Dumbing down.

[spindr]

Ok, I'm going to describe some thoughts on classes taught by those on and off of the forum -- but without names to raise a general point -- so I hope that no one's too offended.

I guess I may be getting old and crochety, but I'm finding that a number of classes recently have really dumbed down non-MJ moves so that they are suitable for MJ'ers to learn -- but to the point where they start to introduce problems, because the move has been modified.

Examples recently have included: non-slotted lindy turns, WCS sugar pushes without compression, tango crosses in a blues class without contra body position, and a charleston step without a back rock -- taught as step left, kick left (!). All of which tend to break the lead + follow.

From my point of view I don't want to take these "bad habits" into other dance forms. I know the teachers are great dancers and have obviously made the decision to teach the moves that particular way -- is it just because there's an assumption that teaching the move "correctly" will be too difficult (frightening) for MJ'ers?

Bah humbug,
A crochety SpinDr.

[Gordon J Pownall]

[I]I know the teachers are great dancers and have obviously made the decision to teach the moves that particular way -- is it just because there's an assumption that teaching the move "correctly" will be too difficult (frightening) for MJ'ers?

Bah humbug,
A crochety SpinDr.

Or could it be that the teacher has chosen to devleopthe move and teach a variation on it - I know I have done this with many classes. :whistle:

Problems can however arise where the teacher will teach a 'pretzel wrap dip spin' and the dancers don't know what a basic pretzel is....(Ceroc example).

Ceroc teachers are 'meant' to teach at least one or two 'classic' moves in the intermediate class. (Classic in Ceroc terms, not necessarily the wider MJ world) so that dancers have a foundation form which variation may be developed. :confused:

[RobC]

Or could it be that the teacher has chosen to devleopthe move and teach a variation on it - I know I have done this with many classes. :whistle:
I'd never try saying there's only one way to dance / teach a move - I myself use many variations on what are fundamentally basic moves. However I think the point SpinDr is trying to make here is that when teaching moves that have been 'borrowed' from other disciplines, key bits of technique have been omitted - seemingly to make the move 'easier' for MJ'ers to learn - which should the dancer (inevitably ?) go and try that other discipline for real, they will find themselves dancing basic moves wrongly because they have got themselves into a bad habit due to the 'inaccurate' teaching they received from the MJ teacher.

Wow - must learn to make better use of punctuation..... :blush:

[Gordon J Pownall]

I'd never try saying there's only one way to dance / teach a move - I myself use many variations on what are fundamentally basic moves. However I think the point SpinDr is trying to make here is that when teaching moves that have been 'borrowed' from other disciplines, key bits of technique have been omitted - seemingly to make the move 'easier' for MJ'ers to learn - which should the dancer (inevitably ?) go and try that other discipline for real, they will find themselves dancing basic moves wrongly because they have got themselves into a bad habit due to the 'inaccurate' teaching they received from the MJ teacher.

Wow - must learn to make better use of punctuation..... :blush:


.....and remember to breathe.......

Good point tho Rob,

I bring quite a bit of ballroom into (mainly) footwork and latin moves and have adapted some of them to fit in with either the tempo of the music or the need to bring them in line with MJ....

Does this mean a spanking...??? :whistle:

[spindr]

I'd never try saying there's only one way to dance / teach a move - I myself use many variations on what are fundamentally basic moves. However I think the point SpinDr is trying to make here is that when teaching moves that have been 'borrowed' from other disciplines, key bits of technique have been omitted - seemingly to make the move 'easier' for MJ'ers to learn - which should the dancer (inevitably ?) go and try that other discipline for real, they will find themselves dancing basic moves wrongly because they have got themselves into a bad habit due to the 'inaccurate' teaching they received from the MJ teacher.

Rob's summarised one half of the argument. The other is that sometimes "the simplication" just kills the actual form/spirit of the move:
* there's no way the lady can easily walk out of a lindy turn forwards (Savoy style) if the guys doesn't lead it slotted.
* it's really hard to lead the lady backwards without a decent amount of compression in the sugar push.
* the whole essence of AT is to dance heart to heart -- difficult to do when the lady's parallel to you next to your hip.
* taking out the back rock out of the Charleston means that rather than:
back-rock (L/R) (QQ), kick-down (L/L) (QQ), kick (R) (S) kick-back/down (R/R) (QQ) the timing became step (L) (S), shuffle weight onto R and then kick-down (R/L/L) (aQQ), kick (R) (S) kick-back/down (R/R) (QQ). If you lead it "properly" you end up being jarred by your partner.

As for styling issues -- a lot of teachers just seem to say wiggle -- rather than explain say Cuban hip action. Similarly, very few explain how the lady's styling should take the hand in and then up vertically (let alone how to style the free hand/fingers) -- I can remember a recent class where the lady teacher's "stylish arm" just made it look as if she wanted to be excused -- not terribly stylish in my opinion.

Bah, bah humbug.
SpinDr.

[Gordon J Pownall]

I can remember a recent class where the lady teacher's "stylish arm" just made it look as if she wanted to be excused -- not terribly stylish in my opinion.

Bah, bah humbug.
SpinDr.

Quite agree - moves are the interpretation of the music - unless you're doing ballroom where different criteria define what is good or bad, however in MJ, express yourself ina way that feels good.

Too often big flash moves are not what is needed....

As an example,

Mick and Cynty in last years JiveMasters danced beautifully together - the 'flashest' thing was Mick doing hte splits - once (or maybe twice)

No aerials, no drops, spins, slings, flings or anything like that.

The interpreted the music using simple, appropriate moves......

Although Sal and I danced in a similar ilk at our heat this year (as opposed to going for the big choreographed moves), perhaps more emphasis needs to be given to teaching interpretation as opposed to 'big' moves.

A number of couples in thsi years competiton were concerned that because they don't do loads of aerials, they were at a disadvantage.

You can imagine (remembering the audience are the judges).......


"Oh, that's nice, they smiled at each as they picked up that pause in the music. Oh, lovely footwork.....BUT WOW - HE THREW HER UPSIDE DOWN TWICE !!!!! :really: :really: :really: :really:

I hope the audience take all styles and moves into account, not just big or flashy moves......and to their credit I think the audience who have judged so far have really looked beyond the superficial - :worthy: :worthy: :worthy:

[RobC]

I hope the audience take all styles and moves into account, not just big or flashy moves......
:yeah: Looks like I'm up next month :waycool:

[Gordon J Pownall]

:yeah: Looks like I'm up next month :waycool:

...and whilst I cannot guarantee to vote for you (or not), I do wish you the very best in your endeavour...... :wink: