PDA

View Full Version : Musicality - The Difference it Makes



Andy McGregor
25th-November-2004, 12:33 PM
On the Jive Masters thread there has been some debate over the relative importance of musicality. To my mind it is an essential component of a dance performance. In my opinion, performing moves to the beat, with no reference to the musicality is like the difference between reading a poem and reading a shopping list.

This was brought home to me recently when I saw Nigel make a mistake when performing a cabaret with Nina. They do a move called the ribbon, it starts with Nina horizontal at shoulder height and, at the right point in the music Nigel seems to drop Nina, and she stops, still horizontal, very near the floor, right on a big dramatic break in the music. This move always gets applause from the audience - except this one time I saw Nigel get the timing wrong. People didn't seem to notice the move and just carried on watching as if nothing had happenned. Of course Nigel, being the professional, got back in the groove and performed the rest of the routine faultlessly :clap: And Nina didn't even use a death stare :what:

So, my argument for musicality is that a dance without it is just a series of moves, which could just as easily be done to the banging of a single drum or the recording of a windscreen wiper. The moves can be fabulous, they can be perfectly exectuted, they can have a high degree of difficulty. But, without reference to the musicalty there is something essential missing from the performance.

The question is, if musicality is so intrinsic to dancing, why is it so rarely taught?

Gus
25th-November-2004, 12:51 PM
The question is, if musicality is so intrinsic to dancing, why is it so rarely taught?Ever tried teaching a group of beginners to pick the beat? :whistle:

David Franklin
25th-November-2004, 12:53 PM
On the Jive Masters thread there has been some debate over the relative importance of musicality.

This was brought home to me recently when I saw Nigel make a mistake when performing a cabaret with Nina. They do a move called the ribbon [snip]This move always gets applause from the audience - except this one time I saw Nigel get the timing wrong. People didn't seem to notice the move and just carried on watching as if nothing had happenned.While I don't disagree with your main point, one thing I've noticed with cabarets is that if the audience don't know when to applaud, they won't... Have seen routines with amazing musicality, but because it was to lots of accents rather than a few crescendos, it was really hard to know when to applaud without "interrupting". Result - dead silence from the audience during the performance - even though we certainly appreciated it.

Dave

stewart38
25th-November-2004, 01:12 PM
So, my argument for musicality is that a dance without it is just a series of moves, which could just as easily be done to the banging of a single drum or the recording of a windscreen wiper. The moves can be fabulous, they can be perfectly exectuted, they can have a high degree of difficulty. But, without reference to the musicalty there is something essential missing from the performance.

The question is, if musicality is so intrinsic to dancing, why is it so rarely taught?

Agree with this

Maybe it starts at a very basic level with a 'sense of rythm' then its a learnt thing.

I see many people who you regard as 'good dancer' rushing through 50 moves in set and no doubt would do the same moves to every song.

10 moves that match the dance can be far more inspiring to watch

Lynn
25th-November-2004, 01:29 PM
The question is, if musicality is so intrinsic to dancing, why is it so rarely taught? Maybe quite a few of the teachers haven't been taught it, or taught how to teach it? Maybe things need to go back to that level, a couple of 'teachers training' type workshops that focus on how to teach musicality and how much to teach at each level.

Andy McGregor
25th-November-2004, 01:45 PM
Ever tried teaching a group of beginners to pick the beat? :whistle:

I somtimes find it impossible with one partner, let alone a group of beginners :tears:

But, of course, there are a lot more people than beginners at a dance class. How about a lesson in musicality for people who can 'pick the beat' and already have a nice repertoire of moves? They would benefit much more from a lesson in musicality than being taught another move.


While I don't disagree with your main point, one thing I've noticed with cabarets is that if the audience don't know when to applaud, they won't... Have seen routines with amazing musicality, but because it was to lots of accents rather than a few crescendos, it was really hard to know when to applaud without "interrupting". Result - dead silence from the audience during the performance - even though we certainly appreciated it.
I agree, I only used the cabaret performance to illustrate the difference between being on and off the music and the difference that can make to the performance.


I see many people who you regard as 'good dancer' rushing through 50 moves in set and no doubt would do the same moves to every song.
I've even seen a couple win an airsteps competition dancing on the off-beat. They did produce the best airsteps, but, being on the off-beat, were they the best dancers?


And, besides the performance aspect of the dance, I find it much nicer to try to freestyle with musicality - even though I've had the odd partner say something like "oh, you do that stoppy-starty thing" in a less than complimentary way :tears: I always wonder what they were expecting? :confused:


N.B. I've been thinking a lot about the way MJ is taught. Mainly to try to understand why so many people have developed bad habits. And I think it's because of the lack of individual feedback. People teach from the stage, demonstrate the moves, watch the audience 'til most/all of them have got it and that is probably it - with the possible exception of beginners who get a bit of individual attention from Taxi dancers. Once we join the intermediate lesson we're left to work it out for themselves, develop our own style, never corrected, etc. What are the teachers afraid of?

DavidB
25th-November-2004, 01:47 PM
To my mind it is an essential component of a dance performance.
{snip}
The question is, if musicality is so intrinsic to dancing, why is it so rarely taught?
You are talking about the difference between a performance and a social activity. The majority of people who do Modern Jive are not there to become performers. They want a night out that is sociable and fun, with a bit of physical activity thrown in.

The problem with teaching anything more complicated such as musical interpretation is that it almost invariably makes you a worse dancer for a while. Saying "you have to get worse before you can get better" is ok for serious dancers, but not for the majority who just wand a good night out.

Musical interpretation is an ideal subject for advanced classes, or a series of workshops. I think there could be more workshops like this - especially at dance weekends. But I'm not convinced it should be taught too much in regular intermediate classes.


Maybe things need to go back to that level, a couple of 'teachers training' type workshops that focus on how to teach musicality and how much to teach at each level.There are a lot of teachers that have utterly and completely different ideas on musical interpretation. It makes the discussions on the Jive Masters thread look pretty tame.

ChrisA
25th-November-2004, 01:51 PM
The question is, if musicality is so intrinsic to dancing, why is it so rarely taught?
This is such a good question, that I gave you some rep even though you've overtaken me again :D.

Hmm. Let's think about who teaches it, first of all...

Amir teaches it the best, I think. And Nigel teaches it the next best (someone said that Joseph and Tricia also teach it but I haven't seen them so I can't comment).

They are both staggeringly musical dancers. And from the way they talk about what's going on, they clearly know what they're doing that's musical.

So not only can they do it, they can also explain what they do while they demonstrate it, which makes the whole learning process easier.

Now, here's where I risk getting flamed :tears: - hope this comes out the right way :what:

My subjective impression of a lot of other teachers that I watch is that their musicality, which is often very nice, is based more on instinct - so they would find it correspondingly difficult to teach that particular aspect of what they do. And there are those, of course, who are not very musical themselves, so you wouldn't expect them to be able to teach it.

Bottom line: musicality is hard (I certainly wouldn't claim to be a particularly musical dancer yet - though I'm getting better). Teaching it probably even more so. Add to that the relative unpopularity of learning something difficult and it isn't surprising that it's so rare.

Chris

Lynn
25th-November-2004, 01:53 PM
Surely the basics can be taught though? Another eg from salsa (we don't have much MJ here!) - last night a track slowed down as it came to the end, my partner, who is a musician, slowed down his steps in time with the music. Another couple nearby kept dancing to the same beat, which was no longer being played. The music eventually faded out - they kept dancing even for a second or two of silence. Surely that is the most basic MI - if the beat changes, you change to match it? I'm sure there are some other fairly universal principles of MI that could be passed on as people are learning.

Magic Hans
25th-November-2004, 01:55 PM
On the Jive Masters thread there has been some debate over the relative importance of musicality. To my mind it is an essential component of a dance performance. In my opinion, performing moves to the beat, with no reference to the musicality is like the difference between reading a poem and reading a shopping list.
...

:yeah: :yeah: :yeah: :yeah:

Totally agree 5 zillion percent!! Were musicality absent from MJ (or any dance for that matter), I'd have lost interest within a few weeks.



...
The question is, if musicality is so intrinsic to dancing, why is it so rarely taught?

[Personal opinion on] My angle is that it is both risky and difficult. Two ingredients are needed.

a) some understanding and emoting of music, moving sadly when the music 'feels' sad, moving lively when the music 'feels' lively. Piano pieces often direct the player as to how to play [eg vivace con brio - lively with motion]

b) involves self-expression. I hear and internalise the music, interpreting it into feeling (as above), I then externally express that which I am feeling. This is [imo] only possible to teach informally, and requires dropping any sense of self-consiousness.

Many people seem to be afraid to go within themselves, and express from within .... 'cos it's dark and scarey in there. I might not like what I might find there.

Make any sense?? Or too esoteric?

Ian

Gadget
25th-November-2004, 02:16 PM
The question is, if musicality is so intrinsic to dancing, why is it so rarely taught?
I would suggest that it's because most people can't seperate "musicality" from just 'dancing'. In order to actually dance with a patner, you have to both move on the same beat - you have to hear the same rhythm in the track.
A good lead can show the lady what he hears by moving her to it. A good follower will be able to pick up on what the lead hears by his movements.

Dancing to the beat is the first step in musicality. Then it's hearing breaks. Then anticipating them. These things are taught in most workshops, or at least brushed on; "this move would be good for a break", "if the music is slower, you could do this",...

Beyond this, you are takling about concepts which involve listening - a passive activity that is more a lecture than a workshop. I think that a mixing desk is the best teacher of listening to tracks; you can change the 'focus' of sound to favour or eliminate sounds.
I think that you could probably create a "learning CD" that would teach you how to listen and understand tracks. Slap a Ceroc lable on it and sell it to dancers to listen to on the way too-from their classes. {I want royalties on this idea :D :wink:}

Gadget
25th-November-2004, 02:30 PM
~ ingredients are needed:
a) some understanding and emoting of music,
Is emotion necissary to turn music into motion? Do you have to feel "horny all night long" to dance to hot & jucy?
If the song has strong emotional content, then why not; but tearing up and trying to fill moves with sorrow because the song says "...and his dog just up and died." ...:rolleyes:

ChrisA
25th-November-2004, 02:31 PM
b) involves self-expression. I hear and internalise the music, interpreting it into feeling (as above), I then externally express that which I am feeling. This is [imo] only possible to teach informally, and requires dropping any sense of self-consiousness.

-snip-

Make any sense?? Or too esoteric?
Makes perfect sense. :flower:

But this aspect of musicality is probably the very hardest to teach - since both people's feeling and their expression of that feeling are different. :tears:

Also, if you're fortunate enough to be uninhibited enough for that feeling to translate reasonably easily into your dancing, then I'd say you're very lucky.

I know I'm not alone in finding that very difficult - so as well as the understanding of the music, I also need to learn some of the things that can be done with it as well. :sad:

For many, this is simply too difficult unless it's broken down into non-elephant-sized mouthfuls, and it's doing this in an accessible way that I think many teachers don't do very well.

Respect to the ones that can. :cheers:

Chris

ChrisA
25th-November-2004, 02:34 PM
Do you have to feel "horny all night long" to dance to hot & jucy?

It probably helps :devil:

BeeBee
25th-November-2004, 02:35 PM
Agree with this

Maybe it starts at a very basic level with a 'sense of rythm' then its a learnt thing.

I see many people who you regard as 'good dancer' rushing through 50 moves in set and no doubt would do the same moves to every song.

10 moves that match the dance can be far more inspiring to watch


:yeah:
Totally agree!!! I've got the 'sense of rythm' bit, just need to get some snazzy moves to match the music . . .

CJ
25th-November-2004, 02:41 PM
Am intrigued by all of this...

Ok, so I am a muso, composer, songwriter, etc, etc...

I would have to say that musicality is my strongest suit when I dance. I don't know many moves; my lead can be wooly; but reaching breaks, anticipating breaks, gradually building crescendos, "word-painting" etc all come really easy to me but I have no idea why or how I would transfer this on to some one else.

It's an intrinsic thing, that I can't describe: maybe if I thought hard enough, I could try to put it into words. I guess people could learn 12 bar patterns for blues, 16/32 bar patterns for pop, etc but I think there is more to it than that.

Mmm... got me thinking
and everyone knows THAT doesn't happen much!!

stewart38
25th-November-2004, 02:41 PM
Surely the basics can be taught though? Another eg from salsa (we don't have much MJ here!) - last night a track slowed down as it came to the end, my partner, who is a musician, slowed down his steps in time with the music. Another couple nearby kept dancing to the same beat, which was no longer being played. The music eventually faded out - they kept dancing even for a second or two of silence. Surely that is the most basic MI - if the beat changes, you change to match it? I'm sure there are some other fairly universal principles of MI that could be passed on as people are learning.

Wonder how much of that is learnt/talked and how much just natural ability

ie 'advance' dancers dont sometimes 'listen' to the changes and you get the differences explained above.

Can we define what musicality is ? From different threads people seem to intepret it very differently

ChrisA
25th-November-2004, 02:47 PM
:yeah:
Totally agree!!! I've got the 'sense of rythm' bit, just need to get some snazzy moves to match the music . . .

Yep. Thing is, the thing that makes a move snazzy in these terms is ensuring that you're on the right part of the move at the right time in the music.

I think there are a number of phases to go through... some can go through them faster than others, of course, but my experience has been along the lines of:

1. Huh? :confused:
2. Damn, missed it as usual :tears:
3. (occasionally) Oooh... why can't I do that all the time :rolleyes:
4. (increasingly) Oooh... that felt nice :waycool:

I spent literally years at stage 1.

Then, when I was on the point of giving up MJ completely because I was so bored with moves, I went on a workshop that Amir taught. I still couldn't do it, but I had the tools to start listening, and an inkling of what to do which occasionally translated into something.

Even from 3 to 4 there is an unlimited amount of stuff to do. Just being able to stop in a good place in the move on the break was wonderful to start with, but now I'm completely unsatisfied by just that, and feeling like there's another mountain to climb. Which there is, of course - but it's a lot more fulfilling now.

Chris

Lory
25th-November-2004, 02:51 PM
I don't know who I'm agreeing with, or disagreeing with :o )

But IMO, as someone else said, musicality is instinctive. You either feel/hear it, or you don't. :cool:

I don't think it comes down to a case of people not letting go, some people can hardly keep time, let alone hear the subtleties of the music, and I doubt it can be taught. :sick:

It's like shouting at a man who's stone deaf, It doesn't matter how loud you shout, even if you stood him next to Big Ben, he still wouldn't hear it! :tears:

BUT I do think there's a case for teaching people who DO have an appreciation of music and musicality already, what options they have i.e. moves, breaks, half time etc. to be able to interpret it! :)

Magic Hans
25th-November-2004, 02:52 PM
Is emotion necissary to turn music into motion? Do you have to feel "horny all night long" to dance to hot & jucy?
If the song has strong emotional content, then why not; but tearing up and trying to fill moves with sorrow because the song says "...and his dog just up and died." ...:rolleyes:

hmmm .... something tells me that we'll only ever agree on this when hell starts to freeze over!!
:wink:

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree agreeably.

If "Hot and Juicy" makes me feel sexy, then yes ... I will translate that into my moves, moderating it, dependant on my partner [I don't want her to feel uncomfortable]

My point that it is emotion that makes us human. An individual stripped of emotion becomes little more than an automaton, a computing device/machine. Which we sometimes need to be in order to learn something new, but not my favourite choice of dance partner.

.... I'm sure you have a different viewpoint! :D

Ian

CJ
25th-November-2004, 03:13 PM
Musicality and emotion are two entirely different concepts:

ANyone can feel the "horn" of tracks such as Tango in Harlem, etc,etc (feel free to choose NON overplayed track from your venue) but to translate that emotion into a direct sync with the music is beyond most.

Consider: (list not exhaustive)
rhythm.
Not the beat, the rhythm. Phrasings, how long is a lyric within a verse? How much "space" is within the music? How long is a verse? Chorus? Middle 8? Break?

lyrics.
Can you match actions to lyrics? "Stop" is an obvious one. "Get your hands down my pants" I haven't tried yet, but the day I dance with ZW WITHOUT a kilt on...
IS one of the easiest ways to bring the "music" into your dance.

breaks.
Not my area of expertise, so read the words of others, but...
If you feel a break coming, is it at the end of a big crescendo? eg rising scale in Moonflower, "U gotta get high before U taste the lows" in Let Me Entertain U, etc
Is it a sudden break? Fever, Wade..., etc

tempi changes/time changes/beat changes within the same tempo
Again, very easy way to bring the music into your dance, just "feel" it and play with it.

I think it was Magic Hans who said dance without inhibition: great advice. Yet, something so few can do. Helps no end with musicality, because the cerebral side dominates less, and the feel side plays a bigger role within your own movements.

Is all I gotta say about that... Chocolate, anyone?!?

ChrisA
25th-November-2004, 03:23 PM
But IMO, as someone else said, musicality is instinctive. You either feel/hear it, or you don't. :cool:

Thing is, if you'd said that to me about 18 months ago, it might have been the last straw that made me give up. Fortunately, Amir said the opposite, namely that it can be learned. :clap: :worthy:


some people can hardly keep time, let alone hear the subtleties of the music, and I doubt it can be taught. :sick:

True. There are probably some that find it so difficult to hear that they'll never learn. But there are some people who couldn't dance on the beat at the beginning, and subsequently learned. I think Andy McG claims to be one of these - and he's pretty musical IMHO, and still getting better if Britroc was anything to go by. :clap:

But what this says to me is that it's not something that you either have or don't have, on or off... it's a continuous spectrum of ability, like most things. Sometimes it's so extreme one way or another that it looks either totally absent on the one hand, or totally natural on the other. But I think that masks what's really going on.

In the Amir workshop that got me started, he majored on breaks (I know that's by no means the whole story, but that was the emphasis there). To start with, no one in the class could do anything with the breaks in the track, which he'd chosen for their regularity.

Then he got people to dance, but stop on the break wherever they were in the move. After a couple of goes, almost everyone could do that. :waycool:

Then he taught some things you can do with what he calls double and triple accents, and a little routine to string them together, hitting the breaks and the accents.

About 60% of the class could do that after a few goes.

Then he got people to try and freestyle those moves, not doing the routine, but trying to hit the breaks without the comfort of a known routine. Hardly anyone (including myself) could do that. :tears:

Yet now, I can hit almost every break if I want to, even in music I don't know. I can't necessarily do anything very clever in the break, but I'm getting better, and I'm enjoying it a lot more as a result.

I don't think I'm anything special. But I started off not hearing anything in the music (not consciously, anyway) and wondering why I got funny looks from the ladies I was dancing with when I piled right through the breaks.

And my feeling now is, thank heavens it is learnable, and that some people can teach it :cheers:

Chris

bigdjiver
25th-November-2004, 03:41 PM
(Never one to follow the herd) The follower follows the leader. The leader may follow the music, but, IMO, providing the leader can be followed, he does not have to. I have tried dancing with no music, and it is high in my most memorable experiences. (Almost alone on the floor as two of the first into the Ceroc Champs) I have often seen couples dancing sublimely together, but probably to a different version in their heads of the song being played. The dancer can be like an instrumentalist, jazzing it up whilst the rest of the orchestra keeps to the beat.

I, too, am an songwriter (amateur):

Stop the music, cos' I want to dance
my heart beats with the rhythm of real romance
this might be love, gotta take the chance
stop the music, cos' I want to dance

What you're playing sir, is just fi_i_i_ne
but he music yours, not hers and mine ,
so stop ...

Zuhal
25th-November-2004, 03:42 PM
1. Huh? :confused:
2. Damn, missed it as usual :tears:
3. (occasionally) Oooh... why can't I do that all the time :rolleyes:
4. (increasingly) Oooh... that felt nice :waycool:

IChris

I am fixed "On 2" except in Salsa when I still dance on 1 :grin:

Zuhal

BeeBee
25th-November-2004, 04:02 PM
I am fixed "On 2" except in Salsa when I still dance on 1 :grin:

Zuhal


:yeah:

I'm kinda fixed on 2 at the moment, but I think its got a lot to do with confidence as opposed to getting the rythm and the 'feel' for the music. I can usually spot a good break or a 'pizzazzy' bit of the music (technical terms here folks), but dont know if my partner sees it coming too, and so usually just let it go :sad: Ach, it'll happen, but I want it to happen NOW! :nice:

ChrisA
25th-November-2004, 04:37 PM
I'm kinda fixed on 2 at the moment, but I think its got a lot to do with confidence as opposed to getting the rythm and the 'feel' for the music.
Well to a large extent you're at the mercy of what the guy's leading.

Dance with the ones that can as much as possible, or alternatively, back-lead the break. :devil:

BeeBee
25th-November-2004, 04:45 PM
Dance with the ones that can as much as possible, or alternatively, back-lead the break. :devil:

Yeah, started to do that, and the bossy boots in me is coming out :what: :devil: . The shocked / confused looks on some of the guys faces that are taken a bit by surprise at being 'hijacked' is great! I think poor Baldrick is getting to the stage where he is expecting it, hee hee! ;)

ChrisA
25th-November-2004, 04:50 PM
The shocked / confused looks on some of the guys faces that are taken a bit by surprise at being 'hijacked' is great!
:rofl:

I agree now... I wouldn't have then :)

But seriously, it was the first hint to me that there was stuff I wasn't doing.

So go to it, girl :clap:

Chris

BeeBee
25th-November-2004, 05:04 PM
:rofl:

I agree now... I wouldn't have then :)

But seriously, it was the first hint to me that there was stuff I wasn't doing.

So go to it, girl :clap:

Chris


Will do, and if I'm feeling bolshie, you guys had better brace yourselfs! :D

Zebra Woman
25th-November-2004, 05:30 PM
I think there are a number of phases to go through... some can go through them faster than others, of course, but my experience has been along the lines of:

1. Huh? :confused:
2. Damn, missed it as usual :tears:
3. (occasionally) Oooh... why can't I do that all the time :rolleyes:
4. (increasingly) Oooh... that felt nice :waycool:


Yes, that's why I spent so much of the week in my car. I drive a hell of a long way for numbers 3 and 4 :worthy:

I don't mind number 2 'cos joint recognition of a missed break can be a laugh. What drives me nuts is a whole evening of music with no breaks in it.....so no way to have fun trying to improve.

A couple of years ago a Ceroc teacher taught musicality at Northampton. He did a very good job, it was an inspiriing class and by the end of it the room was frozen each time there was a break. It was a truly gorgeous sight. :clap:

Unfortunately for the whole of the rest of the evening the freestyle music had pretty much no breaks so it all slipped away ...very frustrating. :tears:

I'm not adverse to backleading a break...but I am also wary about injuring the lead if he really wasn't expecting it.:blush: .

Very rare to be able to use the lyrics IMO but I did manage to walk my fingers up and down a man's spine during 'In these Shoes' once. Most satisfying that was. :rofl:

ZW :flower:

BeeBee
25th-November-2004, 05:33 PM
I'm not adverse to backleading a break...but I am also wary about injuring the lead if he really wasn't expecting it.:blush: .
ZW :flower:

As I still have the old 'L' plates up, thats something I'd best bear in mind thanks! :whistle:

Magic Hans
25th-November-2004, 06:35 PM
Thing is, if you'd said that to me about 18 months ago, it might have been the last straw that made me give up. Fortunately, Amir said the opposite, namely that it can be learned. :clap: :worthy:


:yeah: :yeah:

Agreed.
a) What is it about Cubans, Africans, Brazilians (etc), that they move so wonderfully to music?
b) Can Brits, Irish, Scots get doomed to be always one step behind?

Maybe genetics plays a small or a major part. I choose to believe that culture does. Had I been moving my body to music since age 18 months, and watching others around me doing the same, I'd look like a natural after 15 or so years, and would never have had any pangs of self-consiousness (at a guess)

As it happens, I started learning all that stuff when I was 25 .... not the ideal age for learning ... so maybe I can reach the peaks .... not easy though, so yes, I do believe that culturally we'll struggle to be any less than one step behind.

Ian

DavidY
25th-November-2004, 08:07 PM
1. Huh? :confused:
2. Damn, missed it as usual :tears:
3. (occasionally) Oooh... why can't I do that all the time :rolleyes:
4. (increasingly) Oooh... that felt nice :waycool: I'm at about 2.01 on Chris's scale :tears:
I don't know who I'm agreeing with, or disagreeing with :o )

But IMO, as someone else said, musicality is instinctive. You either feel/hear it, or you don't. :cool: ~SNIP~ BUT I do think there's a case for teaching people who DO have an appreciation of music and musicality already, what options they have i.e. moves, breaks, half time etc. to be able to interpret it! :)I don't know whether or not musicality itself can be learned. But I'm pretty sure you can have natural musicality and still not be able to translate into dancing. It's that translation that I can't do reliably. Even when if it does happen I'm pretty sure my conscious mind doesn't do all the work (probably true for leading in general I think).

I'd definitely go to more musicality workshops if I get the chance - I'd love to be able to do this well. Maybe even at 2.5

BTW - a thought for all the backleading followers. IMO, not everyone hears the same things in the same piece of music - you may be listening to the bass line whereas the leader may be listening to the piano harmony. And you don't have to stop dead on every break...

jivecat
25th-November-2004, 09:17 PM
Thing is, if you'd said that to me about 18 months ago, it might have been the last straw that made me give up. Fortunately, Amir said the opposite, namely that it can be learned. :clap: :worthy:...........

And my feeling now is, thank heavens it is learnable, and that some people can teach it :cheers:

Chris

And in my view, Amir sure is someone who can teach it. I attended a very similar workshop to the one described by ChrisA and it stands out as the most stimulating and enlightening one I've ever attended. And so simple, too -he got us listening to music and building on what most people already knew to analyse what we were hearing. All he did was get people to clap their hands and signal when they heard various features of the music but it was incredibly effective as a way of making people understand what they were listening to.
But if this basic exercise was carried out as part of weeknight classes I wonder what the "This is a waste of bl**dy time" brigade would say? Sorry, moaning again. So who's willing to try it first?

jockey
25th-November-2004, 09:41 PM
Another good topic, Andy and, for once, I agree with your position which I am going to paraphrase as: jiving without reference to the content of the music, however well executed, lacks what should be the whole object of the exercise, namely, PERFORMING A DANCE ROUTINE to that music.
There are a number of techniques helpful in achieving the objective in freestyle: facial expressions, dancing breaks, tempo changes, slides, drops (crescendo bits), choice of move, body rolling etc.
However your argument (and mine) points to a rather different emphasis and subsequent practice that you don't exploit - namely the great importance and value of choreography (over freestyle) viz., if musicality is the overriding aim then seek the form of dancing that best achieves it - a choreographed routine rehearsed in private and later performed in public wherein each move is painstakingly chosen and (usually) exhaustively practised.

The thrust in the discussion so far has been: musicality IS of overriding importance so how can we improve our freestyling to take this into account (and how can we teachers teach the 'ineffable?)?

Now I happened to bump into Roger Chinn's ex-partner in a shopping centre in Wimbledon 2 years ago and we fell into talking about competitions and, more precisely, what each judge is looking for (they each have an emphasis, she told me).'Mine is choreography', she explained, ' I'd rather a couple (in a freestyle competition) make mistakes than perform a choreographed sequences'. 'In fact, she continued, 'mistakes are proof of freestyling'.

So we have arrived via the idea of musicality at a curious position: on the one hand we desire musicality but choreography is the best means of achieving it yet choreography is banned in the epitome of performance excellence - freestyle competitions. Is this what a philosopher such as Jonathon Miller would call a paradox? Or is that the name of those dodgy novels by the yank Henry Miller.

Help me Toby one (get out the dictionary)... :confused:

David Franklin
25th-November-2004, 10:56 PM
There are a number of techniques helpful in achieving the objective in freestyle: facial expressions, dancing breaks, tempo changes, slides, drops (crescendo bits), choice of move, body rolling etc.
However your argument (and mine) points to a rather different emphasis and subsequent practice that you don't exploit - namely the great importance and value of choreography (over freestyle) viz., if musicality is the overriding aim then seek the form of dancing that best achieves it - a choreographed routine rehearsed in private and later performed in public wherein each move is painstakingly chosen and (usually) exhaustively practised.On one level, you're absolutely right. But then, we've rehashed the "a live band will never sound as good as the CD recording" argument, and people still like the spontaneity of live bands. I think there is something similar about freestyle. (And anyone who has done a routine will tell you that by default, the dancing in the routine will look worse, not better than freestyle dancing - there quite a lot of work to stop it looking like "just going through the motions").

The other issue is that even if we accept that the ultimate in musicality will come from a choreographed routine, there is still a lot of interest in how well people can do in freestyle - if for no other reason than that's what we do 99.99% of the time. Freestyle is definitely the harder test; not only do you have to think quickly, but you have to communicate your decisions between each other - an extreme test of lead and follow. [I know for me, what I can lead is usually the limiting factor, not what I can find in the music].

On the other hand, I think it is very useful to do a choreographed routine - it's interesting to see what interpretation you can come up with given enough time. And hopefully some of those ideas will be applicable to your freestyle dancing as well. The other thing I think people will find out is that it's much harder than it looks. I know extremely accomplished dancers who have set out to do a showcase, and in every case, they've been amazed how much work it is.


So we have arrived via the idea of musicality at a curious position: on the one hand we desire musicality but choreography is the best means of achieving it yet choreography is banned in the epitome of performance excellence - freestyle competitions. Is this what a philosopher such as Jonathon Miller would call a paradox?
No, because in fact, most would say the spotlight (choreographed routines) category is the epitome of performance excellence. That is usually what the rules imply - they nearly always emphasize performance. And in fact, the prize money for spotlight is usually the greatest as well, so it's hardly a poor cousin to the freestyle competition.

I think the truth in all of this is that we want it all. We want couples to display fantastic technique and dynamic musicality, all choreographed on the fly to music they've never heard. We're probably never going see that achieved - the interest is in how close people can get.

Dave

Daisy
25th-November-2004, 11:03 PM
I think the truth in all of this is that we want it all. We want couples to display fantastic technique and dynamic musicality, all choreographed on the fly to music they've never heard. We're probably never going see that achieved - the interest is in how close people can get.

Dave

Isn't Stewert38 going to show us? :whistle:

Simon r
26th-November-2004, 08:49 AM
Isn't Stewert38 going to show us? :whistle:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

you got me

jockey
26th-November-2004, 09:14 AM
Maybe quite a few of the teachers haven't been taught it, or taught how to teach it? Maybe things need to go back to that level, a couple of 'teachers training' type workshops that focus on how to teach musicality and how much to teach at each level.
It has just occurred to me that just as musicality is not taught neither is freestyling. If a routine is to be defined as a sequence of moves danced to a track nobody teaches that unless its a choreographed performance (opposite of freestyle). Haven't we aquired freestyling ability, like musicality, on our own? Has it not been up to the leaders to select and improvise moves as we go along and find ways it can all hang together? :really:

Lynn
26th-November-2004, 10:52 AM
Been thinking about this some more. I realised that I did a lot of the MI stuff when just 'dancing' ie at parties etc before I discovered MJ. Lots of different things that fitted the music. I don't do it much in MJ, I think maybe because a) I'm still concentrating so much on following & b) its one thing being more 'interpretative' when you are just dancing for yourself, I'm maybe a bit shy when dancing with a someone else! I really love dancing with a lead who is listening to the music and dancing with musicality.

Anyway, that also got me thinking about the 'teaching' aspect. IMO MI or musicality (is there a difference?) is partly something that can be taught and partly an individual interpretation to a piece of music. A bit like style maybe? I think its also like music itself, some people are naturally musical, but they still need to be taught the principles. But also someone who can't 'play by ear' can still learn to play music. Musicality will come easier to some than others but most people can develop or improve what level they have. I think there are some basics for how to respond to music and I think these should be taught, in bite size pieces, sometimes on a class night, with workshops for those who want to dig a bit deeper. Sometimes even just telling people that there is a difference between 'dancing doing moves following the beat' and 'dancing listening to the music' can get them thinking - and listening!

latinlover
26th-November-2004, 11:23 AM
.....So, my argument for musicality is that a dance without it is just a series of moves, which could just as easily be done to the banging of a single drum or the recording of a windscreen wiper. The moves can be fabulous, they can be perfectly exectuted, they can have a high degree of difficulty. But, without reference to the musicalty there is something essential missing from the performance.

The question is, if musicality is so intrinsic to dancing, why is it so rarely taught?

Great thread, Andy :worthy:
I can't rep you so here's my two-penn'orth-

I think David B has a good point regarding a social night out -most people aren't really interested, it's only us obsessives who worry about it.

yes ,Chris A, thank God for people like Amir(who is ,let's face it , a God anyway), who can not only do it but TEACH IT WELL :worthy:

I have found my dancing liberated since learning how to do "musicality" - I could always hear where the interpretation should be but I needed to be shown how to do it ( I am a really slow learner, by the way) ....and it's so true about it getting worse before it gets better :sad:

I get really upset when couples get placed in comps having used loads of flashy moves but aren't even on the beat- never mind suiting the moves to the music :mad:

As far as performing versus social dancing is concerned , I don't compete or perform, but I crave musical expression with a passion, which leads, I suppose ,to a "performance" , if for no-one but myself and my partner - I guess this ties in with what someone else(apologies can't remember who) has said about losing one's inhibitions - with the right piece of music, or even if I am just in the right mood :whistle: ,I get completely lost in my dancing and have no thought of anything outside the world of my partner & myself (or maybe I'm just a natural show-off?)

David Franklyn, your points about making choregraphed routines look natural are interesting -I've never tried it(as I'm such a slow leaner I'd probably be rubbish),but I have seen stuff which appears choreographed and doesn't flow as naturally as freestyle - maybe it's because the lady knows what to expect so there's no real lead & follow? I shall be careful what I say out loud in future as maybe it is more difficult than one would think!

That said, I have always thought that the most praise and greater respect should be reserved for DWAS competitions, which may be less flashy but must ,by their nature ,be true freestyle.Those who can excel in that will have my admiration every time :clap:

Will
26th-November-2004, 11:32 AM
David Franklyn, your points about ......
It's actually David Franklin. Last time I spelt his name with a y he got very upset and repeatedly rammed my head into a concrete piller.

Will
26th-November-2004, 11:32 AM
David Franklyn, your points about ......
It's actually David Franklin. Last time I spelt his name with a y he got very upset and repeatedly rammed my head into a concrete pillar.

David Franklin
26th-November-2004, 11:37 AM
It's actually David Franklin. Last time I spelt his name with a y he got very upset and repeatedly rammed my head into a concrete piller.Well, that was 'cos it was on the cheque you'd sent to pay for expenses after I'd bribed the judges at the Jivemasters final. And you can imagine what it costs to bribe several hundred judges... :wink:

Of course, I never said which way I'd bribe them... :blush:

Dave

(Poor Will, it's obviously all been a bit much for him. Now he's started repeating himself...)

latinlover
26th-November-2004, 12:04 PM
It's actually David Franklin. Last time I spelt his name with a y he got very upset and repeatedly rammed my head into a concrete pillar.


:really:
and there was I thinking it was all part of the choreographed routine! :rofl:
I shall treat him with infinitely greater respect in future :sick:

ChrisA
26th-November-2004, 12:07 PM
and repeatedly rammed my head into a concrete pillar.
I'd noticed the improvement....

Lory
26th-November-2004, 12:23 PM
I have found my dancing liberated since learning how to do "musicality" - I could always hear where the interpretation should be but I needed to be shown how to do it This is exactly what I meant!
You already had the musicality, you just didn't know how to express it! So now you've been taught certain principles, you can apply them to all sorts of music!

To highlight my point........ take 2 couples, both attend Amir's workshop, Couple (A), have musicality (they might not even realise it at the time) but they do know they find their lack of dancing skill frustrating and can't express what they're feeling, they hear the breaks, they hear the subtle changes in mood but need to have idea's of how to translate them their performance.

Once the principles have been learnt, they will be able to translate this information to all kinds of music, whether they've heard it before or not!


Couple (B) can't hear the music, until explained.

Yes, they will benifit from learning new moves and yes they will be able to see (when explained) what Amir is trying to do when interpreting a certain piece of music, they may be skilled dancers and be able to pick up a choreographed routine far quicker than couple (A) but I doubt they will ever be able to transfer this information to other music, that's where 'natural ability comes in!


I get really upset when couples get placed in comps having used loads of flashy moves but aren't even on the beat- never mind suiting the moves to the music :mad:
:yeah:


As far as performing versus social dancing is concerned , I don't compete or perform, but I crave musical expression with a passion, which leads, I suppose ,to a "performance" , if for no-one but myself and my partner ~snip~I get completely lost in my dancing and have no thought of anything outside the world of my partner & myself :yeah: :worthy:

ChrisA
26th-November-2004, 01:35 PM
Couple (B) can't hear the music, until explained.


Well I was in the B category.

I never even noticed the breaks. I didn't know what one was, and I just danced through them without noticing them at all until I got a funny look.

But now I've learned... learned to listen, learned to anticipate the structure in the music, and increasingly to do something with it.

I've also danced with lots of beginners over the years that started off not even being able to move on the beat. Most of them could learn to do it.

I think you're wrong Lory :flower:

It's not a "you either have it or you don't" thing. You might have lots of it naturally, or very little of it naturally.... you might be able to acquire more of it easily, or only with great effort. Some people probably find it so difficult that the effort isn't worth it, and this might appear as being unable to learn it at all.

Chris

Simon r
26th-November-2004, 02:02 PM
On one level, you're absolutely right. But then, we've rehashed the "a live band will never sound as good as the CD recording" argument, and people still like the spontaneity of live bands. I think there is something similar about freestyle. (And anyone who has done a routine will tell you that by default, the dancing in the routine will look worse, not better than freestyle dancing - there quite a lot of work to stop it looking like "just going through the motions").

The other issue is that even if we accept that the ultimate in musicality will come from a choreographed routine, there is still a lot of interest in how well people can do in freestyle - if for no other reason than that's what we do 99.99% of the time. Freestyle is definitely the harder test; not only do you have to think quickly, but you have to communicate your decisions between each other - an extreme test of lead and follow. [I know for me, what I can lead is usually the limiting factor, not what I can find in the music].

On the other hand, I think it is very useful to do a choreographed routine - it's interesting to see what interpretation you can come up with given enough time. And hopefully some of those ideas will be applicable to your freestyle dancing as well. The other thing I think people will find out is that it's much harder than it looks. I know extremely accomplished dancers who have set out to do a showcase, and in every case, they've been amazed how much work it is.


No, because in fact, most would say the spotlight (choreographed routines) category is the epitome of performance excellence. That is usually what the rules imply - they nearly always emphasize performance. And in fact, the prize money for spotlight is usually the greatest as well, so it's hardly a poor cousin to the freestyle competition.

I think the truth in all of this is that we want it all. We want couples to display fantastic technique and dynamic musicality, all choreographed on the fly to music they've never heard. We're probably never going see that achieved - the interest is in how close people can get.

Dave
I have just really read through this dave you are so right
we are at the moment working on a routine for Blackpool and boy is it hard work ...
we are doing a few caberet's over christmas and we have decided just to freestyle to tracks we love...
we find we still work better during freestyle tracks with lower pressure than to a routine which then does so become quite static...

Gadget
26th-November-2004, 04:32 PM
{another 'article' :D ...}

It has just occurred to me that just as musicality is not taught neither is freestyling. If a routine is to be defined as a sequence of moves danced to a track nobody teaches that unless its a choreographed performance (opposite of freestyle). Haven't we acquired freestyling ability, like musicality, on our own? Has it not been up to the leaders to select and improvise moves as we go along and find ways it can all hang together?
"Freestyle" is simply dancing. "Musicality" is part of it.
Ceroc lessons do not teach you to dance: they teach you the building blocks that you can use to dance. They show you some examples of how these can be put together. Workshops give you an insight as to how these blocks can be made better and how they can be put together.
To dance, all you have to take these blocks and build them into a structural form. "Musicality" is making this form a reflection of the music you are dancing to.

Lessons teach you four constructs of moves and builds them together to form a little routine. Each move has a generic eight beat structure that can tie in with most songs played, and it is easy for people to build these blocks into a form that shows a reflection of the beats in the music.
Intermediate moves sometimes have expanded or looped areas of moves that enable the dancers to have different shaped blocks that can be used to give a closer reflection of the music. More refinement comes with the adapting of existing moves to try and match the shape of the music. Dancers have gone from builders to stonemasons. A few go further and become sculptors; creating shapes and forms that are an extension to the music rather than an interpretation of it.
If the basic blocks that people build on are flawed, then they don't have the proper material to sculpt from.

Getting a hod to carry the analogy further; it is quick and easy to create roughly the right shape of dancing brick to build with; it does not need to be perfectly formed or be smoothed to function. Practice and learning can make the bricks of moves you dance with smoother, more stable and able to be used to build constructs of movement that flow naturally with the music. {I dance with lots of little bricks; like a mosaic it gives the illusion of a grand painting from a distance, but not all the pieces sit together very well and there are millions of little cracks :tears:... no wonder I'm so heavy footed dancing; carrying all these bricks around :what:}

As to the question of why advanced* musicality is not taught often: it doesn't need to be. The majority of dancers are quite happy playing with their duplo brick selection of moves and placing them into music to have fun. Why teach what you can do with lego bricks when most of the dancers only have duplo?
{*'advanced' because simply plodding to the beat is 'musicality' and even basic classes teach that.}

Choreographed pieces (set to a fixed track) simply allows more time to experiment with shapes and motions in an attempt to get a better image of the music. It allows both partners time to communicate to each other how they hear the music. It allows them time to tune into each other and smooth out any inconsistencies that don't match the music.
A choreographed move or micro-routine (not set to any fixed track) has a disadvantage in that it is a set shape - the people executing it have to find a part of the music that matches it; if they have never heard the track before, only experience and listening can enable them to make a guestimate of where to insert it so that it has the best chance of matching the music.
The best dancers have the ability to re-shape a choreographed move to match the music while in the middle of it. :worthy:

I think that "musicality" is intertwined so tightly with simply "dancing" that you can't have it without other things as well: Musicality involves knowing how to disassemble moves so that you can put them back together again in a manor that suits the music. There are three main skills here: breaking apart moves; what can be done with each part; and when it can/should be done. One skill without the others is meaningless.

DavidB
26th-November-2004, 04:50 PM
Lessons teach you four constructs of moves and builds them together to form a little routine. Each move has a generic eight beat structure that can tie in with most songs played, and it is easy for people to build these blocks into a form that shows a reflection of the beats in the music.Fancy explaining this in more detail?

Dreadful Scathe
26th-November-2004, 05:15 PM
Fancy explaining this in more detail?

:what:

Lory
26th-November-2004, 06:50 PM
I think you're wrong Lory :flower:

It's OK hun, I think your wrong too :hug:

I suspect you've always had musicality at a subliminal level, its just you weren't tuned in to it but it was there, just waiting to be unleashed! ;)

Remember Chris, the mans alway's wrong! :whistle: :D

DavidY
27th-November-2004, 01:28 AM
Bottom line: musicality is hardA further thought on this one.

Although I try and get it right, like Chris says, I do find it hard. So when I hear the intro to something like "Steve Harley - Make me smile (Come up & see me)". I know there are 5 obvious breaks for me to hit (or miss :blush: ).

... and I feel under a bit of pressure to get it right which can sometimes make a dance less enjoyable.

... and, just occasionally, I start to wish for music which is more straightforward, no breaks, just a nice thumping beat which can give an uncomplicated, aerobic dance - and no musicality for me to get wrong.

... like (for example) "this is the world we live in"(Alcazar), "Lola's Theme", or even *whispers* "Call on me"

Does this make me a bad person? :blush:

Yliander
27th-November-2004, 11:17 AM
Well I was in the B category.

I never even noticed the breaks. I didn't know what one was, and I just danced through them without noticing them at all until I got a funny look.

But now I've learned... learned to listen, learned to anticipate the structure in the music, and increasingly to do something with it.

*snip*

It's not a "you either have it or you don't" thing. You might have lots of it naturally, or very little of it naturally.... you might be able to acquire more of it easily, or only with great effort. Some people probably find it so difficult that the effort isn't worth it, and this might appear as being unable to learn it at all.

Chris :yeah: So true - I understood it but I had to learn it ... application of theory... some people with a natural ability will find it easier to learn and those with out just have to work harder - and some from both groups will decide it's not worth the effort

Andy McGregor
27th-November-2004, 11:38 AM
Remember Chris, the mans alway's wrong! :whistle: :D

Or, to be more accurate, a woman's always right :wink:

RogerR
27th-November-2004, 12:37 PM
Musicality, Its inspirational when a couple share the same feeling for a tune. But when they differ.....

I remember a Musicality class I paid £35 for and the tutor using Take Five -Dave Brubeck as an example of a good dancing tune. 1 2 3 4 _ 1 2 3 4 _

Still I guess someone thinks 5/4 is an ideal dance time sig.

ChrisA
27th-November-2004, 02:53 PM
but it was there, just waiting to be unleashed! ;)

Like other things, maybe :innocent:

:flower:

ChrisA
27th-November-2004, 03:09 PM
I know there are 5 obvious breaks for me to hit (or miss :blush: ).

... and I feel under a bit of pressure to get it right which can sometimes make a dance less enjoyable.

Yeah, I know that feeling really well :tears:

Rather than something with 5 breaks to miss if you don't get it exactly right, why not pick tracks with a simple structure, where the breaks repeat at regular intervals.

Examples might be:

"Crawling up a hill" (Katie Melua) has a regular 8 bar structure with the break on beat 1 of the 7th bar in the 8. This repeats all the way through, and is absolutely fab for listening to the structure, and feeling how to structure the moves so as do something with the break.

"16 Tons" (Tom Jones) is another one with regular breaks. It also has 8 bar sections, with the break on beat one of bar 7. It differs slightly in that between pairs of 8 bar sections there's a two bar linking section IIRC. But the breaks still happen regularly enough for it to be a good track to practise to.

"King of the Road" (??) is another one ISTR with a similar structure, as is "I'm just a baby in this business of love" (Domino??), and there are lots of others I can't remember.

It helps too if you can listen to them over and over - after a while the structure percolates into your consciousness and dancing to it becomes easier. I found that hearing the structure in music that's more difficult also becomes easier, and the easier you can hear the structure as it's approaching, the easier it is to dance something to it.

HTH,

Chris :cheers:


PS Incidentally, there's no shame in counting as a way of predicting the breaks in tracks with a suitable structure - anything that makes it easier, makes it easier, if you know what I mean - and eventually you won't need to count any more :flower:

jivecat
27th-November-2004, 03:56 PM
... and I feel under a bit of pressure to get it right which can sometimes make a dance less enjoyable.



Well, I wouldn't mind if you got it wrong. And I bet lots of other followers would forgive you as well. After all, I've had lots of lovely dances with you, so making a hash of one wouldn't matter a bit. :flower: Especially in the interests of dance development!

Andreas
27th-November-2004, 09:16 PM
I totally agree with Andy's first post and also DavidB's response. I personally find it very important that people dance to music but also recognise that for the majority fun is more important. Having said that, I can't enjoy myself if I am to run through moves without caring for the music but that is beside the point.

As David said, it is something that should be emphasised in advanced classes and workshops. In fact, there shouldn't be a single dancer around calling themselves 'advanced' and not be able to interpret music. Dancing is interpreting music and if I want to be advanced at it I have to be able to read music and transform it into motion. Otherwise you may well do gymnastics.

The difficulty with teaching it is, however, that you will need to play music that has got a lot of character. In many cases music used for teaching is simple to allow students to concentrate on the moves you teach. So the game has to either raised or changed ;)

bigdjiver
28th-November-2004, 01:28 AM
Musicality, Its inspirational when a couple share the same feeling for a tune. But when they differ.....

I remember a Musicality class I paid £35 for and the tutor using Take Five -Dave Brubeck as an example of a good dancing tune. 1 2 3 4 _ 1 2 3 4 _

Still I guess someone thinks 5/4 is an ideal dance time sig. I would love to try and dance to "Take 5", but I suppose I am beyond hope. :what: I went to see Handel's Messiah tonight, and, at times, I had my eyes shut choreographing some of that with MJ moves.

jivecat
28th-November-2004, 06:20 PM
I can't enjoy myself if I am to run through moves without caring for the music but that is beside the point.



:yeah:



The difficulty with teaching it is, however, that you will need to play music that has got a lot of character. In many cases music used for teaching is simple to allow students to concentrate on the moves you teach. So the game has to either raised or changed ;)

I find myself getting frustrated because my favourite, slowish, bluesy tracks are often played during the lesson, as that means that they won't be played during the freestyle later and I will have to dance to lots of thump, thump, thump pop.

Jive Brummie
28th-November-2004, 08:50 PM
My subjective impression of a lot of other teachers that I watch is that their musicality, which is often very nice, is based more on instinct - so they would find it correspondingly difficult to teach that particular aspect of what they do. And there are those, of course, who are not very musical themselves, so you wouldn't expect them to be able to teach it.

Bottom line: musicality is hard (I certainly wouldn't claim to be a particularly musical dancer yet - though I'm getting better). Teaching it probably even more so. Add to that the relative unpopularity of learning something difficult and it isn't surprising that it's so rare.

Chris

:yeah: It's a tough one this. As a newby teacher, i'd have to agree with this. I 'think' i know what musicality is but how do you teach it. (sorry by the way if this has already been covered, but i've not read all the thread :flower: ).

I think, like most things to do with dancing that it's a very personal thing, and open to an individual's interpretation. As a teacher, it's my opinion, that the moves i teach are the framework and the personality you put on the move is determined by your environment, as in, the music. To me musicality is possibly more about dancing appropriately in the environment (music!) you're in, than anything else, but is this right or wrong....i dinnae nae. One thing i don't think musicality is, is hitting break after break after break...that's just counting....isn't it?

JB x x

ChrisA
28th-November-2004, 11:23 PM
To me musicality is possibly more about dancing appropriately in the environment (music!) you're in, than anything else, but is this right or wrong....

Well, I think it's right. But saying that doesn't help anyone learn to do it. If you don't find it so easy that it appears to come naturally (and I don't, so I know :tears: ), then this definition does nothing to make musical dancing any more accessible.

I think it needs a teacher that can give you an understanding of the structure of the music, or at least of how to search for the structure yourself, and who can give you some ideas about what to actually do with that structure - ideas that you can then build on as you get better.

But like I say, it's hard. No discredit to the teachers that can't, but total respect to those that can. :clap:


i dinnae nae

Ahem. You don't think you're fooling anyone with this do you? I distinctly recall hearing you talking in a clear English accent at Walthamstow the other weekend :D



One thing i don't think musicality is, is hitting break after break after break...that's just counting....isn't it?

Well it's certainly not all of it. It might be counting to start with, with music where the breaks are regular. But I don't count any more, mostly I can hear it coming.

And even if you're counting, that doesn't make it all that easy to actually do something cool in the break.

Chris

Jive Brummie
28th-November-2004, 11:59 PM
Ahem. You don't think you're fooling anyone with this do you? I distinctly recall hearing you talking in a clear English accent at Walthamstow the other weekend :D


Chris


:rofl: :rofl:

:whistle:

Hey, i've had my passport stamped and everything...