Jivemasters 2005

[Gus]

Well .. somebody had to start it.

So .... key questions;


When does it start?
Who is getting invited?
Are they going to pick a better music BPM range this year?
Any changes to the rules?
Are the Midlands and the North (of England) finally going to get invited?
Is the video/DVD out yet?
Does anyone KNOW the answers (i.e. Adam ... where are you?)

[under par]

Well .. somebody had to start it.

So .... key questions;


When does it start?
Who is getting invited?
Are they going to pick a better music BPM range this year?
Any changes to the rules?
Are the Midlands and the North (of England) finally going to get invited?
Is the video/DVD out yet?
Does anyone KNOW the answers (i.e. Adam ... where are you?)



I know there are a few videos of the 2003 Jive Masters still available :whistle:

What an unoriginal topic for my 1000th post :flower:

[ChrisA]

Are they going to pick a better music BPM range this year?

Better in what sense?

I think the music from last year was fab. The slow ones were proper slow ones. The fast ones were adequately fast without being completely ridiculous (remember WSM, anyone?).

The tracks were varied, lots of interpretable stuff in them (and a couple were very difficult indeed - we were very relieved not to get them).

Ok, so not all musical styles were represented, but what specifically was wrong with the speed range?

Chris

[Gus]

Ok, so not all musical styles were represented, but what specifically was wrong with the speed range?Well, I would argue that 95% of MJ dancers prefer to dance within the 120 to 140 BPM range .. and from the vast majority of freetstlyles I've been to the music tends to bear that out. I agree there is some excellent music above and below that range, but this is the minority. So .... why have a competition based around minority music? :whistle:

[ChrisA]

Well, I would argue that 95% of MJ dancers prefer to dance within the 120 to 140 BPM range .. and from the vast majority of freetstlyles I've been to the music tends to bear that out. I agree there is some excellent music above and below that range, but this is the minority. So .... why have a competition based around minority music? :whistle:
Well, I'm sure you know the answer to this as well as I do... slower than average and faster than average are both more difficult than average, and so are more likely to challenge the dancers. If it's more difficult, it will also tease out the differences between the dancers than if they're all dancing to average music.

Also, the 95% you're talking about are watching, not dancing, so I'm not sure your point is relevant. Does it follow that if 95% prefer dancing in the 120-140 range they also prefer watching dance in the same range? I would guess not. Would you rather spectate at a pro tennis match for excitement and interest, or would you rather watch some village players? From a spectator's point of view, the more difficulty and challenge put to the competitors the better I'd have thought.

The other point is that it's the only competition to be based on 'minority' music, as you call it. If JM music was stuck in the average range, it would be less distinctive, which is one of its advantages.

I'm all for variety, and a challenge.

Chris

[TheTramp]

:yeah: Gotta agree with Chris :fear:

I thought that the tracks were generally fairly decent ones. There were a few that I didn't want to get, but I think that if the range was in the 120-140bpm, it's quite possible that there'd be more tracks that I'd not want to get.

Maybe they should have 3 tracks, and 1.5 minutes of each?? :devil:

[Gus]

Well, I'm sure you know the answer to this as well as I do... slower than average and faster than average are both more difficult than average, and so are more likely to challenge the dancers. sorry ... but there are stacks of tracks out there to challenge dancers within that range. Its not the beat that should be the challenge but the feeling, rhythm and complexity of the track itself. Its not a handicap ... "the music is too easy so lets make it harder..." ... where is the logic in that? I know ... if we want to challenge the dancers lets play tango or salsa music ... that should help :rolleyes:

[RobC]

Gus, I may be missing the point somewhere, but I fail to see why you have a problem with the speed of the music chosen for the JiveMaster competition ?

So what if 95% of AverageJoe prefer to dance in that middle range. The speed range of the slow and fast sections are in no way undancable (the actual tracks may be undesirable, but that's a personal preference).

One of the things that makes the JiveMasters unique is having one slow track and one fast track. The competitors are invited from a wide range of areas, not all of them because they excelled in MJ - for example Dave & Val (this year just gone) and Alan & Sarah (year before) were the Beach Boogie Blues Champions. Due to the diverse styles and backgrounds of the competitors, some will inevitably be better suited to dancing to slower music, while others will favour the faster tracks. Having the 2 speeds gives everyone a fair crack at the whip while clearly identifying the 'Master' who can handle both with equal style, finess etc.

This is in no way a MJ thing. Look at most other competitive forms of dance and you'll also find that competitions tend to use music towards the extremeties of the speed ranges.

Afterall, it is called JiveMasters, not JiveAverageJoe. :wink:

[ChrisA]

sorry ... but there are stacks of tracks out there to challenge dancers within that range. Its not the beat that should be the challenge but the feeling, rhythm and complexity of the track itself.

Ah but you were talking earlier about the music that 95% of dancers like dancing to. I think you need to make up your mind here...

... is it music that the 95% would like dancing to that you want, or is it music that challenges the dancers with its feeling, rhythmn and complexity?

If it's the former, then the challenge will be in finding the feeling, rhythm and complexity to do stuff with, not dancing to it.

And if it's the latter, then what's the big deal about speed? I'm sure there's challenging music out there in the 120-140 range (care to suggest 20 tracks?), but as I said before, lots of competitions provide that, so what's the problem with having something that's different from the rest?

Chris

[David Franklin]

So what if 95% of AverageJoe prefer to dance in that middle range. The speed range of the slow and fast sections are in no way undancable (the actual tracks may be undesirable, but that's a personal preference).Firstly - I think the opinion of the competitors (like yourself) counts for more than the rest of us. (So ignore the rest of this post if you want!). On the other hand, I know we weren't the only couple to decide the music didn't "do it for us" and therefore not to enter this year. [In the interests of honesty - being aerials specialists in a competition with fairly harsh restrictions on aerials didn't make an awful lot of sense to us either...]

I do think the speed ranges for 2004 were much better than '03. However, by choosing speeds at the 5% extremes, 95% of music was excluded. Once you only have 5% to choose from, the choices get limited. The fast tracks, in particular, were rather too much 'one of a kind' for my liking.


Due to the diverse styles and backgrounds of the competitors, some will inevitably be better suited to dancing to slower music, while others will favour the faster tracks. Having the 2 speeds gives everyone a fair crack at the whip while clearly identifying the 'Master' who can handle both with equal style, finess etc.Speaking of fair cracks of the whip, where were the latin tracks, hip-hop tracks, disco tracks etc...? (I'm not saying they were totally absent, but I think they were underrepresented). If you look at the music list for a WCS Invitational (closest US equivalent to JiveMasters that comes to mind), you will see a lot more stylistic variation IMHO...


This is in no way a MJ thing. Look at most other competitive forms of dance and you'll also find that competitions tend to use music towards the extremeties of the speed ranges.You would know better than I, but my impression is that the "extremes" used in ballroom are at most 10-15% faster than the standard tempos. The JiveMaster range is a lot more than that... Again, it's not the tempo I'm unhappy about, but that it de facto biases the music towards particular styles (which I personally find uninspiring).

Dave

[ChrisA]

but my impression is that the "extremes" used in ballroom are at most 10-15% faster than the standard tempos. The JiveMaster range is a lot more than that...
Er, no it isn't.

15% slower than 130 (the middle of Gus' range) is 110.5 - the bottom end of the JM slow range.

15% faster than 130 is 149.5, ok, not quite as fast as the 150-160 used for the JM fast tracks, but the difference isn't huge, and 155 (the middle of the JM fast range) is 15% more than about 135, which is well inside Gus' "average" range.

Ok, I've chosen my numbers, but they do illustrate that the speeds used for JM 2004 are not either ridiculously slow or ridiculously fast.

I'd still like to hear Gus suggest 20 tracks that are as fab as he suggests in the 120-140 range.

Chris

[David Franklin]

Er, no it isn't.

15% slower than 130 (the middle of Gus' range) is 110.5 - the bottom end of the JM slow range.

15% faster than 130 is 149.5, ok, not quite as fast as the 150-160 used for the JM fast tracks, but the difference isn't huge, and 155 (the middle of the JM fast range) is 15% more than about 135, which is well inside Gus' "average" range.

Ok, I've chosen my numbers...Yes you have! :wink: But then I wouldn't even agree with Gus's range - out of my CD collection, the average speed is about 124 bpm, and very few tracks are over 130bpm. In fact, if I hear a track at 132 bpm, it will be a noticably "fast" track. So 160 is about 27% faster than my average... And the most I recall actually seeing for ballroom was 30mpm-34mpm, which is only 13%.


but they do illustrate that the speeds used for JM 2004 are not either ridiculously slow or ridiculously fast.Agreed; I did say the tempos were not a problem per se. But that they do exclude an awful lot of MJ music...

Dave

[Gadget]

I think that the point being made is that faster/slower music does not automatically mean harder to dance to; it just means faster/slower. And that just because a track falls within a "norrmal" BPM range, that does not automatically make it easier to dance to.

[RobC]

Again, it's not the tempo I'm unhappy about, but that it de facto biases the music towards particular styles (which I personally find uninspiring).

:yeah: That's something we both agree on then :)

[Sparkles]

So what if 95% of AverageJoe prefer to dance in that middle range. The speed range of the slow and fast sections are in no way undancable.

Just a small point to add to this...
Why do you think it is that the 'Average Joe' prefers music in this beat range? I might suggest it's because it's not unreasonable to dance to music of this speed all night at a freestyle and not get completely 'pooped' but still to dance to it with vigour and energy if you so desire. I know if I go to a freestyle night I want to dance to as many tracks with as many different people as I can, so music that is of a moderate speed is quite suitable, thank you very much.
But this isn't an average 'freestyle' night, it's a competition, and yes it is more taxing to have the control to dance to slow music and the stamina to dance to fast music, but then isn't that what the 'JiveMasters' is all about - showing the extreme skill and versitility of the dancers?!!!
I think the two music types were of good speeds for the JiveMasters in '04 - I think the tracks in the finals might have been more diverse, but that's another topic - and I really don't see what could be gained by making excellent dancers compete to mediocre music.

S

[David Franklin]

But this isn't an average 'freestyle' night, it's a competition, and yes it is more taxing to have the control to dance to slow music and the stamina to dance to fast music, but then isn't that what the 'JiveMasters' is all about - showing the extreme skill and versitility of the dancers?!!!Sorry, but I disagree. After all, it would also be more taxing to have to dance with lead weights attached to your shoes, or with blindfolds. That doesn't make it a good way of testing your dancing ability. Less ridiculously, it would be a test of versatility to have to dance a waltz, or a samba, or a pas-de-deux. But would it test your ability to dance MJ? I guess I have a problem with testing MJ using the kind of music you rarely hear at a MJ event - it does make it harder, but does it also destroy the thing you're testing for?

As I've said before, my preference in dance competitions is for people to look as good as possible dancing to tracks they want to dance to. Some (cough - WSM - cough) seem to prefer to see how bad they look dancing to tracks they don't want to dance to... :confused: However the tempos in JM04 weren't particularly taxing, so in some ways that particular point is moot.


I think the tracks in the finals might have been more diverse, but that's another topic - and I really don't see what could be gained by making excellent dancers compete to mediocre music.Of course medium tempo doesn't imply mediocre (not sure you were saying it did). And personally, I thought the 'theatrical' tracks were really good - maybe that exposes my bias; I think every track in JM should be one that you could see someone using for a cabaret/spotlight.

Dave

[Gus]

Gus, I may be missing the point somewhere, but I fail to see why you have a problem with the speed of the music chosen for the JiveMaster competition? Afterall, it is called JiveMasters, not JiveAverageJoe. :wink:Not quite sure if your being elitest but I'll respond anyway. the underlying thread of what you seem to be saying is that thebetter dancers want to be able to dance at this speed to show their skills. Curious ... the better dancers from our region have discussed this in passing and concluded that the 120 - 140 range is better for us to show our skills. I would suggest that you views may not be representative of all competing dancers.

PS Dancing fast isn't showing that you can dance better or are being challenged ... it just shows you can dacne fast ... like any rock 'n' roller or Lindy Hopper ... so how is that proof of anything? :confused:

[Andy McGregor]

Not quite sure if your being elitest but I'll respond anyway. the underlying thread of what you seem to be saying is that thebetter dancers want to be able to dance at this speed to show their skills. Curious ... the better dancers from our region have discussed this in passing and concluded that the 120 - 140 range is better for us to show our skills. I would suggest that you views may not be representative of all competing dancers.

PS Dancing fast isn't showing that you can dance better or are being challenged ... it just shows you can dacne fast ... like any rock 'n' roller or Lindy Hopper ... so how is that proof of anything? :confused:

IMHO you show your skill at dancing to fast music by dancing to fast music. I can't think of any other way to show this skill. And if the fast music is interesting you can make your dance interesting too. I suppose being able to dance in an interesting way to fast music is an essential skill for someone who's a 'Master' of his craft - and the JiveMasters is all about showing mastery.

For myself I prefer tracks at the slower end of the scale with more interesting arrangements such as Ice Cream Man - which is 123 bpm.

[RobC]

Not quite sure if your being elitest but I'll respond anyway.
Personally speaking as a JM04 competitor, I felt very honoured to be invitied to participate. I don't consider my self an 'A-List' dancer or try to compare myself to the likes of Viktor or Simon Selmon. That said, the JM competitors are someone's idea of the top dancers in the country ....


the underlying thread of what you seem to be saying is that thebetter dancers want to be able to dance at this speed to show their skills. Curious ... the better dancers from our region have discussed this in passing and concluded that the 120 - 140 range is better for us to show our skills. I would suggest that you views may not be representative of all competing dancers.
You misunderstand me. I'm not saying that I, or other competitors WANT to dance to any particular style/tempo of music. If we did, we would be entering Showcase competitions where we can choreograph routines to precisisely what we want.

PS Dancing fast isn't showing that you can dance better or are being challenged ... it just shows you can dacne fast ... like any rock 'n' roller or Lindy Hopper ... so how is that proof of anything? :confused:
What I am saying (and the point that you are obviously missing) is that I recognise (as I'm guessing the JM organisers do) that while we can all show off our skills to an average tempo track, it does in fact take that extra bit of skill to maintain the same levels of excellence, be it precision, timing, interpretation, style or any other criteria you care to name, when dancing to music outside of the usual tempo ranges. For example, it is a lot easier for the precision and timing to get sloppy as the speed increases, or for the dancer to get lazy with the interpretation and style possibilities as the speed decreases.

The real 'top dancers' maintain this excellence across the whole range of music styles/tempos, and it really shows when it comes to the finalists :worthy:

[spindr]

PS Dancing fast isn't showing that you can dance better or are being challenged ... it just shows you can dacne fast ... like any rock 'n' roller or Lindy Hopper ... so how is that proof of anything? :confused:

I contend that dancing to fast music is a skill in and of itself:
* you need a really good connection to be able to lead and follow effectively.
* catches, changes to/from hold, etc. need to be accurate.
* you can use different moves -- throws and jumps.
* you can't get away with being vague about timing.
* breaks are usually quick and abrupt -- a bar at the most.
* and for me there's just a joy in moving quickly.

(I don't know if thats how "any rock 'n' roller or Lindy Hopper" will dance -- but I think it's how the better ones will :) )

Obviously, fast music doesn't necessarily show how balanced you can be, or how graceful -- but presumably, that's what the slow tracks are for?

SpinDr.

[David Franklin]

I don't want to get too bogged down in the speed thing, because I really didn't think it was that bad in 2004. But personally, I thought the heats music was (generally) from a timewarp. And the fast tracks were particularly bad in this respect - partly because you just don't seem to get many tracks >140bpm in the charts any more.

As far as "what top dancers want to dance to"? I'd say, look at the music choices in showcase. You'll see a heck of a lot more variation than you will in JiveMasters (and not a whole lot of swing :devil: ). And there's very little of it I wouldn't be happy to dance to...

Dave