PDA

View Full Version : Footwork



Swinging bee
8th-April-2005, 09:32 AM
Some people I know, recently started to learn MJ at a Ceroc class and were amazed to find that no footwork was taught..."How can this be" they said, "were always taught that dancing is with the feet".. :yeah: I said that this is just the way it is and that it doesn't put so many people off who are 2 left footed and or have difficulty with footwork and you are able dance from day one. (seemed plausible ) :worthy:

Why not formulate a footwork pattern for intermediate classes ? It would look so much better IMO, I know that Le Roc did many years ago... Maybe this would do away with "the ceroc bounce" when they know what to do with their feet..Anyone with any thoughts.......

stewart38
8th-April-2005, 09:43 AM
Why not formulate a footwork pattern for intermediate classes ? It would look so much better IMO, I know that Le Roc did many years ago... Maybe this would do away with "the ceroc bounce" when they know what to do with their feet..Anyone with any thoughts.......


Let them go do the Waltz lots of foot work in that or line dancing ?

who needs foot work patterns in jive ?

whats the ceroc bounce ?

David Bailey
8th-April-2005, 11:37 AM
I said that this is just the way it is and that it doesn't put so many people off who are 2 left footed and or have difficulty with footwork and you are able dance from day one. (seemed plausible ) :worthy:

Yep, sounds about right to me, except for the "you are able to dance from day one" bit, which is, shall we say, "marketing talk".



who needs foot work patterns in jive ?
whats the ceroc bounce ?
All good dancing pretty much requires good footwork I'd say.

"Ceroc bounce", I guess, is when you're too much on the balls of your feet. However, this is arguably a style thing - for example, a Lindy style would be more bouncy than a Latin style. So I'm not sure if bouncing is always bad :)

El Salsero Gringo
8th-April-2005, 11:57 AM
Yep, sounds about right to me, except for the "you are able to dance from day one" bit, which is, shall we say, "marketing talk".


All good dancing pretty much requires good footwork I'd say.

"Ceroc bounce", I guess, is when you're too much on the balls of your feet. However, this is arguably a style thing - for example, a Lindy style would be more bouncy than a Latin style. So I'm not sure if bouncing is always bad :)
I don't think "Ceroc bounce" comes from too much "ball" - if anything it's a result of too much knee-flexing. And Lindy style is not bouncy. Or so I'm being told by those who know, and so it seems from watching really good Lindy Hoppers. Ballroom Jive is though I believe. (Experts, please?)

Ceroc Australia teaches a four count basic footwork, I was told by one of their visiting teachers. Personally I didn't like the look of it very much, if anything it's more bouncy than you can achieve without it.

In any case, who says there's no footwork taught in Ceroc? What's all that "step in, step back, step forward" stuff then? And what about "Ladies step back with the left foot, men step back on the right?"

bigdjiver
8th-April-2005, 12:06 PM
It is not "no footwork", it is "little set footwork". The beauty of MJ is that you can slip in footwork from many different styles into your dancing whilst still doing the same upperbody moves.

Lynn
8th-April-2005, 12:14 PM
It is not "no footwork", it is "little set footwork". The beauty of MJ is that you can slip in footwork from many different styles into your dancing whilst still doing the same upperbody moves. :yeah: I like footwork. But I like even better that its 'optional' - as and when the music/move calls for it.

Lou
8th-April-2005, 12:31 PM
And what about "Ladies step back with the left foot, men step back on the right?"
Ooooh! They do that at your venue? Where? Where?!

Drat. I replied to a footwork thread. :rolleyes:

El Salsero Gringo
8th-April-2005, 12:37 PM
Ooooh! They do that at your venue? Where? Where?!

Drat. I replied to a footwork thread. :rolleyes:Yes, OK, sorry. Now I know at least one person was paying attention!

Simon r
8th-April-2005, 12:39 PM
I don't think "Ceroc bounce" comes from too much "ball" - if anything it's a result of too much knee-flexing.

In any case, who says there's no footwork taught in Ceroc? What's all that "step in, step back, step forward" stuff then? And what about "Ladies step back with the left foot, men step back on the right?"

good to see you have been paying attention try reversing that men step back with left ladies step back with right......
The bounce has been around for years and No way is it a style point ....
If you dont know what the bounce looks like think yourself either lucky to be a good dancer who does not, or someone who does bounce but does not realise it....

David Franklin
8th-April-2005, 12:39 PM
It is not "no footwork", it is "little set footwork". The beauty of MJ is that you can slip in footwork from many different styles into your dancing whilst still doing the same upperbody moves.I keep seeing this argument (or variants), and I'm sorry, but I think it's ridiculous. To take it to the obvious extreme, I've invented a new dance form, inarguably the best ever:


No footwork rules - we all know beginners find footwork hard, and by having no rules the experts can do any footwork from any dance.
No beat requirements - dancing on the beat is hard too. Besides, by having no requirements, we're not limited to 4/4 music like so many other dances.
No set moves - remembering moves is hard. Besides, by not having a set list of moves, you can use any move from any other style.


Clearly anything you can do in MJ, you can do in my style (in honour of the month, I think I'll give it the traditional name of Lirpa Loof), plus you can waltz or do freestyle wrestling in my style as well, so it must be better... :clap:

Funnily enough, the queue of people outside my front door waiting to learn this style hasn't materialised. I don't understand it. Maybe it's because you need some level of structure if you want certain things to work well?

Franck
8th-April-2005, 12:44 PM
Ooooh! They do that at your venue? Where? Where?!

Drat. I replied to a footwork thread. :rolleyes:Hehe :D

I knew you couldn't resist it :wink:

I suspect ESG meant specifiying which foot to step back on the 3rd beat of the First Move, when the ladies twist out.
There is still no specific foot to step back on for the first beat.

I mentioned my views on the 'no footwork' concept in the New Comb thread and would agree with what Lynn said here. It's great to have no compulsory footwork.
Yes, it might slow down the development of a more stylish / polished dance, but it removes one of the biggest barriers to entry to the joys of dancing. Most people think that they are un-coordinated, and would definitely be proved right within a few lessons that included a set pattern of footwork.

On the other hand, I would strongly recommend that any competent Intermediate dancer learn as much footwork as possible, and not only one style / pattern, but as many as they can.

Some get taught during the Intermediate class (attached to a specific move), others might be taught at a specialized workshops (footwork or style)

El Salsero Gringo
8th-April-2005, 12:48 PM
I suspect ESG meant specifiying which foot to step back on the 3rd beat of the First Move, when the ladies twist out.
There is still no specific foot to step back on for the first beat.I think Lynn was referring to the fact that I had the feet the wrong way around. Thanks Simon, yes, I spotted that. Worth trying though - could be a new move?

Lou
8th-April-2005, 12:50 PM
blahblahblah
:whistle: lalalala... I can't hear you! ;)


ps. ESG - nope. I just wondered if it was another pocket of lady's left foot back - especially as you mentioned Aussie footwork. :(

Simon r
8th-April-2005, 12:52 PM
I think Lynn was referring to the fact that I had the feet the wrong way around. Thanks Simon, yes, I spotted that. Worth trying though - could be a new move?
yes could be the one were you both then step forward and trip over each other before falling on the floor like it.......
Can i watch you try first.

Gadget
8th-April-2005, 12:54 PM
Some people I know, recently started to learn MJ at a Ceroc class and were amazed to find that no footwork was taught..."How can this be" they said, "were always taught that dancing is with the feet".. :yeah: I said that this is just the way it is and that it doesn't put so many people off who are 2 left footed and or have difficulty with footwork and you are able dance from day one. (seemed plausible ) :worthy:
Dancing is not with your feet unless you are doing tap. Even then, dancing involves your whole body - the focus for almost every style is on "footwork" because moving the feet directly equates to moving the body. Perfect the footwork and the body will move where it's intended.

MJ just relys on you to move your own feet wherever they need to be to get your body into the "right" position. Your feet are just there to move you and prevent you from falling over.

What most folk reffer to as "footwork" within MJ also includes moving your feet to a specific place or in a specific way that aids in getting your body in the right position. {I hold the view that this isn't "footwork", but just moving your feet}

The common definition is the specific placement or movements that add "style" and "panache" into the dance - for this, footwork from any other style of dance can be incorporated... as long as it does not interfear with you being able to get your body in the right place and maintaining your ballance.


Why not formulate a footwork pattern for intermediate classes ? It would look so much better IMO, I know that Le Roc did many years ago... Maybe this would do away with "the ceroc bounce" when they know what to do with their feet..Anyone with any thoughts.......
nooooooooo!!! :tears:
Do you fall over all the time when you dance? No? then you are doing all right with your feet.

The "Ceroc bounce" is something I don't think I have witnessed/experianced too much - as such, I don't consider it a problem.

There is a good discussion in the Technique in Modern Jive (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2640) thread that has some arguments about footwork.

El Salsero Gringo
8th-April-2005, 12:59 PM
yes could be the one were you both then step forward and trip over each other before falling on the floor like it.......
Can i watch you try first.With pleasure. But give me a couple of weeks to work some style into the falling-over part first.

Lou
8th-April-2005, 01:00 PM
The "Ceroc bounce" is something I don't think I have witnessed/experianced too much - as such, I don't consider it a problem.
Meh! I saw it at a CerocTM class last night.... :wink: But I think it's cute.

El Salsero Gringo
8th-April-2005, 01:08 PM
Dancing is not with your feet unless you are doing tap. Even then, dancing involves your whole body - the focus for almost every style is on "footwork" because moving the feet directly equates to moving the body. Perfect the footwork and the body will move where it's intended.

MJ just relys on you to move your own feet wherever they need to be to get your body into the "right" position. Your feet are just there to move you and prevent you from falling over.

What most folk reffer to as "footwork" within MJ also includes moving your feet to a specific place or in a specific way that aids in getting your body in the right position. {I hold the view that this isn't "footwork", but just moving your feet}

The common definition is the specific placement or movements that add "style" and "panache" into the dance - for this, footwork from any other style of dance can be incorporated... as long as it does not interfear with you being able to get your body in the right place and maintaining your ballance.


nooooooooo!!! :tears:
Do you fall over all the time when you dance? No? then you are doing all right with your feet.


The "Ceroc bounce" is something I don't think I have witnessed/experianced too much - as such, I don't consider it a problem.

There is a good discussion in the Technique in Modern Jive (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2640) thread that has some arguments about footwork.Two firsts in one post. Not only do understand most of one of Gadget's posts, I largely agree with most of what I understand. Amazing.

MartinHarper
8th-April-2005, 02:20 PM
"set footwork" is misleading, because it's possible to switch in and out of the standard footwork pattern, just as it's possible to add footwork to modern jive.


Why not formulate a footwork pattern for intermediate classes?

TRDC's JazzJive could be described as "modern jive with footwork patterns", and that works fine, but it is one source of incompatibility between JazzJive and purer forms of MJ. Indeed, when I made the switch, I made my very first post (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3330) to ask for help on that. So that's a drawback.


Lindy style is not bouncy.

In my non-expert opinion...
"Savoy style" Lindy includes a small bounce, which has now been rebranded as a "pulse" to reduce the number of people making it too big. It's a regular downwards bounce once per musical beat, of perhaps a couple of millimetres. I can't speak for other styles of Lindy.

Bad dancers, of all forms, end up bouncing every time they take a step. It is this problem that gives rise to the "MJ bounce" - the technique-lite approach of MJ allows it to flourish. Because Lindy uses triple steps, bad Lindy dancers look bouncier than bad MJ dancers. The standard of MJ at an MJ venue tends to be higher than the standard of Lindy at an MJ (sic) venue. I suspect this is why Lindy has a reputation as being "bouncy" amongst Ceroc folks.

David Bailey
8th-April-2005, 03:24 PM
Because Lindy uses triple steps, bad Lindy dancers look bouncier than bad MJ dancers. The standard of MJ at an MJ venue tends to be higher than the standard of Lindy at an MJ (sic) venue. I suspect this is why Lindy has a reputation as being "bouncy" amongst Ceroc folks.
Ah, that explains it.

Darn, that's another dance form I have to respect - can't even diss line dancing now. :tears:

Oh well, there's always nightclub and pole dancing to sneer at. :grin:

Lory
8th-April-2005, 03:45 PM
I think it's great there's NO specific foot work you HAVE to do, this way, everyone gets to develop their own unique style. :waycool:

If we had to the same footwork all the time and there was a right and wrong way, we'd end up like robots! :sad:

Just to contradict myself, :rolleyes: I do feel a great sense of achievement when I follow/mirror a mans footwork though some intricate manoeuvre though. :na:

bigdjiver
8th-April-2005, 04:27 PM
I keep seeing this argument (or variants), and I'm sorry, but I think it's ridiculous. To take it to the obvious extreme, I've invented a new dance form, inarguably the best ever:


No footwork rules - we all know beginners find footwork hard, and by having no rules the experts can do any footwork from any dance.
No beat requirements - dancing on the beat is hard too. Besides, by having no requirements, we're not limited to 4/4 music like so many other dances.
No set moves - remembering moves is hard. Besides, by not having a set list of moves, you can use any move from any other style.


Clearly anything you can do in MJ, you can do in my style (in honour of the month, I think I'll give it the traditional name of Lirpa Loof), plus you can waltz or do freestyle wrestling in my style as well, so it must be better... :clap:

Funnily enough, the queue of people outside my front door waiting to learn this style hasn't materialised. I don't understand it. Maybe it's because you need some level of structure if you want certain things to work well?
And your "new" dance differs from my MJ in what way?

David Bailey
8th-April-2005, 04:32 PM
And your "new" dance differs from my MJ in what way?
Obviously, it's new and improved Lirpa Loof, not old boring Ceroc. Come, on, pay attention :whistle: :D

Katie
8th-April-2005, 06:52 PM
I think it's great there's NO specific foot work you HAVE to do, this way, everyone gets to develop their own unique style. :waycool:

If we had to the same footwork all the time and there was a right and wrong way, we'd end up like robots! :sad:

:yeah:
This is why I love MJ so much, you can choose to put fancy footwork in, especially when the guy lets you improvise. :clap: With Ballroom dancing, I became fed up with being told where to put my feet and arms - I do however, love to watch it!

Whitebeard
9th-April-2005, 12:43 AM
The "Ceroc bounce" is something I don't think I have witnessed/experianced too much - as such, I don't consider it a problem.
I do. Far too many syncopated, metronomic, horizontally challenged ladies reared on a diet of monotomously vertical club music.

Fortunately, there are exceptions.

Ballroom queen
9th-April-2005, 10:20 AM
Bad dancers, of all forms, end up bouncing every time they take a step. It is this problem that gives rise to the "MJ bounce" - the technique-lite approach of MJ allows it to flourish. Because Lindy uses triple steps, bad Lindy dancers look bouncier than bad MJ dancers. The standard of MJ at an MJ venue tends to be higher than the standard of Lindy at an MJ (sic) venue. I suspect this is why Lindy has a reputation as being "bouncy" amongst Ceroc folks.


IMHO some dances may or may not be bouncy, but what is unpleasent as a lady following is having your hand / arm bounced up and down. I was once told that although people perceive Lindy as being bouncy it is so from the feet, but the lead is smooth.

Lynn
9th-April-2005, 12:52 PM
I think Lynn was referring to the fact... Or Lou even? :whistle:

El Salsero Gringo
9th-April-2005, 04:18 PM
Or Lou even? :whistle:Yeah, her too.













(oops.)

Gadget
9th-April-2005, 10:10 PM
{re: bouncing} I do. Far too many syncopated, metronomic, horizontally challenged ladies reared on a diet of monotomously vertical club music.
Just thinking a bit more on this and how it relates to footwork: Since there is no footwork pattern to mark time with the beat, the MJ dancer marks time with their hands; the timing of the moves, each postion on a beat, the changes of direction,... So perhaps this would explain the 'bounce'? just marking time with the hands because people are not shown any footwork to mark time with?

Whitebeard
9th-April-2005, 11:29 PM
Originally Posted by Whitebeard
{re: bouncing} I do. Far too many syncopated, metronomic, horizontally challenged ladies reared on a diet of monotomously vertical club music.
I was a bit scathing there (emulating the dreaded one) , wasn't I ? Certainly didn't mean to imply there are a lot of these overly bouncy ladies; it's just that one is too many. Plenty of fellas offend in this way too and, because men are usually stronger, I've often watched and wondered and sympathised with the ladies in the vicelike grip* of such a partner.

* The vicelike grip and bounce pretty well go together I think.




Just thinking a bit more on this and how it relates to footwork: Since there is no footwork pattern to mark time with the beat, the MJ dancer marks time with their hands; the timing of the moves, each postion on a beat, the changes of direction,... So perhaps this would explain the 'bounce'? just marking time with the hands because people are not shown any footwork to mark time with?
I don't know, you're the analyst; in a dance I'm just wondering what to do next and, if in the clutches of a bouncer, longing for the music to stop. You may have something there. Do they bounce to the beat?, to the half-beat?, or to both? I've gone into denial.

In the beginning it was all hands and feet. How to retain hand contact through all those turny spinny things without bones breaking, and what on earth to do with those feet when 'teach' didn't tell. But, gradually, these issues resolved themselves. Almost imperceptabley the feet started to look after themselves (most of the time anyway) and one night you find yourself going through a series of moves with barely fingertip to fingertip contact with your partner. That is sublime.

I highlighted the bouncers but there are many ladies, and these include beginners too, who really are pure delight to dance with; smooth, light, responsive. They make me feel good about myself.

Lynn
10th-April-2005, 01:57 AM
Just thinking a bit more on this and how it relates to footwork: Since there is no footwork pattern to mark time with the beat, the MJ dancer marks time with their hands; the timing of the moves, each postion on a beat, the changes of direction,... So perhaps this would explain the 'bounce'? just marking time with the hands because people are not shown any footwork to mark time with? I have noticed this with some guys - I have seen them 'lose' the beat and then 'find' it again by bouncing their hands up and down (and often their arms and body too). I don't have to think about the beat at all, its just 'there', so it took me a while to figure out this was what they were doing. And to be honest I would rather dance with a 'bouncy' lead who was on the beat than one who didn't bounce but danced off the beat. (Of course a bouncy lead off the beat isn't too comfortable!)

Its often the same with 'footwork' for me. I don't think about it, its just there, the music seems to ask for it and my feet move to fit a certain part in the song. Maybe I should start to think about it more...

SimonSays
11th-April-2005, 10:44 PM
Ok, lets get down to some facts, then debate.

In UK for some reason, the establishment likes to tout the line that there is no Ceroc footwork, which is their line, but it is not the truth. What is true is this: they truly dont TEACH it, but they still do it.

YOU will acknowledge that we step to a 4/4 time (commonly heard as the teacher brings you in on "5-6-7-8!" (or "5&6&7&8")

Now, when they count us in using "5 and 6 and 7 and 8" (I know there are other ways but this is prevalent) the "number" is a step (or step replacement by a suitable pause), so too is the "AND" is a step. (or associated pause, as you please).

Now lets look at those first two beats or steps..

Once they count you in "7 & 8" you then commence by doing your prescribed "semi circle for beginners" to start the move as you step back on the "AND" and you will then take a step (or a selected associated pause) on what would be the "one"

You are stepping or you are pausing... If you arent doing this then you are dancing off the beat.

SO to the common count of " &1 &2 &3 &4 &5 &6 &7 &8 " there are 16 beats = 16 steps (or a combination of steps and assocaited pauses that will equivalently match the 16)

If you arent doing this then you are dancing off the beat. If you fancy yourself as an advanced / uninhibited freestyler, you can of course work in some additional combinations of pauses, triple steps, double times etc, but you will still acknowledge they fit into the same beat framework over the song.

SO if you arent sticking to that beat, then you are doing something else. But not MJ. Maybe Lindy / Slasle etc etc but not MJ.

THEN once you have the structure of the beat and the footwork, you can start to ignore it and do slower (double beat / quad beat) steps.

For those of you who say there is no footwork, what beat do you move back on? (HINT: "AND 1" = 2 beats for the backward movement)

I look forward to seeing you doubtful people in person and observing tuthfully what you are doing, lets do it, and I will show you that you are doing 16 beats with a combination of 16 steps or associated pauses to a standard 4/4 ceroc / MJ song.

Modern Jive DOES have footwork.

MJ is NOT a salsa step (but you can throw them in)
MJ is NOT a Lindy step (but you can...)
MJ is NOT a triple step (blah blah)
MJ is NOT a cha cha (yada yada)
MJ is NOT etc, etc etc (but you can orrow from these) and so you will start to see the picture building up by ruling some others out.

Anyway, I look forward to hearing how you explain the beats and the feet in other terms.. if you can.

And as for the ceroc bounce, oh my lord! What is with it over here?? Who's idea was it? Hey, have fun, and bounce from time to time, but try not to bounce for every beat of every song!! PLEASE!

You might disagree with me on the above points, but it will come down to the fact that if you were standing in front of me in a room and doing whatever footwork you like, and I was counting, it will all come out as the same thing.
16 beat bars = 16 steps or step / pause combinations.

Stand up in front of your computer, put a tune on, and count yourself in to a few starts before you reply.. see how the 16 beat combinations work.. then hit me with your thoughts. If you have another way to explain it I am very keen to hear it.

All the best :cheers:

Simon B (Aussie Instructor)

MartinHarper
11th-April-2005, 11:54 PM
Now, when they count us in using "5 and 6 and 7 and 8" the "number" is a step.

No. A step is when I move my foot from one position to another position and transfer weight onto it. A number is a concept used in arithmetic. A number is not a step. Even in Australia.


You then commence by [stepping] back on the "AND" and you will then take a step (or a selected associated pause) on what would be the "one".

No. I come from a JazzJive/Lindy background. I typically do a weight transfer or a stomp-off on the "AND", and then take a rock step on the following "one AND". Alternatively, I'll do a "prepare" on the "AND", followed by a twist-twist on "one AND". Then again, I might do something else. Sometimes I don't move my feet at all, but just shift my weight a bit.


I look forward to hearing how you explain the beats and the feet in other terms.

Ok.

1) The beats are the things in the music.
2) The feet are the things on the end of your legs.
3) Your body should ideally reflect the music in some way.
4) One way to reflect the music in your body is to step on every beat, like you're in the army. This is cool.
5) There are lots of other ways. They are also cool.

Gadget
12th-April-2005, 12:35 AM
:yeah: what Martin says.

In UK for some reason, the establishment likes to tout the line that there is no Ceroc footwork, which is their line, but it is not the truth. What is true is this: they truly dont TEACH it, but they still do it.
The "Ceroc Two-step"? where the foot is placed to mark the beat (alternate beat to be precise), like marching. This is not footwork: this is marking the time with the feet. Like marching.
Unlike marching however, we can add in some stylistic elements and change the timing to be whatever we feel suits the music. It does not have to be placing the foot on every count. The timing of the placement can be delayed, snappy, strutting, sliding,... it can skip a count, go on half-counts, insert a pattern (like tripple steps), remain rooted if desired,...
It can do any of these. However, they are not part of the 'core' elements that make Modern Jive: they are style and movement highlights to musical inspiration.


You are stepping or you are pausing... If you arent doing this then you are dancing off the beat.To say that the feet have to mark every beat to be dancing on-time is a little nieve. I was going to write "nonsense", but thinking on it, yes - there are loads of times that I do not mark the beat. Especially with my feet. However I have never been accused of dancing out of time and can only rmrmber two occasions in {..erm...} lots of years where my timing has clashed with my partners - which is what your "off the beat" seems to be suggesting.


Modern Jive DOES have footwork. No; it has advice on how to move to get your body into a better position. But there is no specific technique to the placement of the feet, no specific movement of the body that synchronises with the feet, no specific weight distribution or movement. In fact, the only common thing between your definition of "Ceroc Footwork" and any other style of dance's footwork is that they both move their feet in order to move their body.

Sure - there is common ground between all forms of dance, (and martial arts) that governs movement, weight distribution, and moving the feet to position the body: this may be taught, but to say that it's "footwork" is {IMHO} streaching the definition.


Anyway, I look forward to hearing how you explain the beats and the feet in other terms.. if you can.
Beats? - they are the marking points of rhythm in music.
Feet? - those things at the ends of your legs that stop you from falling over.
Where they meet? - wherever you want. Or don't want.
It's a simple thing to teach beginners to march to mark time. Like it's a simple thing to teach beginner men that you move your hand and the lady follows it. You teach patterns to follow with the hands to lead the lady (ie moves). Just because you know the pattern, does that mean you know how to lead? That you must stick with that pattern? That you must mark every position in a move with a hesitation as is seen on stage?
Why must feet follow a set pattern? Why must every step/beat be marked out?

El Salsero Gringo
12th-April-2005, 12:51 AM
No. A step is when I move my foot from one position to another position and transfer weight onto it. A number is a concept used in arithmetic. A number is not a step. Even in Australia.Martin, you're just being argumentative. You know exactly what he means.

Simon - the bit you've completely skated over is the concept of weight-shifting. For what it's worth, the bit that's almost totally absent from Ceroc tuition, at least in this country, is the concept of moving your body-weight from one standing leg to the other without taking a step. It might not be strictly footwork, but it certainly isn't 'armwork' so it might as well be considered in this thread, and in fact, Martin mentions it in his post.

Moving on:

4) One way to reflect the music in your body is to step on every beat, like you're in the army. This is cool.
Actually I think stepping on each beat like you're in the army ("marching") is extremely uncool. I wonder if a bit more attention paid to "weight transfer" would help?

Yliander
12th-April-2005, 05:36 AM
have read much of this thread with interest - and have to say that I find the concept of there being no footwork in Ceroc a very disturbing concept

Perhaps it is a UK thing - but here in the land down under as a beginner you are taught specific foot work for specific moves for example

first move
- girls step back left, guys step back right then both step in feet together side to side
-then as the guy opens the lady out both pivot on their inside foot stepping back with their out side foot( guys left girls right)
-then as the guy brings the girl to face him he steps back with his right foot (getting it out of the ladies way) bringing his feet together - the girl pivots on her left foot
-following on from here the the guy turns the lady, stepping back left. the lady does this turn on her right foot ending up back right)
-finally the move is completed by a return - the lady turning on her left foot finishing back left and the guy stepping back right.

This is not complicated footwork by any stretch of the imagination and causes beginners to transfer their weight in the right directions hence making much of the move feel more natural.

Obviously once you know the moves and as you progress to intermediate and then advanced moves and style etc - then you can bend, meld the steps to suit the music, your mood and space.

For me it is a case of you have to know the rules before you can break them.

I think that if you aren't being taught foot work from the get-go you are being gypped - as while MJ does only have simple stepping foot work - it does have footwork!

Doc Iain
12th-April-2005, 05:55 AM
I think the idea behind ceroc being "sold" as a dance with little or no footwork is that there is no repetative constant foot movement as in say: Rock and roll, Jive, Salsa or (i believe) Lindy Hop or WCS... of course it does have footwork though, but it is easy to learn and tends on the whole to follow thge upper body work and therefore often falls into place when teaching beginners. Now as one gets better you can do as much or a little extra as you want. Personally I love the walky moves... bit of a tango or waltz never did anyone any harm :p

MartinHarper
12th-April-2005, 08:41 AM
Martin, you're just being argumentative. You know exactly what he means.

Actually, I don't. I can make a few educated guesses, but I could well be wrong, so I'd prefer that he told me. Is it that a number is when Cerocers should step? Is it that a number is when Australian Cerocers are taught to step? Is it that the numbers in the counts are somehow conceptually representing steps? Is it that, during the count-in, we should all be marching to the count? Is it something else?

Sorry, but I really am this stupid. :)

El Salsero Gringo
12th-April-2005, 08:55 AM
For me it is a case of you have to know the rules before you can break them.

I think that if you aren't being taught foot work from the get-go you are being gypped - as while MJ does only have simple stepping foot work - it does have footwork!Yliander, I think we've taken it as given that we've all learnt the footwork that's taught as part of the moves, and you will have read my post on that subject. The point that's being made is that there's no single footwork pattern common to all the moves and fixed in time with the music as there is in Lindy (rock-step, triple-step, triple-step etc.) or Salsa (one-two-three, five-six-seven), Cha Cha, or many other styles of dance.

Don't panic. No-one is being gypped here in the UK. We *do* have competent teachers here too, you know.

Lou
12th-April-2005, 09:24 AM
Yliander, I think we've taken it as given that we've all learnt the footwork that's taught as part of the moves, and you will have read my post on that subject. .
Ahhh.. but my Gringo friend, in Australia, and in Bristol, specific footwork is emphatically taught. I taught it myself last night at St Bon's. But, to the best of my knowledge, this footwork isn't taught elsewhere in the UK (which is why I get quite excited when I see someone write

And what about "Ladies step back with the left foot, men step back on the right?"
as that's a key part of our footwork pattern - the Lady starts back on her left. I'm a footwork nerd. So shoot me.)

This footwork is drilled into me, and it actually influences the style of the dance, as it can limit the different combinations of moves (due to the lady being back on a particular foot - some moves work better together than others - which can feel downright awkward at times).


The point that's being made is that there's no single footwork pattern common to all the moves and fixed in time with the music as there is in Lindy (rock-step, triple-step, triple-step etc.) or Salsa (one-two-three, five-six-seven), Cha Cha, or many other styles of dance.

Of course there's no fixed footwork pattern for everything. MJ is too loosely structured for that. But, in some places in the world, MJ is taught with fixed footwork patterns for particular moves, which is a fair point. So, I can totally understand where Yliander is coming from.

clevedonboy
12th-April-2005, 09:30 AM
Ahhh.. but my Gringo friend, in Australia, and in Bristol, specific footwork is emphatically taught. I taught it myself last night at St Bon's.




Aww if I had known, I'd have come to St Bons instead of the Folk House. I really need to work on my footwork!

Portishead tonight maybe?

Lou
12th-April-2005, 09:38 AM
Portishead tonight maybe?
Yup - am LeRoc Supply-Teacher-In-Chief this week. I stood in for Jenni yesterday, and am standing in for Lizzie tonight. :D

David Bailey
12th-April-2005, 09:40 AM
For what it's worth, the bit that's almost totally absent from Ceroc tuition, at least in this country, is the concept of moving your body-weight from one standing leg to the other without taking a step. It might not be strictly footwork, but it certainly isn't 'armwork' so it might as well be considered in this thread, and in fact, Martin mentions it in his post.
Yes, weight-transfer or "wiggling" seems to be something most MJ-ers don't get taught and hence don't do well - hence my suggestion of using Merengue in
another thread (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5115) (shameless plug :) )

It all depends on the music of course, it always does - a merengue-style track would pretty much require some acknowledgement of each beat, whether a step, a wiggle or a weight-shift. Other styles of track would not.

Clive Long
12th-April-2005, 09:40 AM
A thought that just occurred to me (and shoot me down in flames and call me Maureen if you like), is .... I have experienced less emphasis on footwork in beginners MJ/Ceroc/etc.

I have experienced more emphasis on footwork in an intermediate Nigel & Nina or Mike Ellard or Viktor class. Why should this be so?

My guesses:

1. Not emphasising feet means there is one less thing for the beginner to be confused about.

2. Not emphasising the feet means you are not tempted to look down - "oh gawd, which is my left foot ". Hence, you keep your axis vertical and just move better. Because you are more vertical - you start off learning the dance by connecting with and communicating with your partner. Maybe the assumption is if you move your upper body in roughly the right way, the feet will follow.

3. Because beginners MJ/Ceroc/etc. does not require close body connection between the partners, cf. Tango, ballroom, then there is less of a risk of legs tangling. Conversely if you don't "teach legs" in other dance forms then you tangle painfully with your partner on almost the first attempted step.

4. Once you have the basics of the body position and your relation to your partner you can "introduce feet" into MJ to make the move flow better, be more "incisive" or look better.

What has been the experience of other people learning other dance styles that concentrate on footwork from the start? Was it confusing? Did you look down? or has that already been covered?

I recognize there are wheel-chair-based dancers who have to approach learning dance differently. How is that done? Can anyone in that position post separately on the experience and challenges of learning to dance whilst in a wheel-chair?

Clive

MartinHarper
12th-April-2005, 09:41 AM
For Yli - The UK version varies on the teacher, and the class. The version with the wooliest footwork I've seen went something like:

first move
- girls and guys step back with either foot, then both step in feet unspecified side to side
-then as the guy opens the lady out the girl pivots on her inside foot and both step back with their out side foot( guys left girls right)
-then the guy brings the girl back. All feet unspecified.
-following on from here the the guy turns the lady. The lady does this turn somehow, and both step back on either foot.
-finally the move is completed by a return. The guy steps in, the lady turns somehow, and both step back on either foot.

I don't know if that will increase or decrease your horror... :)

Lou
12th-April-2005, 09:49 AM
For Yli - The UK version varies on the teacher, and the class.
Indeed - and I'd remind you that Bristol is still in the UK. :wink:

Of course, on the Nigel Anderson teacher training course, he advised us to teach that the Lady should step back on the right, Men back on the left. Adam in Ceroc Metro also advocated that footwork here. It fits very well with your Worcester style (from my one limited experience.... ;) )

Yliander
12th-April-2005, 09:59 AM
Yliander, I think we've taken it as given that we've all learnt the footwork that's taught as part of the moves, and you will have read my post on that subject. The point that's being made is that there's no single footwork pattern common to all the moves and fixed in time with the music as there is in Lindy (rock-step, triple-step, triple-step etc.) or Salsa (one-two-three, five-six-seven), Cha Cha, or many other styles of dance. Sorry but reading this thread the impression I recieved is that it doesn't matter what the feet are doing during a move - unless you are decideing to do some fancy foot work.

And there is a single footwork pattern common to all of MJ moves (and like the english language there always exceptions) - a simple walking pattern - which really isn't particulary interesting but is what enables MJ to be as adapative to various musics and to so easily encorporate elements from other styles.

The simple walking pattern for feet in MJ is one of the things that allows it to be so expressive and interesting.. IMHO


I don't know if that will increase or decrease your horror... :) I make no comment on my horror level but my sympathy for any first timer learning via that description has increased 10 fold

Gadget
12th-April-2005, 10:01 AM
This footwork is drilled into me, and it actually influences the style of the dance, as it can limit the different combinations of moves
Isn't this a good reason to not teach footwork?


first move
- girls and guys step back with either foot, then both step in <strike>feet unspecified</strike> side to side
-then as the guy opens the lady out the girl pivots on her inside foot while stepping back with their out side foot, guys step back on either foot.
-then the guy brings the girl back in to his side. <strike>All feet unspecified.</strike>
-following on from here the the guy turns the lady. <strike>The lady does this turn somehow,</strike> and both step back <strike>on either foot.</strike>
-finally the move is completed by a return. <strike>The guy steps in, the lady turns somehow, and both step back on either foot.</strike>
That wooly enough for you? that's how I have seen it taught - although the men stepping back with the left on the open out has been re-introduced.

Clive Long
12th-April-2005, 10:16 AM
<< snip >>
Of course, on the Nigel Anderson teacher training course, he advised us to teach that the Lady should step back on the right, Men back on the left. << snip >>

I keep reading this "first move, man step back on your left" stuff.

I have tried it several times, can't do it, makes no sense to me - even if it comes direct from the great Mr. A.

I step back on my right. There is no teacher at my elbow criticising and correcting my moves so I will carry on doing this.

Never done me any harm. Never done my partner any harm. May not look nice (can't look worse than stepping back on left methinks), but it works.

However, you try stepping on the "wrong" foot in ballroom / Tango / et al. and see how far you get.

So I think what I wrote wasn't that stupid - maybe we can say beginner's Ceroc/ MJ / etc. is just more forgiving about footwork hence footwork can be ignored (or delayed), for beginners, for the guesses I made.

Clive

Lou
12th-April-2005, 10:18 AM
Isn't this a good reason to not teach footwork?
Trust you, Gadget, to ask that question.

As for teaching footwork:
As I was saying to Franck last week, I'm still weighing it up. Talking analyst to analyst - I'm still in the fact-finding stage, mate.

(But currently, yes, I think I still believe teaching specific footwork is good, but as for exactly which specific footwork..... :whistle: )

As for whether it's a good reason not to teach footwork:
I disagree. The Bristol/Australia footwork actually influences the dance, and gives it its own style, framework and definition. If you want to teach that style of MJ, you need to teach the footwork.

Lou
12th-April-2005, 10:24 AM
I keep reading this "first move, man step back on your left" stuff.

I have tried it several times, can't do it, makes no sense to me - even if it comes direct from the great Mr. A.

I step back on my right. There is no teacher at my elbow criticising and correcting my moves so I will carry on doing this.

Never done me any harm. Never done my partner any harm. May not look nice (can't look worse than stepping back on left methinks), but it works.

However, you try stepping on the "wrong" foot in ballroom / Tango / et al. and see how far you get.

So I think what I wrote wasn't that stupid - maybe we can say beginner's Ceroc/ MJ / etc. is just more forgiving about footwork hence footwork can be ignored (or delayed), for beginners, for the guesses I made.

Clive
Hehe. I also step back on my right as a leader. I don't get so worked up about men's footwork. But that's just me.

But, no, we can't say that Beginner's MJ footwork is more forgiving. In some places, as MartinHarper says - it's woolly. But not everywhere! :)

David Bailey
12th-April-2005, 11:08 AM
I step back on my right. There is no teacher at my elbow criticising and correcting my moves so I will carry on doing this.

I also step back on right, now I think about it. It feels more natural, as you're opening up a little on the right hand side, but holding on with the left. If it's leader-back-on-left and follower-back-on-right, you have to keep the steps quite small (or have very long arms :) ). Obviously, keeping small-step discipline is good to learn at the start, but it limits you after a certain stage. Can't remember when I was seduced to The Right Side... :)



So I think what I wrote wasn't that stupid - maybe we can say beginner's Ceroc/ MJ / etc. is just more forgiving about footwork hence footwork can be ignored (or delayed), for beginners, for the guesses I made.

:yeah: totally - the downside of not learning it early, of course, being more pain when you have to learn it later, but that easy learning curve is what pulls the punters in. Ultimately, there are no shortcuts, and if you want to progress, you'll have to learn some footwork (I'll have to do that some day... :whistle: ). Ceroc / MJ allows you to put it off for a while though.

Lynn
12th-April-2005, 11:09 AM
All interesting as I have been inviting some guys from a salsa class along to a MJ class and giving the 'no footwork' bit - but I have been explaining it more as 'no basic step' or fixed pattern of footwork. There is a danger if you teach moves and don't tell the men where to place their feet, that they don't move them at all. So I think you can tell them what foot they could step on, but reassure them that if they do it a bit differently that will work OK too.

Yliander
12th-April-2005, 11:48 AM
That wooly enough for you? that's how I have seen it taught - although the men stepping back with the left on the open out has been re-introduced. Still to wooly for my taste - and I doubt I would pass my teachers assessment here if I explained it in such a manner

but really it comes down to horses for courses

bigdjiver
12th-April-2005, 12:20 PM
I have seen an MJ demo (not Ceroc) where the demonstrator pitched it as "So easy, even a man can do it". He then offered to show the guys the "footwork", and just stood on the spot and manouvered the lady around him with his arms.

In the world outside this forum I suspect that there are ladies who would prefer even a man that limited to sitting out, and that there are guys who are now dancers that were lured by that false promise.

alex
12th-April-2005, 03:10 PM
Spooky.

Other side of the world and they are having the same discussion...

http://www.ceroc.com.au/forum/showthread.php?p=24322#post24322

Yliander
12th-April-2005, 03:29 PM
Spooky.

Other side of the world and they are having the same discussion...

http://www.ceroc.com.au/forum/showthread.php?p=24322#post24322 has a slightly different slant to it though - more a are there really any moves discussion ....

Lynn
12th-April-2005, 03:34 PM
Spooky.

Other side of the world and they are having the same discussion...

http://www.ceroc.com.au/forum/showthread.php?p=24322#post24322 Hmm, but you have to be member of the forum there and logged in to view that post. Interesting to see the different perspective. From what I have heard talking to people

Person (esp man) completely new to dancing tries MJ - finds the lack of taught footwork a bonus as there is less to concentrate on all at once

Person who has done other forms of partner dancing tries MJ - finds the lack of taught footwork a problem as they expect there to be footwork and feel they are 'missing something'.

Swinging bee
12th-April-2005, 05:20 PM
Hmm, but you have to be member of the forum there and logged in to view that post. Interesting to see the different perspective. From what I have heard talking to people

Person (esp man) completely new to dancing tries MJ - finds the lack of taught footwork a bonus as there is less to concentrate on all at once

Person who has done other forms of partner dancing tries MJ - finds the lack of taught footwork a problem as they expect there to be footwork and feel they are 'missing something'.

EUREKA
Just what I was trying to convey.....I have located a copy of Michel Lau's. "Le Roc" handbook and in it are the basic steps to the foundation moves....I would put it on it to the forum but I am not sure about the copywrite?? .....

El Salsero Gringo
12th-April-2005, 07:13 PM
Sorry but reading this thread the impression I recieved is that it doesn't matter what the feet are doing during a move - unless you are decideing to do some fancy foot work.

And there is a single footwork pattern common to all of MJ moves (and like the english language there always exceptions) - a simple walking pattern - which really isn't particulary interesting but is what enables MJ to be as adapative to various musics and to so easily encorporate elements from other styles.That's simply not true - at least for UK Ceroc. There's no walking pattern. We're not trained to walk on the spot, and when you do a first move, you might well step back on the left, then the next foot-movement is a step forward on the left to bring the feet parallel. The same goes for lots of other moves too.


The simple walking pattern for feet in MJ is one of the things that allows it to be so expressive and interesting.. IMHOMy (humble, whatever) opinion is that the walking pattern makes MJ look like a pile of smelly pants and should be avoided like the plague.


I make no comment on my horror level but my sympathy for any first timer learning via that description has increased 10 foldDon't knock it until you've tried it. It works for thousands in the UK.

Still to wooly for my taste - and I doubt I would pass my teachers assessment here if I explained it in such a manner

but really it comes down to horses for coursesI'm not really sure what I'm expected to deduce from this - if you explained it any way other than the 'prescribed' text here in the UK, you'd fail your teacher's test here. As you say, horses for courses. All we'll end up doing is 'arguing' over the teaching of what sounds like two different dances.

El Salsero Gringo
12th-April-2005, 07:17 PM
Of course there's no fixed footwork pattern for everything. MJ is too loosely structured for that. But, in some places in the world, MJ is taught with fixed footwork patterns for particular moves, which is a fair point. So, I can totally understand where Yliander is coming from.That was exactly the point I was making in my first post - not very successfully, obviously.

Could someone tell me *why* it matters which foot the lady steps back on, if the next thing she is going to do is bring her feet back parallel again?

David Bailey
12th-April-2005, 07:46 PM
That's simply not true - at least for UK Ceroc. There's no walking pattern.
:yeah: I can confirm that I've no idea what a walking pattern is, although I could hazard a guess. So it's probably true that no-one's ever taught it to me. But it sounds like fun :)

MartinHarper
12th-April-2005, 08:54 PM
Could someone tell me *why* it matters which foot the lady steps back on, if the next thing she is going to do is bring her feet back parallel again?

This is clearly rhetorical, but what the hey. Lou isn't the only footwork geek.
I'm going to use beat counts, not MJ counts, because "2" is easier to say than "the AND after the 1".

In the first move, in both footwork patterns, the girl is going to have her weight on her left foot on 4 and will step back right on 5. Regardless of whether it's taught or not, that's what women end up doing. The two simplest options are therefore:

R foot back (walking) style: Right, Left, Right, Left (pivot), back right. Aka: QQQQ
L foot back (Leroc) style: Left, Right, Left, hold (pivot), back right. Aka: QQS

Because it has a "slow" on 3-4, the Leroc style allows the use of (eg) triple steps and cha-cha-chas that are less accessible from the walking style. It also gives you more time to twist out, so you can makes use of that for some funky leg sweeps and such.

The walking style discourages both "overturning" and big steps on the 1-2, and also discourages the girl from starting to turn prior to the 4 (cf this thread (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3818)). The Leroc style is compatible with both.

The walking style has the girl positioned similarly before and after a return. This makes it easier to add or remove returns at will. The Leroc style is less flexible. The walking style is more compatible with moves such as the Manhattan and Eskimo.

All else being equal, you can dance to faster music with Leroc style than the walking style, as it allows you to spin through turns rather than stepping through turns, without having to add additional fudge steps. Walking style seems more restricted in tempo.

Lou
12th-April-2005, 11:35 PM
This is clearly rhetorical, but what the hey. Lou isn't the only footwork geek.
Footwork nerd, dearheart. I try to hide my geek tendencies. But I'm obviously not succeeding that well. :rolleyes:

Oh, and cracking post!

Just one pedantic niggle - what you've called Leroc style isn't true for all forms of LeRoc. For example, our cousins in Brighton certainly use the "Lady back on the Right to start" footwork.


Because it has a "slow" on 3-4, the Leroc style allows the use of (eg) triple steps and cha-cha-chas that are less accessible from the walking style.
And more than that - you actually need to use the triple step, or make use of pauses in order to get onto the correct foot at the right time.


The walking style has the girl positioned similarly before and after a return. This makes it easier to add or remove returns at will.
True. An example being that in Bristol, a Catapult would never be taught immediately following a return.


The Leroc style is less flexible. The walking style is more compatible with moves such as the Manhattan and Eskimo.
Hmmmm... I'll agree it's less flexible, but I'm not too certain whether I agree with your examples. I can certainly lead a Bristol lady into either - but whether it's easier, I need to experiment....


All else being equal, you can dance to faster music with Leroc style than the walking style, as it allows you to spin through turns rather than stepping through turns, without having to add additional fudge steps. Walking style seems more restricted in tempo.

But, in real life, what happens is that the Walking style adapts to quicker music. I'm now finding it far more comfortable to go back on my right pretty much most of the time. Now I'm used to it, balancing is far easier. And I can still manage to put in nice spins in the turns.

Gadget
13th-April-2005, 12:35 AM
I'm now finding it far more comfortable to go back on my right pretty much most of the time. Now I'm used to it, balancing is far easier. And I can still manage to put in nice spins in the turns.
So, the actual "footwork" part is really irrelevant - ie which foot you step back on. What is relevant is that you get the timing of the step back and transfer the weight.

So that leads us to the zen-like state of actually having "footwork" in MJ; but this footwork is actualy no footwork :D I like it :cool:

Yliander
13th-April-2005, 04:25 AM
That's simply not true - at least for UK Ceroc. There's no walking pattern. We're not trained to walk on the spot, and when you do a first move, you might well step back on the left, then the next foot-movement is a step forward on the left to bring the feet parallel. The same goes for lots of other moves too.my point was that at a beginner level based on this thread no foot work is taught at all in the UK.

We don't train people to walk on the spot we teach them to move their feet and transfer their weight in what is considered (here) the correct way to get the move to flow and to support the lead & follow.


Could someone tell me *why* it matters which foot the lady steps back on, if the next thing she is going to do is bring her feet back parallel again?
The reason which foot you step back prior to bringing feet parallel has importance is for the next step - it's about transfer of weight - as a lady in a first move if I step back left then feet together my weight comes onto my left foot allowing the pivot & step back on the right foot to occur with no additional steps or change of weights - allowing the move to flow correctly and making it much easier to execute

when teaching this foot work in consolidation we encourage anyone who are having difficulty with the footwork to step back on the correct foot and let the rest sort it's self out as the foot work generally flows very naturally once you start out right

For me foot work goes hand in hand with lead & follow, tension they all combine to create the flow of the dance


My (humble, whatever) opinion is that the walking pattern makes MJ look like a pile of smelly pants and should be avoided like the plague. so is there or isn't there a walking pattern? make up your mind dear. As to what it looks like - if it doesn't exist then how do you know what it looks like?

The simpleness of this pattern means that it is easy to break it up, slow it down, speed it up, mix in other dance styles or make up your own thing - hence the fact that outside of beginner dancers you will rarely see basic MJ footwork around. The application of all those variations in combination with style can make the simplest of beginner moves something to be marvelled out

El Salsero Gringo
13th-April-2005, 09:24 AM
This is clearly rhetorical, but what the hey.
{big snip, rather than quote the whole message (better?)}No really, it wasn't rhetorical. I appreciate the detail in your answer, and I've done my best to work it through - but it still doesn't answer the question. The way Ceroc teaches the first move (never been to LeRoc or any of the others) doesn't use either of these patterns as far as I can see.

As far as I can tell, it goes like this, beat-by-beat:

1. Lady steps back on left (or right) with full weight transfer to the back leg
2. Rock forward to replace weight on right (or left, depending) front foot.
3. Step forward with the left foot (right)
4. Step parallel with the right foot (or the left)
5. Turn out with the right foot

It really does work with either foot. Try it. And because there's a rock-step to start there's no "walking pattern". And in Ceroc we are taught very firmly to do a rock-step (even if it's not given that name) because we are being told "step back on either foot - but definitely not on both" - that is, take only one step.

So for the first move as taught by Ceroc, it really doesn't matter which foot you step back on. Now I can't comment on what LeRoc teach, or any other organisations because I've never attended any of their lessons - but it does sound like a somewhat different move at least up to beat 5.

El Salsero Gringo
13th-April-2005, 09:38 AM
my point was that at a beginner level based on this thread no foot work is taught at all in the UK.It *is* taught - and I was originally quoting the Ceroc teaching method for the first move. I should have realised that anyone reading the thread who doesn't attend exactly those classes wouldn't spot the reference. (And, it didn't help that I carelessly reversed left-right either!)


We don't train people to walk on the spot we teach them to move their feet and transfer their weight in what is considered (here) the correct way to get the move to flow and to support the lead & follow.

The reason which foot you step back prior to bringing feet parallel has importance is for the next step - it's about transfer of weight - as a lady in a first move if I step back left then feet together my weight comes onto my left foot allowing the pivot & step back on the right foot to occur with no additional steps or change of weights - allowing the move to flow correctly and making it much easier to execute.It's perfectly feasible to do it on either foot, and I suspect that whichever one is more used to is the one that will be preferred, or found easier. It's a trade-off for a novice dancer between getting them through the move, which *can* be done stepping back on either foot - without having to panic about which foot to use. Then they can decide which one they prefer without even thinking about it as they pick up more experience. While different schools may say one is more correct, I simply don't see the evidence that one is better than the other.


{snip the bits I basically agree with}

so is there or isn't there a walking pattern? make up your mind dear. As to what it looks like - if it doesn't exist then how do you know what it looks like?I really can't be certain that we're talking about the same walking pattern. But as I replied to Martin, at Ceroc in the UK we're taught very firmly *not* to step back with both feet (one then the other) but only on one foot (ie do a rock-step/weight-shift like in salsa, or Cha-Cha, or lots of other dances) Lots of dancers *do* step back on both feet, then step forward on both feet while they freestyle. This is a walking pattern, that I see often, that isn't taught (here at least) and I think it looks awful when I see it done.

When I examine my own dancing, I do notice that I drop into that pattern sometimes too, but I struggle hard to avoid it.

Lou
13th-April-2005, 09:42 AM
So, the actual "footwork" part is really irrelevant - ie which foot you step back on. What is relevant is that you get the timing of the step back and transfer the weight.

So that leads us to the zen-like state of actually having "footwork" in MJ; but this footwork is actualy no footwork :D I like it :cool:
:rofl: I so wish I could agree with you, as I like the idea of Zen footwork. But sadly, no.

Obviously timing & weight transfer is important.

I'm just going to nitpic at MartinHarper's post again. Bear with me... :wink:


R foot back (walking) style: Right, Left, Right, Left (pivot), back right. Aka: QQQQ
L foot back (Leroc) style: Left, Right, Left, hold (pivot), back right. Aka: QQS
The codes aren't quite correct. There are 3 MJ counts in the section of the move that Martin mentions. So, "Walking style" would be QQQQQQ (a step on every beat - or every half MJ count).
"Leroc style" lady's footwork would be SQQS
(count 1: step back on the left,
count 2: step forward on the right into the man's side.
count 2.5: step on left to bring feet together & start to pivot
count 3: step back on right)

And thinking out loud.... if you tried to step on purely the MJ counts, you'd need your lady to start back on her right, in order that on count 3 she'd be back again on her right. However, you don't get a pause on count 2, as she'd already need to be pivoting as you bring her into your side.

What I'm trying to say, Gadget, and not expressing myself well, is that the lady's choice of foot to place will effect the timing and the weight placement, so is absolutely relevant. Hopefully Martin will come along and translate my whitterings into something a bit more clear & concise!

Lou
13th-April-2005, 09:56 AM
Our posts overlapped!


As far as I can tell, it goes like this, beat-by-beat:

1. Lady steps back on left (or right) with full weight transfer to the back leg
2. Rock forward to replace weight on right (or left, depending) front foot.
3. Step forward with the left foot (right)
4. Step parallel with the right foot (or the left)
5. Turn out with the right foot
I've been using the terms "beat" to indicate a beat in the music, and "count" to indicate an MJ count (over 2 musical beats). I hope it's OK if I stick with these terms for now. And I'm assuming that the footwork pattern above is actually counted with beats - not MJ counts?

Our problem with starting on the left with the above pattern comes if you want the lady to step back on beat 5 (count 3) with her outside (right) foot. You're trying to get the lady to transfer her weight onto the same foot, in a different position, within half an MJ count. Trust me, that's tricky! :sick:

El Salsero Gringo
13th-April-2005, 10:00 AM
I like the idea of Zen footwork.

"Master?"

"Yes, Child?"

"Master, when I lead the First Move, how can I be sure that the lady steps back on the correct foot?"

"Child, your question reveals your lack of Buddha-nature. If the lady steps back on the incorrect foot, it can only be because you have lead the incorrect move."

"How then, Master, am I to tell which is the correct move to lead?"

"When you dance, Child, meditate to eliminate each incorrect move. The move that is left is the one the universe intends for you to dance."

"Thank you Master. Master, what is my contemplation for today?"

"For today child, you must discover whether more angels can dance on the head of a pin if they Cha Cha or Ceroc. And which style of dance will secure the greater weekly retention rate."

El Salsero Gringo
13th-April-2005, 10:07 AM
Our problem with starting on the left with the above pattern comes if you want the lady to step back on beat 5 (count 3) with her outside (right) foot. You're trying to get the lady to transfer her weight onto the same foot, in a different position, within half an MJ count. Trust me, that's tricky! :sick:I disagree both that that this is what you're trying to do, and that it's tricky. On beat five, the lady transfers her weight across to her left foot and steps back with the right (swoosh!) which is exactly how the same idea is danced in lots of other styles of dance. It give the thing a great dynamic, too.

Really, there's terribly little difference between which foot you step back on.

Lou
13th-April-2005, 10:14 AM
Really, there's terribly little difference between which foot you step back on.
Sorry! Am finding it very difficult to picture how it works if I go back on my left foot. I'm a very visual person, you see. Could you be a sweetie and describe, beat by beat, exactly what I should do if I step back on my left to begin the First Move, please? :flower: Oh, and type slowly, I'm only on my second cup of coffee...

El Salsero Gringo
13th-April-2005, 10:29 AM
Sorry! Am finding it very difficult to picture how it works if I go back on my left foot. I'm a very visual person, you see. Could you be a sweetie and describe, beat by beat, exactly what I should do if I step back on my left to begin the First Move, please? :flower: Oh, and type slowly, I'm only on my second cup of coffee...Since you ask so nicely...!

(and now that I pace it out, I can think of two variation, so here are both)

ESG's First Move, a variation on a theme by Ceroc:

1. step back left and transfer weight to back foot
2. transfer weight to front foot
3. step forward with the left foot to a line parallel with the man's feet
4. step forward with the right to the same line if necessary, but either way transfer weight to the right foot, pointing left toe ready for turn if you like that kind of salsa/latin style
5. Push off of the right foot, pivoting backwards on the left (I have to use my arms and shoulders in the turn because I don't have anyone to lead me at the moment...!)

ESG's second variation:

1. step back left and transfer weight to back foot
2. transfer weight to front foot
3. step forward with the left foot to a line parallel with the man's feet
4. HOLD with weight on the left leg. LEAVE the right foot back a half-step
5. push off of the right pivoting backwards on the left

The hold feels very salsa'y, because it's on beat 4....


How do those ideas feel?

MartinHarper
13th-April-2005, 10:38 AM
Because there's a rock-step to start there's no "walking pattern".

I only called it walking because it's a simple L-R-L-R-L-R thing - on balance I should have stuck to "the first style" and "the second style". :)

El Salsero Gringo
13th-April-2005, 10:46 AM
I only called it walking because it's a simple L-R-L-R-L-R thing - on balance I should have stuck to "the first style" and "the second style". :)That's what I understood you to mean. But both your patterns have L-R-L or R-L-R as the first three beats - which is definitely not a rock-step ('L-weightshift-L' or 'R-weightshift-R')

Lou
13th-April-2005, 10:49 AM
How do those ideas feel?
The second variation feels far better to me because of the HOLD. I'd still need to fit in 2 steps/weight transfers, etc, into one beat here: "5. Push off of the right foot, pivoting backwards on the left" from the first variation, you see, in order that my foot went back on beat 5.

Yliander
13th-April-2005, 10:52 AM
I really can't be certain that we're talking about the same walking pattern. But as I replied to Martin, at Ceroc in the UK we're taught very firmly *not* to step back with both feet (one then the other) but only on one foot (ie do a rock-step/weight-shift like in salsa, or Cha-Cha, or lots of other dances) Lots of dancers *do* step back on both feet, then step forward on both feet while they freestyle. This is a walking pattern, that I see often, that isn't taught (here at least) and I think it looks awful when I see it done. the stepping back with both feet is taught as intermediate/step footwork in australia as it allows more ability to change direction and motion quickly and smoothly. Once again these footwork can be dressed up any number of different ways

as the beginner move stuff well the more I type the more confused i feel I know what I mean and it works when we teach it students enjoy themselves and are whirling around by the end of their first night but think it one of those things better compared in the real world *shrug*

El Salsero Gringo
13th-April-2005, 11:00 AM
The second variation feels far better to me because of the HOLD. I'd still need to fit in 2 steps/weight transfers, etc, into one beat here: "5. Push off of the right foot, pivoting backwards on the left" from the first variation, you see, in order that my foot went back on beat 5.I can't argue if you say you find it awkward, but in its defence I think it looks great, and weight-shift-and-turn-effectively-on-the-same-beat *is* common in dance. I've learnt it in Cha-Cha and Rumba at least, in a spot-turn, and that is one of the first figures a novice learns. (Yes, a spot turn is turning with the free leg going forward, rather than back, but the rhythm is the same.)

Are you still claiming that it's objectively better to do the first move back on the right?

El Salsero Gringo
13th-April-2005, 11:07 AM
the stepping back with both feet is taught as intermediate/step footwork in australia as it allows more ability to change direction and motion quickly and smoothly. Once again these footwork can be dressed up any number of different waysThis is very interesting, that something I thought of as a bad habit is taught elsewhere as higher-level technique! It probably is more flexible, which is why I and others 'fall into it', but I'm not convinced about it from the point of view of style. The thing I enjoy about MJ here is that I'm not obliged to do that footwork if I don't want to, so if I can make something else look better (in my eyes) that's fine too.

Lou
13th-April-2005, 11:11 AM
If Martin's available tomorrow, and if he doesn't mind, I'd like to pop up & try to experiment with some of the variations with him & get back to you.


Are you still claiming that it's objectively better to do the first move back on the right?
Nope.

The only thing I'm claiming right now is that it's important to decide which foot a lady will step back on, as the subsequent footwork and timing is dependant upon it. :nice:

Yliander
13th-April-2005, 11:13 AM
This is very interesting, that something I thought of as a bad habit is taught elsewhere as higher-level technique! It probably is more flexible, which is why I and others 'fall into it', but I'm not convinced about it from the point of view of style. The thing I enjoy about MJ here is that I'm not obliged to do that footwork if I don't want to, so if I can make something else look better (in my eyes) that's fine too. All the footwork I have been taught in Ceroc in Australia has been taught as a platform to start from not the place to finish - always a case of learn the rules and break them :wink:

David Franklin
13th-April-2005, 11:16 AM
weight-shift-and-turn-effectively-on-the-same-beat *is* common in dance. I've learnt it in Cha-Cha and Rumba at least, in a spot-turn, and that is one of the first figures a novice learns. (Yes, a spot turn is turning with the free leg going forward, rather than back, but the rhythm is the same.)For me, at any rate, the direction of the free leg makes a big difference in how this feels. Walking forwards and turning with the free leg forwards is fine, as is walking backwards and turning with the free leg backwards - in these cases you have momentum working for you. The other two cases are definitely more awkward, so my vote's with Lou here...

Andy McGregor
14th-April-2005, 01:25 AM
Having spent THE day with Lou where she realised that ladies go back on the right in the first move, my vote is with her too.

And I'd just like to add that this talk about footwork is quite dull :whistle:

El Salsero Gringo
14th-April-2005, 01:28 AM
Having spent THE day with Lou where she realised that ladies go back on the right in the first move, my vote is with her too.Foxylady agrees with you both too. And her walking steps are quite beautifully executed, I should add.

And I'd just like to add that this talk about footwork is quite dull :whistle:It's amazing how quickly you can go off someone.

Lou
14th-April-2005, 06:53 AM
Having spent THE day with Lou where she realised that ladies go back on the right in the first move, my vote is with her too.
Oi! :na: I still think left foot back is perfectly valid too - just different. :) But that was one scary paradigm shift.

Sorry it's been dull. :whistle: I needed to work out whether I'd come around to Franck's position where it doesn't matter which foot a beginner steps back on whilst learning. And I'm still not convinced, mate, because, whilst we're now in agreement that the lady can step back on either foot to start, the subsequent footwork/weight transfer/timing is (IMO) sufficiently different in the next 4 beats, to get her back on her outside foot on count 3.

So, I'm happy. I still disagree with Franck. All is well in the universe.... :clap:

David Bailey
14th-April-2005, 09:17 AM
And I'd just like to add that this talk about footwork is quite dull :whistle:
:yeah:
But, you know, it is in a thread called "Footwork"...

Franck
14th-April-2005, 10:29 AM
I needed to work out whether I'd come around to Franck's position where it doesn't matter which foot a beginner steps back on whilst learning. And I'm still not convinced, mate, because, whilst we're now in agreement that the lady can step back on either foot to start, the subsequent footwork/weight transfer/timing is (IMO) sufficiently different in the next 4 beats, to get her back on her outside foot on count 3.

So, I'm happy. I still disagree with Franck. All is well in the universe.... :clap:Oh good :D So we still disagree?

I would agree that which foot you step back on will have an impact on the way you dance the rest of the moves, I just believe it would be a mistake to force everyone into one set footwork.
You might find stepping back on the right foot easier, but there are many women / follower who would find the opposite.
Some people are naturals at weight transfer but find rotation difficult, others might take several walking steps on half beats, etc... No two Beginners are the same, and I would rather reassure any Beginner that as long as they get to the right position on each Ceroc count, then it makes no difference to me.
As a leader, the aim is to become aware / feel your partner's momentum and weight distribution, a very good lead, will be able to tell and adapt to whatever foot his partner steps back on.

Finally, there is a lot taught at Ceroc classes that has recently been improved. We now teach weight transfer, basic technique for stepping back, pivoting, even step slides, turns, spins and other footwork / techniques, in the Ceroc Essentials warm-up at the beginning of the Beginners' class.

Lou
14th-April-2005, 10:40 AM
Oh good :D So we still disagree?
I think we're making strong progress to meeting in the middle. :hug: However, I refuse to be budged further at this moment in time. :na:

Do all CerocTM classes do the Essentials stuff?

Franck
14th-April-2005, 11:01 AM
Do all CerocTM classes do the Essentials stuff?Yes! (Well they should, but some 'old' teachers might still be entrenched in their ways...).

The content of the Essentials is however at the Teacher's discretion, and ideally should vary from night to night, depending on what would be most useful for the Beginners class taught that week. For example, if there was a spin in the Beginners' class, I would include the turn/spin exercise - if there was an armjive, I would include the side step footwork or cross over, etc...

As the Essentials have only been introduced in the last year (nationally) we are still improving the concept, and some teachers have come up with very useful exercises that we get to discover / share at Ceroc Teachers Updates.

It took me a while to warm to the concept, but I'm now a firm advocate.

Gadget
14th-April-2005, 05:15 PM
What I'm trying to say, Gadget, and not expressing myself well, is that the lady's choice of foot to place will effect the timing and the weight placement, so is absolutely relevant.OK, yes, it's relevant - but it's not important. You can still dance, place the foot with the beat, turn, etceteras.
The only point it becomes "important" is if the lead trys to 'wrong-foot' you. (or does so without trying :whistle: )
Especially on spins and turns - you need to have the weight on the correct foot for the direction of turn*: If you take small steps and always bring the feet together before turning, then which foot was moved to get to that point does not matter. It only matters if you use that step as momentum to start the turn.

{*turning to the right - pivot on the right foot, and left on the left. Turning on the other foot can be done, but it's done by taking the other foot behind it; ie turning to the right moves the right foot behind the left and visa versa.}

Being able to turn on either foot from either direction: is this footwork technique?

MartinHarper
14th-April-2005, 06:18 PM
Being able to turn on either foot from either direction: is this footwork technique?

I've seen it taught in Lindy footwork (for the "flyby" Charleston variation), to achieve a particular effect. I can't think of any MJ moves that would particularly benefit from it off the top of my head, but I'm sure there are many.

spindr
14th-April-2005, 06:27 PM
I've seen it taught in Lindy footwork (for the "flyby" Charleston variation), to achieve a particular effect. I can't think of any MJ moves that would particularly benefit from it off the top of my head, but I'm sure there are many.
Ummm, "First Move" -- when the lady "turns out" is on the "wrong" (left) foot for a clockwise rotation -- there are others :)

SpinDr.

Lou
15th-April-2005, 10:25 AM
OK, yes, it's relevant - but it's not important. You can still dance, place the foot with the beat, turn, etceteras.
Ahh... but the pattern changes. With Bristol footwork you're stepping on the MJ counts (with the occasional half count step). With the Walking Style, you pretty much mark every beat with a step.

Oh, and ESG - I tried all the footwork combinations last night, with the kind help of the lovely MartinHarper. We couldn't get Variation One to work at all! Sorry.

MartinHarper
15th-April-2005, 10:28 AM
I thought you liked variation one Lou? It certainly put a skip in your step(s)... ;-)

(I wonder if Lou and ESG could get it to work together?)

El Salsero Gringo
15th-April-2005, 10:44 AM
I thought you liked variation one Lou? It certainly put a skip in your step(s)... ;-)

(I wonder if Lou and ESG could get it to work together?)Happy to give it a go, if we're ever at the same venue.

Having spent most of both beginner's and intermediate classes dancing the followers part last night (thank you Mary) I learnt two things: my following is pants, and my First Moves feel equally good/bad stepping back on either foot. But because I can't control my feet well enough while following (yet) I wasn't sure which, if any, of the variations mentioned on this thread I was actually dancing.

Lou
15th-April-2005, 10:48 AM
I thought you liked variation one Lou? It certainly put a skip in your step(s)... ;-)

(I wonder if Lou and ESG could get it to work together?)
It'll have to wait as I'm on holiday! But, yup - anytime you fancy a dance ESG, just say the word.

Variation One. That transfer is just far too quick for me for the average song.

Steps....? Ah yes.... :D