coordinate in the early days) the beginning of style? Or is it just a neutral position that allows future development?

Chris

eastmanjohn
21st-March-2004, 04:06 PM
Originally posted by ChrisA
I'm not sure I can, either.

Some people I've danced with look pretty stylish but are virtually connection-free when dancing, so it's hard work to lead them - does that count at all?

Good technique certainly makes for tidy dancing. In my own limited way with beginners when I'm taxiing, I work with them on the basics of connection and a little about where to put their weight. After they've got that, they certainly look lots better but is the removal of an unattractive style (that comes from not knowing how to coordinate in the early days) the beginning of style? Or is it just a neutral position that allows future development?

Chris

About 7 years ago I wrote an article about style in modern jive. This was in the days before much latin influence had come into the scene or indeed any hip-hop. The basis of my thesis then was that style develops from a basis of good technique, which then allows the freedom to express individual style.

At the time I also noted the increase in the stepping style of modern jive, although you could argue that this is a technqiue and leads to the development of a certain style. Of course, the stepping version is now the predominant technique and I think defines a certain style or look. Maybe this shows the link between style and technique.

Chris
21st-March-2004, 07:37 PM
Originally posted by eastmanjohn
About 7 years ago I wrote an article about style in modern jive.
I would be interested to read it if that's ok with you? If it's large you could email it to me at chris@docker.demon.co.uk.

Andy McGregor
22nd-March-2004, 03:50 PM
Originally posted by Gadget
Some very good dancers barely move their feet. :innocent:

Name one.

Gadget
22nd-March-2004, 05:23 PM
Originally posted by Andy McGregor
Name one.
David B
(or so he keeps proclaiming :wink: )

Andy McGregor
22nd-March-2004, 05:30 PM
Originally posted by Gadget
David B
(or so he keeps proclaiming :wink: )

He's exaggerating. I've danced with him. He moves his feet constantly. Maybe that's just with me:wink:

ChrisA
22nd-March-2004, 05:32 PM
Originally posted by Gadget
David B
(or so he keeps proclaiming :wink: )
Yeah, and the Tramp's a beginner :rolleyes:

Chris

TheTramp
22nd-March-2004, 05:53 PM
Originally posted by ChrisA
Yeah, and the Tramp's a beginner :rolleyes: See. I knew that you'd get it eventually!! :clap:

Trampy