The Limitations of Modern Jive

[Gus]

{ODA Mode ON}
Is there a limit to how far we can develop MJ. Got to thinking about this after the thread about trying to Ceroc to Hip Hop music. I'd been working on some moves and thought I was getting somewhere ... then I tried doing them with a partner and realised the fundamental flaw. If you take the point that two of the fundamentals of MJ are that;
it is a led dance
there is no/limited footwork
then there is very little hip hop work that can be incorporated. The need is to be able to change beat interpretation rapidly (half beat, std beat, double beat). there is also a need to fit in footwork patters, lunges, cross steps and sinking moves ... and that’s just on the very simple stuff that I know. How do you lead a partner into this?

Although we feely pretty good about assimilating moves from Salsa, Tango etc ... the moves that we do assimilate can end up being a pale imitation of their former selves. The 'no footwork' of MJ is a major factor in making the dance easy to learn ... it is also a major limitation to the dance becoming more complex. At some point the dance stops being MJ and then becomes something else.
{ODA Mode OFF}

[RobC]

I think people get too hung up on :



there is no/limited footwork

A better way of saying it would be to add a qualifier, such as "at a beginner level".

I mean, of course there is footwork in MJ. I seem to spend half the beginners class and most of the repeat beginners class trying to persuade the guys to move their feet and do something other than stand rooted to one spot on the floor. It's just that we don't try to over complicate things for beginners by telling them how to move their feet when most of the time all we want them to do is what comes / feels natural.

At a higher level there is plenty of footwork to learn. When doing a drop or seducer for example, if the ladies aren't taught where to place their feet to hold their own weight, and the guys aren't taught how to position their feet to give a stable base, everyone would end up in a heap on the floor :blush:

As to whether it is leadable, have you ever been to / seen one of the Hip Hop Jive workshops done by the one and only Dan-the-Man Baines and Sue (is it Freedman ?) ? They have done several at MJC's over previous years and I'm sure they will have done similar classes elsewhere as well. Almost anything is leadable - footwork, tempo changes etc, you just need to have the right 'connection' between you and your partner, and sadly this is often what is lacking in MJ :tears:
If you take a look at WCS as a close cousin to MJ, the ladies are taught from the word go that they follow their right hand. If the guy moves the hand side to side, it should make the ladies 'twist' on the spot. If the hand is moved forwards or backwards, the guys can make the ladies take a step, (and taking it to extremes I guess lifting the hand could cause a hop/jump ?) If you apply this connection to you Hip Hop/MJ dancing, you should find that you can lead most of what you want to do - the rest may fall into the 'choreographed move' category.

[ChrisA]

Almost anything is leadable - footwork, tempo changes etc, you just need to have the right 'connection' between you and your partner, and sadly this is often what is lacking in MJ :tears:

....... :yeah:

If there's one thing I've learned during the painful process of converting my leading ability from 'completely nonexistent' to 'occasionally not too dreadful on a good day' it's that far more is leadable than I used to imagine.

Mostly these days I assume that things are leadable, just that I can't lead them yet. I've not been proved wrong yet.

Chris

[Gus]

Mostly these days I assume that things are leadable, just that I can't lead them yet. I've not been proved wrong yet.
Not sure if I agree. If you are using techniques and moves from solo dance forms (e.g. Hip Hop, Street Jazz) the ability to lead accurately and quickly enough may simply not exist. The alternative is to end up with a series of choreographed sequences that will have to have a series of signals.

[ChrisA]

Not sure if I agree. If you are using techniques and moves from solo dance forms (e.g. Hip Hop, Street Jazz) the ability to lead accurately and quickly enough may simply not exist. The alternative is to end up with a series of choreographed sequences that will have to have a series of signals.

Well, I did say "mostly", and I did say "assume" - and having watched people like Nigel and Amir leading people I've danced with (and whose dancing I therefore know), it's clear to me that I am barely more than an embryo as a leader.

When I can lead the way they can, maybe I'll start worrying about learning to lead the nuances of the solo dance forms :D

Chris

[bigdjiver]

I think the MJ leader has considerable freedom whilst the follower is in freeze mode, or in a double spin.

Also the leader could say something like take 8 (or 12, 16 or whatever) and both go into independent moves for that many beats.

When incorporating the more individualistic styles it is probably better to have some signal for swapping the lead.

All theory, I have not tried any of the above.

[MartinHarper]

Hmm... I can lead the occasional piece of footwork to JazzJive followers, with varying degrees of success. My inabiliity to do the same in Ceroc resulted in my [URL=http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3330 first post] on the forum...

Trying to figure out why.... JazzJive has a small amount of standardised footwork. Eg: prior to a return, a JazzJive partner will be stepping back right behind left. Also, we get taught a few specific footwork patterns in JazzJive, such as the Charleston, and the six beat break. Finally, the "frame" in JazzJive tends to extend down to the knees, whereas in Ceroc it tends to stop at the waist. Your mileage may vary.

I very occasionally experiment on this during the "warmup" bit in class where everyone steps in and out to music. I try to lead the lady to step back on one foot or the other. Nothing remotely fancy: just a simple question of left foot back vs right foot back. So far it's been an unqualified failure, but I live in hope...

As a result of all that, my current thoughts are that I'll manage my own footwork, and leave my partner to manage hers. I'll try to do something with my feet that doesn't interfere with the lead, and reflects the music. If my partner does the same, then we'll gell nicely just because we're dancing with the same music.

[Gadget]

Is there a limit to how far we can develop MJ.
I think the question is more Is there a limit to what you can lead the lady to do?
As such, yes; however there should be ways arround most obsticals:
The main obstical intimated was the ability to lead the lady's footwork - I think that one way to overcome this would be to incorporate verbal instructions just before the lead. ("slide", "lunge", "lean", "cross-step") But you have to make sure that the lady understands what you are trying to do first.
Another way to lead moves would be to start leading a repeat pattern with both hands, or/and hands on shoulders guiding, then removing the main physical lead to leave only the visual one. {You taught a shoulder dip thingie at a workshop of yours I went to that used the same principles.} But this is not footwork.

The other obstical is leading timing changes - I would think that it should be fairly simple to send the signals, but I think that it would require a lady beyond "beginner" status to pick them up; I can lead a stop, I can lead to double time, I can lead half time. There was a workshop by Marc intruducing some "funky" moves & styleing I atended - What I took from that was the "stop-frame" motion that could be led; very hard to follow though (I assume)

Another lead perhaps could be the change in shoulder level - the lady should take cues from the lead's movements - most of the time this involves watching for lateral movement and rotation; perhaps vertical movement could be used as a visual lead?


The 'no footwork' of MJ is a major factor in making the dance easy to learn ... it is also a major limitation to the dance becoming more complex. At some point the dance stops being MJ and then becomes something else.
True, but in the same way as "dips" and "seducers" require the lady to know the preperation signals and positioning required to take her own weight, couldn't "Hip-Hop" styling be another string to the bow? Teach how to lead the changes in tempo, tricks to get the ladies to match your footwork, body motion and styleing.


MJ is what it is because you can take anyone and lead them through it. Arials and drops may be led, but it requires specialist knowledge. Why can't some "hip-hop" be led with specialist knowledge? Is there a comparison to be made?

[MartinHarper]

The need is to be able to change beat interpretation rapidly (half beat, std beat, double beat)

Curiosity... how rapidly? Are we talking about doing a first move (say) and changing beat interpretation two or three times during the same move?

[Gus]

Curiosity... how rapidly? Are we talking about doing a first move (say) and changing beat interpretation two or three times during the same move?If the music defined such a beat change ... why not. the first move has the possibility of being a complex and monderfully interpretative moves (wasted on beginners :wink: ). The concept of using HipHop and other similar types of music is that is forces dancers to dance to the music rather than just do moves ..... and I'm NOT getting into that bun-fight again ... I got flamed enough the last time I raised that concept :sick:

[Sheepman]

How do you lead a partner into this?
The 'no footwork' of MJ is a major factor in making the dance easy to learn ... it is also a major limitation to the dance becoming more complex. At some point the dance stops being MJ and then becomes something else.

I'm with Rob on the "no/limited footwork" thing. Maybe it comes down to the definition (which I have previously given up on), of modern jive. I would describe what I do as mostly modern jive, but as well as moves borrowed from salsa and tango, I do moves from swing dances, so there is footwork, most of which is lead, OK my partner has to know my repertoire ( :what: ) well, to be able to follow, so as to be able to pick up the subtleties of the lead, but that would be the case if I was doing those same patterns within those swing dances.
Just a few months ago I probably would have agreed with Gus, but with Amir's and David & Lily's classes, the revelations from Johnny at Beach Boogie, (taught as beginners Lindyhop), and Paul Warden's lessons, I realise my leading is now maybe just beyond the beginners level. :tears: (Last Friday we had no complete beginners at Paul's beginners lesson, so the lesson was about the fundamentals of technique for leading footwork :clap: :worthy: )
I think most MJ lessons will be stuck with the limitations, because you have to learn a dance where the footwork is more important in order to have time to spend learning the intricacies. The vast majority of dancers will not be interested in spending the time and effort required, so if any definition of MJ was to include "a dance at which most people can reach an advanced level by dancing a couple of times a week for a few years" then yes, Gus is right, MJ does have such limitations. Personally I don't think any definition should be related to how easy (or difficult) it is to do.

Greg

[MartinHarper]

How do you lead a partner into {footwork patterns}

Just come back from a JazzJive class that used another option: call and response. Set up some repeating pattern (we were doing a side by side Charleston, but I expect it could equally be an in-and-out). Guy does some fancy footwork pattern, but only from the waist down: he keeps the lead going for the girl to carry on as before. The girl watches the guy and carries on as normal the first time. Then, the second time through the girl performs the mirror of what the guy did last time. Cool folk will presumably do this sort of thing during the call and response section of a song like Minnie the Moocher...

[Graham W]

People seem to freely incorp elements from tango, swing , etc, etc. so I think there are still wider possibilities for MJ

G

Bit of call & response potential 2 minutes into, ahem, the Bongo Song , too :-)

[Ste]

Haven't read all the posts but I think that Gus is essentially right.

I spoke to a top modern jiver and he said that what we do is child's play compared with ballroom. Or words to that effect.

When I describe modern jive to people I describe it as dancing for people who can't dance. What I mean is that anyone can do it.But the very thing that turned us on to it in the first place i.e. that it is so easy to pick up is it's limiting factor..because it doesn't involve the same physical disciplined body structure and therefore will not be as visually interesting.

One thing that i found quite intresting was that I went to a wedding a couple of years ago and James Cronin and Janie were there. I don't think I had ever seen them dance before and it was a privilge to see them dance. The way they danced was almost a ballroom looking version of Ceroc........quite professional looking and not sloppy like a lot of Ceroc. Maybe that's the way that they saw modern jive but as we have got it second hand we probably can't get that structural discipline that they had even though I don't think they danced so much together anymore.

I think that it is interesting that Mike Ellard is now the leader of Ceroc. He is an amazing dancer and ballroom trained and Linda is one of my top dance heroes as well. She is unbelievable in full flight again I think because of her ballroom training. ( I now go to her old ballroom school!!!And Aunty Joan remembers her !). I think that they will bring a flavour of discipline to Ceroc.

I showed some Ceroc video to a friend and i think her comments were quite revealing. As I recall, she said she thought that it was not nearly as good as ballroom!!!

But the plus factor is that it potentially can still evolve. It after all is partner dancing and to the extent that people put into it new moves and footwork then it has a chance of appealing as a serious art form. I think it would be great to see a new breed of Ceroc to emerge say with proper footwork like salsa or ballroom.

But the great thing about modern jive is that it is an open lidded tin. For example because of the way that i conceive of what looks good in dancing, I would love to compete with a trained ballroom dancer. If I found one such person ( like Debstar!) then we could do our own ballroom type moves and blend them into the looser modern jive. If more people did that, then the look of modern jive would change and people would start to adopt and may be even take that structured look even further.

[Lounge Lizard]

what limitations
Firstly with my dancers hat on...
This is an easy to learn dance, very friendly atmosphere and although there are many different organisations teaching their own format I as a dancer can go to any venue in the country join in and enjoy.
It has radiccaly changed my social (and work) life in a way no other dance style could I have friends throughout Uk & beyond as aresult of MJ

Now with my Teachers hat on
I am an average dancer with an inventive imagination, I can develop create and explore new moves and ideas either within or outside the MJ framework, I can then teach them to a very willing and friendly crowd who enjoy the structure of the move the concept behind the idea and are not to bothered if my body posture footwork or arm position is not quite correct.

Dj Hat now on
I can play music from Frank Sinatra to Goldfrapp, I can cover about 10 different genres of music (pop, Dance, Hip hop, Jazz, swing, big Band, latin etc etc.) and the dance floor will fill up with every track.
although we are all dancing the same style and simmilar moves you would never know it by just watching.

Take a step outside the MJ envelope
We can take our dance style to almost any function/night out/dance walk onto a dance floor do our stuff,, have fun and probably wow the rest of the room.

Now tango ballroom Lindy Salsa etc. may be harder to learn, they may be more precise, they may even look better (but only at the highest standard - an average MJ'er looks a whole lot better than an average Tango dancer IMHO) But Tango etc. is only danced at limited specialist venues within the Uk and Ballroom is very much the domain of the blue rinse brigade (I live in Eastbourne remember!!!)

Where do we go with MJ...we dont need to go anywhere, our desire to learn more will always be prresent but the majority want to learn more dance styles then bring them into the Mj arena.

Finaly, IMHO the limitations of Modern jive....are equal to the limitations of your imagination
Peter Phillips

[foxylady]

what limitations
Firstly with my dancers hat on...
:yeah:
Now with my Teachers hat on
:yeah: Dj Hat now on
:yeah:
Take a step outside the MJ envelope
:yeah:

There is no definition of MJ. MJ can be whatever you want it to be. It has the advantage of being almost idiot proof, whilst at the same time being a dance in which great levels of skill can be achieved !

I have done Lindy (which is a great social dance, but limited to a certain genre of music in the main), I have done the texas two step (to cowboy music), I salsa, and I am learning rhumba, cha cha, quickstep, samba etc... which I have to say are great fun...

However aside from Lindy (and certain types of salsa), all the other dance forms I have learnt are very presciptive. Allow little or no imagination on the part of the follower or leader, allow for no self expression, and are midbendingly awful when done badly......

MJ has flexibilty. It can be sublime, it can be ridiculous, it can play with the music, it can bounce following the music on a precise beat... It can be done badly but with great gusto, and such enjoyment that it matters not, and it can be done (lead/followed) in a way that knocks your socks off.....

Limitations ! bah !! As a social dance there is nothing to beat it.... :clap:


FL

[under par]

MJ has flexibilty. It can be sublime, it can be ridiculous, it can play with the music, it can bounce following the music on a precise beat... It can be done badly but with great gusto, and such enjoyment that it matters not, and it can be done (lead/followed) in a way that knocks your socks off.....

Limitations ! bah !! As a social dance there is nothing to beat it.... :clap:


FL

:yeah: Well said !!!!. L/L and your views concur with mine.

A great form of dancing open to all levels, all people and has many additional styles and influences.

[Gadget]

{Sorry - long post...}

I spoke to a top modern jiver and he said that what we do is child's play compared with ballroom. Or words to that effect.
:confused: In what terms? To learn? yes. To do well? no.
Structured dancing (like ballroom) have specific steps and patterns that must be preformed in that order to that pattern. There is very little flexability in what you can and can't do. Posture, movement, timeing expressions, etc. are all trained in: the only real "lead" is going into a specific pattern - the man or lady can go through the steps without the other one! where is the lead in that?

MJ is based about the concept of the man leading the lady and interperating the music: No patterns. No steps. No 'calling' signals.

A lady who can follow every nuance a man leads, and improvise in any gaps he gives her. A man who can listen to every layer of music and convert it into motion to give it to the lady. If these two fictional people meet for the first time, then they will dance a dance to put every structured dance to shame. Because they can dance to the music. They don't need to know their partner, have danced with them before, know any special moves or signals - they can just feel the music and dance. :waycool:


When I describe modern jive to people I describe it as dancing for people who can't dance. What I mean is that anyone can do it.But the very thing that turned us on to it in the first place i.e. that it is so easy to pick up is it's limiting factor..because it doesn't involve the same physical disciplined body structure and therefore will not be as visually interesting.
:what: "not as visually interesting?? Horses for courses. I see MJ is the "natural" garden, while ballroom etc. are the victorian structured gardens. One can appreciate the lines, the symetry, the work that went into creating a ballroom dance. But the MJ dance windes here and there, organic and natural with different wonders on each turning. The paths walked are seen only to the couple dancing - no linear brick path and signs saying "keep off the grass".

The "limits" that people see are when they find a place in the natural wilderness that they like and want to explore further - tailor it to meet what they think may be a nice place to visit. Wanting to do more, reach further, impose a bit of order, steal a flower from a structured garden and see how it fits in...

The way they danced was almost a ballroom looking version of Ceroc........quite professional looking and not sloppy like a lot of Ceroc.
Ceroc is only "sloppy" because men do not lead smoothly or crisply, and ladies compensate for this and follow their own ideas of what should be happening - two individuals dancing in response to each other. Good, but it could be two people in unity, moving with each other. What you were probably seeing was years of practice and discapline in repeating the same moves again and again identically. They know each other's repertoir and movements. That's what people practice together to acheive. Moving as one.
It gets less "sloppy" as the dancers improve and learn both how to follow properly and how to lead properly.

I showed some Ceroc video to a friend and i think her comments were quite revealing. As I recall, she said she thought that it was not nearly as good as ballroom!!!I've got a friend who has done a bit of MJ, seen it done live by very good dancers, and she prefers moshing at a rock club. This is just as revealing.

But the plus factor is that it potentially can still evolve. It after all is partner dancing and to the extent that people put into it new moves and footwork then it has a chance of appealing as a serious art form.
:mad: OK, so what is "a serious art form"?
'Art' is an expression of yourself - puting forward your vision of something that emotes you. Music in the case of MJ. This 'art form' is movement. Specifically movement to a rhythmical beat using presubscribed or improvised movements and gestures. AKA Dance. Why should we want it to appeal as a serious anything? It's dance - it should be fun!

MJ Cannot 'evolve' with footwork:
You add salsa footwork, and you need to add salsa timeing: it becomes salsa.
You add swing footwork, you need to add swing timeing: it becomes swing.
You add hip-hop footwork, you... get the drift.

I think it would be great to see a new breed of Ceroc to emerge say with proper footwork like salsa or ballroom.
:eugh:!! Go do West Coast Swing.

... because of the way that i conceive of what looks good in dancing,...
Despite how this may read, I am not having go at your opinions of what looks good in dancing; just that you think MJ should bend towards this direction. A nice spot in the forest perhaps, but there are other nice spots that deserve visiting now and again.

If more people did that, then the look of modern jive would change and people would start to adopt and may be even take that structured look even further.It has/does happen. The main reason that you like the look of "classically trained" dancers is due to the hard work they put in learning how to spin properly and learning about their own bodys/balance. A martial artist has this, but lacks the spinning; you will probably find that you like a lot of their dance too.
People come from within these structured gardens and bring with them some ideas and plants that seed into the wild of MJ. Others catch a vision of another structured garden from the wilderness and head towards that. MJ is not a dance style: it's just a lable we choose to stick on "dancing with a partner".
Ceroc is a dance style (I used to think that ceroc was MJ) It is an introduction to the wilderness: It shows you some nice trees and plants; a few paths leading between them and if you pay attention, it shows you how to make your own paths and find your own way about the wilds. Workshops demonstrate some exotic life that can be visited, new ways to find a path, smoother ways of passing through the forest and how to move without leaving tracks.

If people devoted as much time, resources and energy into MJ as you see others devote to ballroom, ballet, tap or even highland, then I think you would notice the qulity improving

[under par]

{Sorry - long post...}



but a damn good read. Nice analagy the gardens.. :yeah:

[Gus]

{Sorry - long post...}
MJ is based about the concept of the man leading the lady and interperating the music: No patterns. No steps. No 'calling' signals. AND THAT IS ITS WEAKNESS!! THere IS a limit to what you can lead ... even verbals get confusing after a while ... even the best couples have a finite amount of moves. Dont think the footwork is a limitation .... have you seen a good WCS couple in action?? It can made MJ look quite ordinary. Watch Paul Warden ... I did. I've become a bit hard to impress after seeing the likes of Viktor, N&N etc on a ragular basis ... but atb
MJC I literally stopped and stared when I saw this chap (who I later found out to be Paul W) dancing. Think Viktor looks good at MJ ... wait till you see him do Salsa! Sorry ... but I do believe that MJ has limitataions .... point in case .. look at Southport ... how many of the workshops were MJ and how many were something else?

MJC is an very powerful activity and has brought hodes of 'non-dancers' into dancing ... but in terms of 'proper dancing' I think many people find they have to go elsewhere to get full realisation of their dreams. (IMHO :wink: )

[MartinHarper]

A great form of dancing open to all levels, all people and has many additional styles and influences.

I think this (and similar comments) rather miss the point. Due to the lack of set footwork in MJ, it has limitations. Personally, I don't think that these limitations make Modern Jive bad, or in need of defending: it just makes it different. Other dances have other limitations. All partner dances are limited by the requirement of a partner.


MJ Cannot 'evolve' with footwork

Personally, I suspect that much of MJ relies quite heavily on the lack of set footwork. Ceroc followers are miraculous in their ability to get from any position to any other position, often from leads that come far too late, and they take as many steps as they need to do it. With set footwork, I fear we'd lose that flexibility, and I think with it a lot of the feel of MJ.

If someone wants Ceroc + footwork, I guess Ballroom Jive might be worth looking at. I haven't done it myself though.


You add swing footwork, you need to add swing timing: it becomes swing.

What do you mean by swing footwork? I'd guess triple steps, but triple steps can be done either straight or swung. They feel different straight, and wouldn't suit every piece of straight music, but they don't require swing timing. Did you mean something else?


I see MJ as the "natural" garden.

Hmm, I can't agree.

Lead and follow seems to me largely socially constructed. It feels natural to me, just as English feels natural to me. Still, I can't communicate in English to a French person, just as I can't lead a Lindy Hopper. But there's nothing that I can see that makes an MJ-style lead more natural than a Lindy-style lead. Just different.


There IS a limit to what you can lead

Is this true for all lead/follow dances?

[Gus]

Due to the lack of set footwork in MJ, it has limitations. Personally, I don't think that these limitations make Modern Jive bad, or in need of defending: it just makes it different.Not sure if anyone has said that MJ is bad, in fact quite the opposite. As far as limitations.. this thread is realiy an esoteric one. I would imagine that 90% of people in MJ will never hit their boundaries..... the fun will simply continue.


If someone wants Ceroc + footwork, I guess Ballroom Jive might be worth looking at. I haven't done it myself though.Please NO! Anything but Ballroom Jive :tears: :tears: I may be asking for a flaming but Ballroom Jive makes Morris dancing seem cool, sexy and desireable (well .. maybe). If you want MJ and footwork I would suggest you end up doing WCS. Thats what my bunch are doing (and a fair few Scots) and are reaping the benefits.

[Gadget]

Due to the lack of set footwork in MJ, it has limitations.
I see that as an "expansion" rather than a "limitation": if the music suited and you could lead it, any footwork from any style could be incorpoated into MJ.
(It's this business of being able to lead it that limits the dance)

If someone wants Ceroc + footwork, I guess Ballroom Jive might be worth looking at. I haven't done it myself though.
{...}
What do you mean by swing footwork?
As Gus said, I refer to West Coast Swing; slightly different dynamics in the lead, but the hand positions are identical with footwork and specific timing of moves. {yes? BTW what exactly are the benefits?}


I see MJ as the "natural" garden.
Lead and follow seems to me largely socially constructed. It feels natural to me, just as English feels natural to me. Still, I can't communicate in English to a French person, just as I can't lead a Lindy Hopper. But there's nothing that I can see that makes an MJ-style lead more natural than a Lindy-style lead. Just different.
Then perhaps your lindy is not quite right? The leads in other "swing based" dances rely on specific counts and constant timing (or so I understand it) - if you break from this structure, you are doing it "wrong".
MJ does not have this structure to deviate from; skipping beats, extending moves, playing with the timeing are all infinitly easier in MJ.

Yes, 'the lead-follow aspect is socially constructed': you may not be able to talk French, but you could dance with a French person. Or Italian. Or Tibetan. The communication is through the lead, and it's universal. You would find it almost impossable to lead any of these people in a "structured" dance like lindy.




There IS a limit to what you can lead
Is this true for all lead/follow dances?
Yes, I would say so. I agree with Gus up to a point: I don't see it as a weakness that some moves cannot be led in MJ {without additional signals} - it's what keeps it "untamed" and open to interpritation.

These move could be introduced, but only to those who learned the signals. Like Areals and drops are now.

[Gadget]

Not sure if anyone has said that MJ is bad, in fact quite the opposite. As far as limitations.. this thread is realiy an esoteric one. I would imagine that 90% of people in MJ will never hit their boundaries..... the fun will simply continue.:yeah:

{Damnit, I can't agree with Gus all the time!... erm... 98%.:wink:}

I would say 98%, and that 2% have lower boundaries than most.

[RobC]

Please NO! Anything but Ballroom Jive :tears: :tears: I may be asking for a flaming but Ballroom Jive makes Morris dancing seem cool, sexy and desireable (well .. maybe).
Well seeing as you asked for it - go hang your head in shame in the corner with Natasha Kaplinski. :angry:

Ballroom Jive, like any structured dance take time and lots of practise to make it look good. Have you ever actually done any Ballroom Jive ? How long did you give it before deciding to ridicule it ? Have you ever seen it danced in a demonstration or top level competition by couples that spend hours every day practising ? Let me assure you (and I'm sure Sparkles and others will back me up here) Ballroom Jive is fast, funky, fun and nothing like Morris Dancing. In fact it is an insult to all Ballroom Dancer to even mention it in the same sentence :mad:

PS. I do know what I'm talking about as I, like other MJ'ers I know, spent many years dancing Ballroom before I ever came in contact with MJ, and I am priveleged to have watched demonstrations from many top UK & World Class Amateurs and Professionals.

[Gus]

PS. I do know what I'm talking about as I, like other MJ'ers I know, spent many years dancing Ballroom before I ever came in contact with MJ, and I am priveleged to have watched demonstrations from many top UK & World Class Amateurs and Professionals.

Sorry Rob ... I HAVE seen top internationals doing it and it was the most ridiculous thing I ave seen ... in fact I had it tape .. played it a mates house (all non-dancers) and we had a damn good laugh at it. OK .. some people enjoy morris dancing, some people enjoy playing the nepalese nose flute and I'm sure they put a lot of effort and dedication in ... but it doesnt stop other people expressing the right to be less than impressed (or to find it amusing).

[David Franklin]

This has ended up sounding very "anti-MJ", and I really don't mean that - I think MJ is fantastic. But I do disagree with the "we don't have rules, so we can do anything from Salsa, WCS, Hustle, etc., so we must be better than all of them!" argument, so...


I see that as an "expansion" rather than a "limitation": if the music suited and you could lead it, any footwork from any style could be incorpoated into MJ.
(It's this business of being able to lead it that limits the dance)But on one level, you can always justify a lack of structure because "if you can lead it, you can put the structure in". For example, why have a convention of dancing on the beat when the leader can just lead the timing? In practice, there is only a limited amount of "bandwidth" in the connection (though some have a T1 link and others are stuck using smoke signals :tears: ), so we end up making compromises between freedom and structure.

Slotted dancing seems a good example - yes, you lose some freedom. But you also gain from having to do a lot less just to lead the lady in the direction you want.

Also, when there's structure, you can still usually "break the rules". The difference is that doing so is an active rather than passive choice. The default is to dance on the beat, or dance in a slot, but we can still lead syncopations, or change the slot.


As Gus said, I refer to West Coast Swing; slightly different dynamics in the lead, but the hand positions are identical with footwork and specific timing of moves. {yes? BTW what exactly are the benefits?}I'm only a WCS beginner, but I really wouldn't say the hand positions are identical. For one thing the slot makes a big difference - the leads can be very "small" relative to modern jive because you're not leading the lady's "position" so much, and the motion down the slot implies a lot about her orientation. So it only takes a tiny lead to make the woman turn in a basic whip, for example. The speed and "tightness" of WCS leads is one of the things I really find impressive compared to MJ.


The leads in other "swing based" dances rely on specific counts and constant timing (or so I understand it) - if you break from this structure, you are doing it "wrong".
MJ does not have this structure to deviate from; skipping beats, extending moves, playing with the timeing are all infinitly easier in MJ.Hmm... from a leader's perspective this might be true (after all, if you can't do it wrong, it must be easier, right?); I'm not convinced it's any easier for the follower if you skip beats whereever you feel like. One of the biggest follower bugbears is the man skipping a beat so their weight is on the wrong foot, and then spinning/turning them when they're off balance. Of course, since in MJ we don't worry about feet, us leads are (mostly) completely unaware of what foot the follow is on, so can't possibly do anything to fix the problem. Conversely, as far as I'm aware, the only real timing restrictions in WCS are not to change the timing "mod 2", so the follow is on the right foot for the next move.


Yes, 'the lead-follow aspect is socially constructed': you may not be able to talk French, but you could dance with a French person. Or Italian. Or Tibetan. The communication is through the lead, and it's universal. You would find it almost impossable to lead any of these people in a "structured" dance like lindy.Not sure what you're saying here - the Lindy lead is pretty universal amongst Lindy hoppers world wide. And even some of the basics of MJ are certainly not "natural" - beginner followers always seem to strongly resist the "rock step" bit in a basket, for example. Yes, if you're prepared to lose a lot of moves, and probably sacrifice technique for brute force, you can lead anyone, but heck, if you want a natural lead everyone will understand, try wrestling or judo...

All that said and done, MJ has brought me into dance, and I don't think my two-left-footed self would have stuck with any of the more structured dances. And the strange thing about the whole footwork issue is that in practice, most people end up using the same MJ footwork anyhow; I'm not sure if that means teaching footwork in MJ would be a good thing or a bad thing! (and if a good thing, when should you do it? Not at the start when the men have enough to worry about trying not to fall over their feet, but you don't want to wait until too many bad habits have formed, so...?)

Dave

[David Franklin]

Ballroom Jive, like any structured dance take time and lots of practise to make it look good. Have you ever actually done any Ballroom Jive ? How long did you give it before deciding to ridicule it ? Have you ever seen it danced in a demonstration or top level competition by couples that spend hours every day practising ? Let me assure you (and I'm sure Sparkles and others will back me up here) Ballroom Jive is fast, funky, fun and nothing like Morris Dancing. In fact it is an insult to all Ballroom Dancer to even mention it in the same sentence :mad:I agree the Morris Dancing comparison is unfair. But I saw the Cutler's demo at RebelRoc last year, and I have to say that although the speed, accuracy and technique were amazing, as a dance style it left me totally cold.

The main reason? Well, I find I'm very critical (or appreciative) of things that I'm working on in my own dancing. So, as I've been trying to remove the "bounce" from my MJ dancing for years, I found their Ballroom Jive demo almost a perfect parody of what I was trying NOT to do. (Though I did note how they kept their hands and connection very quiet despite all the bounce everywhere else :worthy: ). Which more than anything, just shows how personal taste and experiences affect how we view dancing.

Possibly related is that I really don't think Ballroom Jive (damn - I keep wanting to abbreviate that to BJ and then deciding not to :blush: ) is the best "crossover" point for MJ dancers. I think Rumba / ChaCha are a lot closer personally... Certainly at the post-Blackpool teadance @ the tower, my best dances were always to the rumbas...

Dave

[Will]

Ballroom Jive, like any structured dance take time and lots of practise to make it look good. Have you ever actually done any Ballroom Jive ? How long did you give it before deciding to ridicule it ? Have you ever seen it danced in a demonstration or top level competition by couples that spend hours every day practising ? Let me assure you (and I'm sure Sparkles and others will back me up here) Ballroom Jive is fast, funky, fun and nothing like Morris Dancing. In fact it is an insult to all Ballroom Dancer to even mention it in the same sentence :mad:



Sorry Rob ... I HAVE seen top internationals doing it and it was the most ridiculous thing I ave seen ... in fact I had it tape .. played it a mates house (all non-dancers) and we had a damn good laugh at it. OK .. some people enjoy morris dancing, some people enjoy playing the nepalese nose flute and I'm sure they put a lot of effort and dedication in ... but it doesnt stop other people expressing the right to be less than impressed (or to find it amusing).

Well as far as I'm concerned you can both cram it up your rear ends!!! :angry:

Morris Dancing is a integral part of Country life. If you think you saw passion when the townies banned fox hunting, then just try slagging off Morris Dancing! :angry:

If some rolled out a franchised version of Morris dancing, it would kill off Ceroc and Salsa overnight! It just needs someone who can be bothered to do it. Also it requires beginners to make a bit more of a financial outlay as the knee bells aren't cheap. (a decent pair can be bought for as little as £25 )

Ballroom Jive is for people with Jalapeno Peppers up their behinds. Morris Dancing is a highly sophisticated art form, that when done properly can quite simply numb the viewer to all other dance forms. Don't believe me? Ask Amir, he is only studying ballet because the closest Morris dancing club is too far down the A303 for him to commute to.

Anymore slurry like this and I'll 'ave he wiv my 12-bore! :mad: :mad: :mad:


Now I've got forty acres, and you got 23....

[MartinHarper]

The communication is through the lead, and it's universal.

My experience differs. I can't reliably communicate through the lead with Lindy Hoppers. Nor Rock&Rollers. Nor non-dancers. On what basis then could I claim that my MJ lead is universal?

[Will]

http://www.morrisdancing.org/

[bigdjiver]

I used to love going to the Le Jive championships, which were open to all jive styles.

To me MJ is a very general, global term that infringes all jive styles being practised currently, MJ being identifiable from the waist up. To me, it is a generic term.

To me it is not "no footwork", but "no set footwork". Most of the dancers I admire adjust their footwork to the music. I try doing fake R&R and Latin'ish, and even footwork that I have never recognised in any dance form.

I have not liked the ballroom jive that I have seen, but some of my idols have brought ballroom class into MJ, and I love it.

[Lynn]

My tuppence worth here...

Someone told me this week that he didn't like MJ as it wasn't 'pure' like other jive dances. Someone else was dancing with me and wanted me to put ballroom jive footwork (we were dancing to blues room style music) - I did it for part of the song as I wanted to try and follow his lead - but I couldn't respond to the music and it was sooo frustrating. I think we just agreed to disagree that we like different styles but I was thinking about it later that night and had concluded that the 'hybrid' variety aspect of MJ is a thing I love about it. The variety of music and styles you get ... more so in MJ than in a more 'structured' dance. ... you can have two very different dances with two different people even to the same style of music and I think that's brilliant!

[Chicklet]

If some rolled out a franchised version of Morris dancing, it would kill off Ceroc and Salsa overnight! It just needs someone who can be bothered to do it. Also it requires beginners to make a bit more of a financial outlay as the knee bells aren't cheap. (a decent pair can be bought for as little as £25 )[/I]
'specially if they organise a sister franchise for the girlies to practise sandwich making and bell *cough* cleaning while the lords are a leapin', eh?

[Ste]

Finaly, IMHO the limitations of Modern jive....are equal to the limitations of your imagination
Peter Phillips


I think that is right.

I get frustrated with modern jive sometimes in that it isn't what I see in my head, but the great thing is that you can bring what you like to it. The way I see it, MJ is partner dancing with the rigidity of the styles that I admire from a neutral's point of view and so although I get frustrated aesthetically, I can actually bring something to it of my own.

Like on DIRTY DANCING, what is Swayzee doing. It isn't quite ballroom .it's partner dancing and it looked so good.

I saw another film but I can't remember its name. that had a fantastic male dancer in it.( Can anyone help me..or I will start a thread ) It starred Jenifer Beale. That wasn't ballroom but it is what I think of as non style modern partner dancing.

Does anyone know about the French guy who brought MJ to UK? Actually I will start a thread methinks.

[Yliander]

have read most of this thread and here is my 2 cents worth

the limitation of Modern Jive - is simply that it is a freestyle partner dance.

I've specified freestyle partner dance because I have seen ballroom dancing mentioned a fair bit and I'm sorry but comparing ballroom to modern jive is comparing apples and oranges - Ballroomers don't make it up as they go along - one of the common questions i get from people in consolidation class with a ballroom background is how the moves of that night fit into the "routine"

The simpleness of the footwork - I can't say that there is no footwork as that isn't true but it is much simpler than many other styles i have tried - Swing, Rock & Roll and Jive (real jive not ballroom - which personally while I can see the skill involved think is ugly) - allows for personal interpretation and much more dancing to the music.

as to special footwork - it is possible to include it in freestyle with a little effort - through proper connection via frame - this is generally easier with a someone you dance with regularly or a dance partner - the follower also needs to be open to including that type of movement and familiar with it.

[Gadget]

My experience differs. I can't reliably communicate through the lead with Lindy Hoppers. Nor Rock&Rollers. Nor non-dancers. On what basis then could I claim that my MJ lead is universal?
The main reason you can't communicate with them is that they have been taught conflicting signals: I'm sure that if you just got them to follow rather thatn trying to interperate the signals into what they consider "dancing" {:devil:} you would be able to lead them.
Nothing derogatary about the MJ lead - it's just the Lindy and R&R people that have been brain-washed into ignoring the subtle signals.

{...dons flameproof underware...}

[spindr]

The main reason you can't communicate with them is that they have been taught conflicting signals: I'm sure that if you just got them to follow rather thatn trying to interperate the signals into what they consider "dancing" {:devil:} you would be able to lead them.

Hmmm, perhaps look to the plank in thine own eye :)


Nothing derogatary about the MJ lead - it's just the Lindy and R&R people that have been brain-washed into ignoring the subtle signals.

{...dons flameproof underware...}

I guess the subtle signals would be the circling hands and the bouncy (over-torqued) handhold, then?

I think that the handhold and leads *can* be fairly universal -- but I find that I keep more tension when dancing say linear WCS moves, than when I dance Salsa with a lot of complex turns and hammerlocks -- also that in Salsa the handhold changes a lot more from being fairly loose and relaxed in a rest position in basic mambo steps, to having more tension when leading cross-body style moves, but maybe I just don't know enough WCS moves, yet.

The most universal element I have found: is to have a good danceframe, i.e. a strong connection between both arms across the shoulders and chest -- it's very useful in ballroom, tango, WCS whips, salsa cross-body leads, lindy circles and turns, and in MJ first moves with say a different anti-clockwise exit, etc.

I would suggest that the main problem is that MJ moves tend to come from a relatively limited palette (modulo drops and dips) -- it's difficult to use a subtle lead for moves that a follower won't recognise (even if they are easy) -- try leading a double-time turn, or back ochos without having to resort to a "me tarzan, you follow!" approach :)

SpinDr.

[Magic Hans]

...

To me MJ is a very general, global term that infringes all jive styles being practised currently, MJ being identifiable from the waist up. To me, it is a generic term.

To me it is not "no footwork", but "no set footwork". Most of the dancers I admire adjust their footwork to the music. I try doing fake R&R and Latin'ish, and even footwork that I have never recognised in any dance form.

...

:yeah: :yeah:

True .... MJ has structure. A very simple structure, requiring 4/4 or 2/2 time. Try MJing to a waltz, 6/8 or 7/8? I doesn't work, 'cos it don't fit the structure!

Other dances have a more definite structure, in order to keep the dancer's on track, in the similarly to an animal in a cage. How big's the cage? Battery hen or Safari Park? Or the track? single lane or the entire dessert (Paris-Dakar)?

Clearly something like a team routine requires a very tight and constricting framework. Thus proving that MJ, although in general has a loose structure, can have a far tighter structure, if required!

For me, same goes for ballroom tango versus argentine tango. These are two very different dances to the same type of music. Comparison makes no sense. Just 'cos I like dogs, doesn't mean I hate cats!! .... though I might do!

[SwingSwingSwing]

Gadget, you need to get out more!



The main obstical intimated was the ability to lead the lady's footwork - I think that one way to overcome this
would be to incorporate verbal instructions just before the lead. ("slide", "lunge", "lean", "cross-step")

Slides, lunges, cross steps CAN be lead (in certain situations) as long as you know how.
I can lead slides, lunges, cross steps type moves in Lindy withouth resorting to verbal leads. One of the things that makes these harder in MJ is the lack of footwork. It's harder to work out which foot your follow is on (because if MJ truly has no footwork, the follow could be on either) and some of these moves you need to know that before attempting the move.



MJ is based about the concept of the man leading the lady and interperating the music: No patterns. No steps. No 'calling' signals.

MJ is not based on interpreting the music. IMHO, Interpreting the music is fairly recent development. Certainly when I was an avid Modern Jiver the concept was not well known. Some people did it naturally but it was never taught in class. It barely got a passing mention in most Ceroc workshops. It was people like Nigel & Nina who started spreading the word.

MJ does have patterns - there are lots of moves that only work if both lead and follow know the move. (Lindy has moves like that too)

No 'calling' signals - MJ is littered with signals. The Man Spin is taught as a signalled move at Beginners level. What about all those First Move variations that have right hands pointing at funny angles, Neck break, Hip Hop, First Move Kicks, First Move Triple Steps. Is it the Lindy Drop Or Kick that has that in-out with the hands before doing the move. Those last three are variants on lindy/swing moves that I can lead without signals.



The leads in other "swing based" dances rely on specific counts and constant timing (or so I understand it) - if you break from this structure, you are doing it "wrong".

In terms of Lindy Hop (being a "swing based" dance), the above is totally wrong. Lindy Hop doesn't "rely" on specific counts and constant timing. Lindy Hop has an 8 beat basic (along with other forms and rhythms). You generally start the basic "on the 1" in the music. This isn't a rule. It's done because it feels right. It fits the music. And it's certainly not wrong deviating from that.



MJ does not have this structure to deviate from; skipping beats, extending moves, playing with the timeing are all infinitly easier in MJ.

From what basis can you make that statement? Are you sufficiently experienced in Lindy Hop (for example) to be able say that playing with the timing, extending moves etc is easier in MJ? In my experience, the opposite is true. It is far easier improvising in Lindy Hop than in MJ.



You would find it almost impossable to lead any of these people in a "structured" dance like lindy.

If you're calling Lindy Hop a "structured dance" and therefore has "specific steps and patterns that must be preformed in that order to that pattern. There is very little flexability in what you can and can't do." then again, you are totally wrong. Lindy Hop is very much an improvisational dance. You dance to the music and to your partner. You interpet the music, you vary the steps, you stretch the timings.


The main reason you can't communicate with them is that they have been taught conflicting signals: I'm sure that if you just got them to follow rather thatn trying to interperate the signals into what they consider "dancing" {:devil:} you would be able to lead them.
Nothing derogatary about the MJ lead - it's just the Lindy and R&R people that have been brain-washed into ignoring the subtle signals.
{...dons flameproof underware...}
I know you've put in a wee devil smilie there Gadget, but the above is just absolute tosh! When I'm dancing MJ, I'm amazed at the number of follows who ignore a lead bringing them straight in and start circling me. And that's hardly a subtle lead. Going in the direction you were lead is pretty fundamental.

I don't think that leading/following is universal. Certainly I think there are some universal principles but each dance will bring its own subtlties and differences into the mix. And this is why it can be difficult leading a follower who dances a different dance.

SwingSwingSwing

[MartinHarper]

I'm sure that if you just got them to follow rather than trying to interpret the signals into what they consider "dancing" you would be able to lead them.

Recently our friendly JazzJive joint was invaded by a troupe of R&R-ers, claiming to have come along to learn a new dance. Their sinister scheme - to ruthlessly sabotage our beginner leads with their strange and unnatural dance style. Recklessly, I asked their ringleader for a dance. The battle lines were drawn: my MJ lead against her R&R follow. Which would be triumphant?

Umm... I'm afraid we had a very enjoyable (if ropy) R&R dance. Being a lady, she apologised for doing R&R instead of JazzJive. Being a gentleman, I gallantly let her shoulder all the blame by herself.
Oh, we also did a nice variation on the man's spin with the woman doing an extra free spin. Guy is incompetent and doesn't catch. Women is a good (one might say "natural" :) ) follow and thus carries on twirling clockwise until lead otherwise.

[Gus]

MJ is not based on interpreting the music. IMHO, Interpreting the music is fairly recent development. Certainly when I was an avid Modern Jiver the concept was not well known. Some people did it naturally but it was never taught in class. It barely got a passing mention in most Ceroc workshops. It was people like Nigel & Nina who started spreading the word.With respect, from my experience, musical interpretation has been taught as much in MJ as any of the Swing lessons I've been to (and I did a fair few at one time). Teaching musical interpretation (rather than just hiting breaks) is more difficult than the class structure allows ... but the informal coaching and the myriad of workshops that have been available for some time do allow dancers to pick it up. I remember interpretation being alluded to in the days of the Central Club (Ceroc London) and Rob Austin's Le Jive back in the late 90's ... not that reallu yndersttod hwat they were on about :sick:

[Gadget]

Gadget, you need to get out more!
:yeah: damn straight!

Slides, lunges, cross steps CAN be lead (in certain situations) as long as you know how.
Some slides can be led with the feet moving your partner's feet and by slow recovery from a lunge. A lunge can be led (from a 'framed' ballroom position) by lowering the frame as an extended step is taken into it. A 'shimmy' cross-step thing can be led by using the hand on the lady's back and the front hand while in a 'frame'. You can also lead walks and a few kicks from an open first-move position if the lady is observant, but that's not a physical lead.

One of the things that makes these harder in MJ is the lack of footwork. It's harder to work out which foot your follow is on (because if MJ truly has no footwork, the follow could be on either) and some of these moves you need to know that before attempting the move.
Which is why a lot of these moves are preceeded by a "first move" style move or a close move were you are controlling the lady's weigth distribution. There is a lot to do with timeing as well - I have screwed up countless attempts at leading fotwork because I've miss-times it or not given the lady adequate warning/lead into it.

MJ is not based on interpreting the music. IMHO, Interpreting the music is fairly recent development.
:confused: For me, MJ is dancing. With a partner. To dance, you need to listen to the music and have it dictate your moves. Highs, lows, accents, breaks... etc. I knew all about these things before I ever knew MJ - this is just the medium I use to apprecate music better.

MJ does have patterns - there are lots of moves that only work if both lead and follow know the move. (Lindy has moves like that too)
No. Ceroc has patterns. MoJive has patterns. Blitz has patterns. MJ does not. {in my opinion}:
The Ceroc "first move" is a pattern of 7 lead movements. The "man-spin" has 3. The "cattapult" has 7... Ceroc (and all the other brands of MJ) teach you patterns in order to teach you to dance. If you remain on these patterns, then you can never explore beyond them. They teach you that your movement as a lead causes an equal and opposite movement in the follower.
"Structured" dance styles do not follow this most basic law of physics, they follow the catalyst and reaction type: do A and lady will do B,C and D. This requires the lady to know what A is and insert B,C and D. I'm sure that you can interupt at any point in this and set another chain of events, or if not given a signal, the lady will continue to repeat B,C,D,B,C,D... until you take her out of it.
{Please tell me if my understanding is incorrect}

No 'calling' signals - MJ is littered with signals. The Man Spin is taught as a signalled move at Beginners level.{this I'm sure has been removed and is now just 'get your hand out the way'} What about all those First Move variations that have right hands pointing at funny angles,{? Don't know - all the first move variations I know are led through the connection in the ladys back/hand and a strong frame} Neck break,{yea - I hate that; I use a neck level wrap or something instead} Hip Hop,{?wassa?} First Move Kicks, First Move Triple Steps. Is it the Lindy Drop Or Kick that has that in-out with the hands before doing the move. Those last three are variants on lindy/swing moves that I can lead without signals.
that you can lead lindy hoppers without signals. (is that the right collective term?) I could probably lead an MJ lady into these if she knew them - I fail to see the point. Any MJ move that uses a signal is generally "borrowed" from another style and requires this catalyst-reaction knowledge rather than a pure lead-follow.


In terms of Lindy Hop (being a "swing based" dance), the above is totally wrong. Lindy Hop doesn't "rely" on specific counts and constant timing....
Are you sufficiently experienced in Lindy Hop (for example) to be able say that playing with the timing, extending moves etc is easier in MJ? In my experience, the opposite is true. It is far easier improvising in Lindy Hop than in MJ.
My appologies :blush: I am only going by what I read and what I've seen. Assumptions. However I don't understand how having it would be condusive to improvising... unless it means that since you can only go from M to N,O or P it's easier than deciding where to go from M to N,O,P,Q....

Lindy Hop is very much an improvisational dance. You dance to the music and to your partner. You interpet the music, you vary the steps, you stretch the timings.
Can you "Vary the steps" with someone who does not know what you are varying? What I'm trying to get at is that I can take someone who has never danced and (as long as they can hear the music) I can dance with them. No prior knowledge, no patterns, no footwork. Just moving with the music.


When I'm dancing MJ, I'm amazed at the number of follows who ignore a lead bringing them straight in and start circling me. And that's hardly a subtle lead. Going in the direction you were lead is pretty fundamental.
Most moves in MJ involve the lady moving to the right of the man, free-spins rend to drift right, the man rotates slightly right... "conditioning" them to move in a circle. It can be compensated for in the lead, but it's like a bad habit learned early - very hard to get out of. This is not really the fault of MJ but of the practisioners.

I don't think that leading/following is universal. Certainly I think there are some universal principles but each dance will bring its own subtlties and differences into the mix. And this is why it can be difficult leading a follower who dances a different dance.
I think that MJ is universal, and ths is exactly why many who start it drift into the likes of Lindy and WCS: they get the 'universal language' in MJ but can't find the subtalties and expression they are looking for - so turn to another form of dance.

[MartinHarper]

You can also lead walks and a few kicks from an open first-move position if the lady is observant, but that's not a physical lead.

I don't know about other dances, but there's an intermediate JazzJive move called "kick the dog", which is a walk with kicks in open position, which can be lead entirely physically (every step).
Even in Ceroc, I can lead a walk in open position where I walk towards the lady and the lady backs away (or vica versa). Again, physical lead (though not every step).
One big thing I need to work on improving in my JazzJive is leading the initial backstep. I should be able to lead the size of the backstep, which foot, and also the type (simple, rock step, and twisted rock step). That's all physical too.


your movement as a lead causes an equal and opposite movement in the follower.

Talking about physically leading, I'd say that applying force to my partner causes an amplified and parallel movement in my partner.


The Man Spin is taught as a signalled move at Beginners level.{this I'm sure has been removed and is now just 'get your hand out the way'}

FWIW, not removed in Ceroc Cheltenham or Ceroc Wythal: both places taught me the Man's Spin signal as a definate signal, at a specific height, etc. "Don't put your hand below your waist, or you're signalling a different move".

[Whitebeard]

FWIW, not removed in Ceroc Cheltenham or Ceroc Wythal: both places taught me the Man's Spin signal as a definate signal .......
Some few months ago, but I'm pretty sure this is how the man's spin/turn was also taught at JazzJive .... with some additional emphasis on 'aiming' the RH between the partners and above the connecting lead. Personally, I would see this preparation of the right arm as being quite natural and part of style rather than a signal.

[MartinHarper]

Very true, Whitebeard. For bonus points, the JazzJive signal I was taught is subtly different to the Ceroc signal. :)

[Whitebeard]

..... is subtly different to the Ceroc signal.
Subtly. is something I still have to learn.

[Ste]

Haven't read all the posts...sorry...I don't have broadband.

What is Jazz Jive and where can I find out more?

I think of MJ as 2 pieces of bread with butter. Very ordinary. But you can put lots of different types of filling into it to make it nice. But in its normal form it can be quite plain!!!! So spice it up!

[Whitebeard]

What is Jazz Jive and where can I find out more?
JazzJive Swing is the name given to classes of the form of MJ (leavened with a hint of Lindy) taught by The Rock Dance Company (TRDC) which is HQd at Stroud, Gloucestershire.

They have a website at http://www.jazzjiveswing.com/index_2.html