PDA

View Full Version : WCS- very nice video clip



Teamgoldie
16th-April-2005, 05:18 AM
Just found very nice video clips of Tatiana Mollman and Jordan Frisbee. Someone, somewhere on the forum was looking for these but I can't find the right tread- Sorry! Really can't wait to see them in action at Southport. :D
http://www.helenanderic.com/video_wcs.html

bigdjiver
16th-April-2005, 08:44 AM
If they had performed that at the Ceroc Champs, would they have been disqualified?

Is WCS MJ with added rrules and restricitons?

ECS? Lindy? R&R? etc?

If MJ'ers are free to incorporate bits from WCS, ECS and Lindy etc why can't they incorporate the whole thing and still call it MJ?

To me Modern Jive is an all encompassing general term for jive as it is performed today. That is one reason I nominated Robert Austin for the MJ Hall of Fame, because all styles were welcome at the Le Jive Championships. That seemed to be his vision, and it is mine.

Teamgoldie
16th-April-2005, 03:36 PM
I think there are only a limited number of movements that you can do in a partnered dance. So Salsa is MJ with different timing through turns and a Latin origin, and WCS is very similar as well. MJ is unique in that it is easy to learn at the beginning and relatively new dancers can enjoy a social dance very soon after starting. I think it is important to protect this identity so dancers can choose the style that suits them best. In my opinion the Ceroc champs would have disqualified them, as it is financially important to them to protect MJ's identity.

Lindsay
16th-April-2005, 07:16 PM
So Salsa is MJ with different timing through turns and a Latin origin, and WCS is very similar as well

Think you'll find Ceroc came after the others! And MJ moves ar on the whole adapted from other dance styles.

ChrisA
16th-April-2005, 08:37 PM
If they had performed that at the Ceroc Champs, would they have been disqualified?

From the Ceroc champs website (http://www.cerocchamps.com/categories.htm#advanced) :

"The dance must be recognisable as a modern jive like Ceroc. (Lindy Hop, Jitterbug, West Coast Swing, East Coast Swing, 50s style Rock 'n' Roll, Ballroom Jive etc are not modern jives and therefore are not permitted.)"

The same text may be found in the Intermediates and Open category rules.

Sheepman
18th-April-2005, 01:48 PM
Has anyone else had a look at the SwingDiego 2005 clip of Ben Morris and Melina Ramirez? I'd say there is some hot competition for J&T there!

Greg

David Franklin
18th-April-2005, 02:37 PM
Has anyone else had a look at the SwingDiego 2005 clip of Ben Morris and Melina Ramirez? I'd say there is some hot competition for J&T there!Don't know how much it's the quality of the clip, but to me, they don't quite have the performance appeal that J&T do. Plus the routine is such a similar style to J&T that it feels a bit 'copycat'. I actually preferred their routine from 2004 (where amongst other things, Ben shows the rest of us what 'spinning' is all about! :worthy: ).

drathzel
18th-April-2005, 04:30 PM
I have to say what i have seen and been tought if wcs, it is fab and sexy! I watched the clips of Jordan and Tatiana and Jordon and Sara! i love the elegance of the style especially when you see the masters perform it properly! I'm glad we have got the option to learn both here in Glasgow and in Edinburgh!

Lynn
19th-April-2005, 03:31 PM
Just found very nice video clips of Tatiana Mollman and Jordan Frisbee. Someone, somewhere on the forum was looking for these but I can't find the right tread- Sorry! Really can't wait to see them in action at Southport. :D
http://www.helenanderic.com/video_wcs.html And apparently they are also going to be in Ireland in October! :clap:

bigdjiver
19th-April-2005, 10:33 PM
One of the reasons I come to this forum is to learn and to refine my opinions.

To my unsophisticated eye much of the WCS action above the waist in these clips looks like MJ. Is there any characteristic, above the waist, that makes all of these clips identifiable as WCS?

Otherwise do I take it if I walked through the routines most would pass as MJ?

In the past fortnight "Syncopated Butterfly Kicks" and a "Cha-Cha" move have been taught in Ceroc Intermediate classes I attend, and triple step, chasse rock step and back step have all been mentioned. Presumably the use of this footwork is usable outside of the particular moves in which they were taught, and it would still be regarded as MJ.

So, am I right that I could walk through most of those routines, with the occasional bit of flash footwork, and still have it regarded as MJ?

:devil: What I would consider terribly sad if the amount of such footwork that was put in to make the routine eligible for disqualification as WCS was about the amount that made the routine look too good to be MJ. :devil:

David Franklin
20th-April-2005, 08:43 AM
One of the reasons I come to this forum is to learn and to refine my opinions.

To my unsophisticated eye much of the WCS action above the waist in these clips looks like MJ. Is there any characteristic, above the waist, that makes all of these clips identifiable as WCS?Depends what you mean - from your previous postings on similar topics I am honestly pressed to think of anything danced to 4/4 music that you wouldn't consider incorporatable into MJ.

But in terms of telling "does this clip look like WCS or like MJ?" - even if you only look above the waist, I think it's actually quite easy. I'd say the most obvious difference is that WCS moves use every beat, rather than MJ which only uses every other beat. At first glance, the clip might look like MJ, but listen to the beat of the music at the same time, and it's very different to what MJ would look like to the same music. The other two things I notice are more subtle, and there's some overlap between the styles, but WCS doesn't have the same 'bouncy' in-out rock-step in-between moves (though some MJ couples don't either), and it's more slotted than almost any MJ couple would dance.


So, am I right that I could walk through most of those routines, with the occasional bit of flash footwork, and still have it regarded as MJ?There's a bit of overlap between the styles - the clips with Ben Morris mentioned here are towards the MJ end of the spectrum. If you look at say Brent and Kellese's US Open routine in 2003, it's much more blues than MJ - moreover, 90% of that routine is in the footwork - take that out and you'd be left with almost nothing.


:devil: What I would consider terribly sad if the amount of such footwork that was put in to make the routine eligible for disqualification as WCS was about the amount that made the routine look too good to be MJ. :devil:And if MJ had half the footwork in it that WCS does, I expect we'd have some MJ couples still in SDF... :devil:

bigdjiver
20th-April-2005, 10:48 AM
Depends what you mean - from your previous postings on similar topics I am honestly pressed to think of anything danced to 4/4 music that you wouldn't consider incorporatable into MJ. Please pay attention at the back. I have pointed out that if MJ is danceable to a count, that there is no reason for any particular interval between counts, so it follows that MJ moves are danceable even to random (within limits) beats.

I do have limits. For example I would hope that the Lindy "bum-out" would usually cost points in MJ.


But in terms of telling "does this clip look like WCS or like MJ?" - even if you only look above the waist, I think it's actually quite easy. I'd say the most obvious difference is that WCS moves use every beat, rather than MJ which only uses every other beat. The MJ moves may be taught that way, but, to me, it looks like most dancers can do something with every beat. Perhaps that is where I am going wrong ... :sad:


At first glance, the clip might look like MJ, but listen to the beat of the music at the same time, and it's very different to what MJ would look like to the same music. The other two things I notice are more subtle, and there's some overlap between the styles, but WCS doesn't have the same 'bouncy' in-out rock-step in-between moves (though some MJ couples don't either), and it's more slotted than almost any MJ couple would dance. I am having great pleasure researching this to try and improve my perception. However I am still seeing the WCS dancers doing in-out rock steps where it suits. I am still looking for examples done to the sme music.


There's a bit of overlap between the styles - ... That is the second time that you have used that phrase, and my point - where is the exact boundary? Even the WCS community has some dispute over what is and what is not WCS, and the consensus has changed with time.

I am moving towards dance styles = mountains
WCS = Everest?
MJ = Himalayas?
:devil: Ceroc classes = Foothills? :devil:


...the clips with Ben Morris mentioned here are towards the MJ end of the spectrum. If you look at say Brent and Kellese's US Open routine in 2003, it's much more blues than MJ - moreover, 90% of that routine is in the footwork - take that out and you'd be left with almost nothing.Interesting - :devil: so is "blues" part of WCS? Can "blues" be part of MJ? Can MJ be a generic term? Can we inject more triple steps and slotted dancing into MJ and still call it MJ? :devil:



And if MJ had half the footwork in it that WCS does, I expect we'd have some MJ couples still in SDF... :devil:You are talking to someone still considering therapy after a lesson incorporating Syncopated Butterfly kicks and a Cha-Cha move.

Thanks for the detailed reply :cheers:

David Franklin
20th-April-2005, 11:00 AM
Just thought of something else vaguely SDF related. The BBC Website (www.bbc.co.uk/strictlydancefever/news/2005/04/19/18705.shtml) has a clip of the hustle. To me, that clip is virtually indistinguishable from MJ.

[From my very limited knowledge of hustle, that clip isn't exactly 'classic' hustle - it's too strongly phrased (one way I recognize hustle music is "if I can't tell which beat is the '1', it might be hustle"!). I think the phrasing of the music in the BBC clip makes the dancing a little less smooth and continuous than a hustle should be. But to be honest, most hustle looks pretty like MJ to me].

(Awaits long explanation from DavidB which shows I don't know nearly enough about hustle to be making such comments!).

bigdjiver
20th-April-2005, 11:07 AM
and the repmeister stopped me giving David Franklin some small reward for his valued efforts to educate me.

David Franklin
20th-April-2005, 11:31 AM
Please pay attention at the back. I have pointed out that if MJ is danceable to a count, that there is no reason for any particular interval between counts, so it follows that MJ moves are danceable even to random (within limits) beats.

I do have limits. For example I would hope that the Lindy "bum-out" would usually cost points in MJ.I do pay attention - the problem I have is what you would accept in MJ is so all-encompassing that I don't know what the limits are For example, I have no idea why you say the Lindy "bum-out" would cost points in MJ. Seems perfectly acceptible styling to me (it was even taught that way several years ago if I recall correctly).


The MJ moves may be taught that way, but, to me, it looks like most dancers can do something with every beat. Perhaps that is where I am going wrong ... :sad:Just because it's possible to do something doesn't mean it will be done. As I said before (facetiously) - why not have a dance with absolutely no rules, or even teaching. Just put people in a room and say "go on, dance!". There is nothing to stop the people immediately dancing a routine that would put Clayton and Janine to shame - they are at liberty to do absolutely anything C/J can do. But it's not going to happen. In the same way, 99.9% of MJ dancers dance exactly as taught - one action every two beats (other than stepping every beat - if you're lucky!).

Maybe this is a better way of putting things. I don't see any significant reason (other than dogma) why someone dancing WCS should be disqualified from a MJ competition for not dancing MJ. But the fact remains that if you look at MJ as it is practiced, no-one actually dances that way. MJ doesn't give people the tools (and teaching etc.) to dance like the top WCS dancers.


I am having great pleasure researching this to try and improve my perception. However I am still seeing the WCS dancers doing in-out rock steps where it suits. I am still looking for examples done to the sme music.That's why I said it's subtle. Over an entire dance, I find there's a lot more "feel" of a bounced in-out in MJ than in WCS. That doesn't mean it never happens in WCS, or it always happens in MJ.


That is the second time that you have used that phrase, and my point - where is the exact boundary?I don't think there is a boundary in the sense you seem to want. Both are fairly accepting styles - given the way WCS is judged I think you'd be marked down dancing MJ due to a lack of WCS basics, but a lot of comps have a catch-all 'swing' category where you might get away with it. But my point would be the question isn't what you can dance in either style, but what people actually do dance. Defining a dance by the outermost boundaries when 99.9% of the people don't go anywhere near them doesn't seem very helpful.


Interesting - :devil: so is "blues" part of WCS? Can "blues" be part of MJ? Can MJ be a generic term? Can we inject more triple steps and slotted dancing into MJ and still call it MJ? :devil: As the famous riddle goes:

Q: How many legs does a dog have, if you call the tail a leg?
A: 4. Calling the tail a leg doesn't make it one.

But to answer your question - if everyone (or even a reasonable percentage) starts dancing slotted and with triple steps, I have no problem saying that's part of MJ. But that is a long long way from where we are now.

Maybe I'm misrepresenting your position, but I sometimes get the impression that if, say, Robert and Deborah did a cabaret for Blackpool (and won!), yout reaction would be "Oh good. See, MJ really can do anything WCS can." Whereas mine would be "OK - how do we start learning how to do that in MJ?". Because at the minute, it might all be possible in MJ, but no-one can do it. :tears:

DavidB
20th-April-2005, 12:05 PM
Just thought of something else vaguely SDF related. The BBC Website (www.bbc.co.uk/strictlydancefever/news/2005/04/19/18705.shtml) has a clip of the hustle. To me, that clip is virtually indistinguishable from MJ.

[From my very limited knowledge of hustle, that clip isn't exactly 'classic' hustle - it's too strongly phrased (one way I recognize hustle music is "if I can't tell which beat is the '1', it might be hustle"!). I think the phrasing of the music in the BBC clip makes the dancing a little less smooth and continuous than a hustle should be. But to be honest, most hustle looks pretty like MJ to me].I can't see that clip properly at work. It gets reduced to one frame a second. I could hear the description though. I don't know where they got the connection between Hustle and Swing, because Hustle is directly descended from Salsa.

It is going to be interesting to see who teaches it, and what they teach. I don't watch any of the BBC3 programs - do they show the dancers actually learning the dance?

David Franklin
20th-April-2005, 12:17 PM
Almost playing devil's advocate with myself here, as I feel I've fallen into the "polarized opinions" trap that's befallen the forum recently.

Contrary to what you might think, MJ is my "first love", and I can't see me switching whole-heartedly to WCS. I think it is easier to get started in MJ, and from what I've seen in the states, I think most WCS teachers would be thrilled to get the kind of numbers MJ venues get.

WCS has evolved a lot over the last 20 years, and I think MJ is doing the same. I think if we are going to get to the level of the top US dancers, it is more likely to come from an evolving MJ scene than from a wholesale move to WCS, though it's always easier to copy and adapt than start from scratch, so I see WCS being a major influence.

I don't believe it's possible for either dance to be truely successful across the Atlantic. In other words, WCS isn't going to overtake MJ here, and MJ isn't going to be a major force in the US. Just too much established mind-share.

Although I see a lot of parallels between MJ and WCS evolution, one thing that does worry me is the different attitudes towards 'the pursuit of excellence', and how that affects people's learning. Wanting to "be the best" is far more acceptible in the US; I wouldn't say cries of "elitism" are unknown, but it's not like it is here. Unfortunately, I think the attitudes here are counterproductive - not just for the best dancers, but for most everyone else as well.

As DavidB said, competitive MJ is almost becoming a different dance form, bearing increasingly little resemblence to what people get taught at a typical venue. Rather than all evolving together, we're ending up with a split and a real, genuine elite, who go to specialist classes and workshops and learn "secrets" that don't get disseminated. I'm not sure how this will pan out - I don't know how well Ceroc is doing with teaching things like frame and connection these days - and without those basics, any advanced ideas are very hard indeed.

David Franklin
20th-April-2005, 12:32 PM
I can't see that clip properly at work. It gets reduced to one frame a second.RealPlayer is great, isn't it? :devil: I'm particularly glad it always streams the data, rather than allowing me to download the whole clip and watch it at a sensible frame rate.
It is going to be interesting to see who teaches it, and what they teach. I don't watch any of the BBC3 programs - do they show the dancers actually learning the dance?I don't have BBC3 either, but the BBC website now has a clip showing 3 of the couples learning the tango, so I guess we'll get one for hustle too.

Gadget
20th-April-2005, 02:15 PM
(mixed from two posts...)

~ I am honestly pressed to think of anything danced to 4/4 music that you wouldn't consider incorporatable into MJ. true. Nor can I. Why? Should there be a limit to what can be danced in MJ?


...almost any MJ couple would dance...
...99.9% of MJ dancers dance exactly as taught...
... if everyone (or even a reasonable percentage) starts dancing slotted and with triple steps, I have no problem saying that's part of MJ....
...Defining a dance by the outermost boundaries when 99.9% of the people don't go anywhere near them doesn't seem very helpful...
Hmmm... the majority of MJ dancers are beginners, novice intermediates or intermediates: The better the dancer, the fewer of them there are. Just because that top few ignore the boundaries that people try to use to define MJ does not mean that you say "the majority do this so this must be the dance."

[/quote]And if MJ had half the footwork in it that WCS does, I expect we'd have some MJ couples still in SDF... :devil:[/QUOTE]If the judges were not so blinkered in thinking that footwork = good dancing, then we'd have some MJ couples in SDF... :devil:


...and it's {WCS} more slotted than almost any MJ couple would dance.... In the same way, 99.9% of MJ dancers dance exactly as taught...contradiction. Taught in slots, danced amorphous. Taught on every other beat, danced on whatever beat.

[/quote]MJ doesn't give people the tools (and teaching etc.) to dance like the top WCS dancers.[/quote]Correct: It gives them tools that {in theory} should enable people to dance better than WCS dancers. No boundaries saying that "this is" and "this is not".

I've said it before, and I'll say it again; life moves pretty fast... {sorry, wrong quote...:wink:} MJ is simply dancing.
It's defined more by what it isn't than what it is. Poor dancing of any form could be mistaken for poor MJ. Top level dancers in any form are restricted by the boundaries of their dance and could not express the music as well without breaking from the rigidity of the dance. Top level MJ should be able to take all these bits outside all the other dance forms and entwine them into an expression of the music.

To me, MJ is about enjoyment, musicality and dancing. In that order. Judging MJ against almost any other style will compare dancing before musicality - Asthetically, I don't really care if the splits don't meet the floor; as long as it was timed with, and suited, the music. You could execute a technically perfect cha-cha-cha with double synchronous turns; but if it didn't match the music or the timing, I would not think that much of it.

David Bailey
20th-April-2005, 03:15 PM
RealPlayer is great, isn't it? :devil: I'm particularly glad it always streams the data, rather than allowing me to download the whole clip and watch it at a sensible frame rate.
Oh, yes. And I also love the way they gently coax and subtly suggest you should buy an upgrade :mad:

Why aren't these clips Mpegs, like every other blasted movie on the web? I really wanted to download Claire and James' demo, and I hit the 1 frame/second problem. Grrrr...

David Franklin
20th-April-2005, 03:18 PM
(mixed from two posts...)
true. Nor can I. Why? Should there be a limit to what can be danced in MJ?Almost anything is possible in MJ, but if you want to be able to have a meaningful conversation, (something I am increasingly despairing of), then you need to recognize a difference between what is possible and what is actually happening. Otherwise, fine, if it makes you happy, I'll accept MJ encompasses the whole of WCS. Where does that get us? Does it change the fact that Robert/Deborah, Jordan/Tat, Ben/Melissa, Kyle/Sarah, Benji/Heidi, David/Susan (could go on for another 20 couples, but what's the point?) etc. are all light-years ahead of anyone in the UK?

If the judges were not so blinkered in thinking that footwork = good dancing, then we'd have some MJ couples in SDF... :devil:With all respect to the couples concerned, I think the truth is SDF showed how far MJ has to go as a performance dance. I've seen an online public poll for "who should have gone through" (London heat), and the sad truth is only 2% voted for Viktor and Carol.

contradiction. Taught in slots, danced amorphous. Taught on every other beat, danced on whatever beat.As DavidB pointed out, the "slotted nature" of MJ is not taught. And by WCS standards, even the class isn't slotted (woman doesn't travel on a tramline). As for the beat, I can't be bothered going over it, but I find it's a fairly fundamental difference. It's not just a matter of dancing twice as fast - it's often doing more subtle things but doing them more often.


MJ doesn't give people the tools (and teaching etc.) to dance like the top WCS dancers.
Correct: It gives them tools that {in theory} should enable people to dance better than WCS dancers. No boundaries saying that "this is" and "this is not".I want to live in Theory. Everything works in Theory. In the real world, however, the proof is in the pudding.


In that order. Judging MJ against almost any other style will compare dancing before musicality - Asthetically, I don't really care if the splits don't meet the floor; as long as it was timed with, and suited, the music. You could execute a technically perfect cha-cha-cha with double synchronous turns; but if it didn't match the music or the timing, I would not think that much of it.Unfortunately for that argument, the top WCS dancers are way ahead of our top dancers in both musicality and technique .

Caveat: our very best dancers have training in other styles, and are much closer to the likes of Robert/Deborah. Unfortunately, the fact that they all look outside of MJ to improve their technique doesn't strike me as a +ve argument for MJ, though I'm sure some will try to argue that way.

bigdjiver
20th-April-2005, 04:53 PM
... Caveat: our very best dancers have training in other styles, and are much closer to the likes of Robert/Deborah. Unfortunately, the fact that they all look outside of MJ to improve their technique doesn't strike me as a +ve argument for MJ, though I'm sure some will try to argue that way.This is the glory of a circular argument, we can try to have it very which way. If the other styles are all part of the MJ universe, then we are not going outside to improve, but instead seeking the handed down higher wisdom of the old masters. We have built a floor beneath their temples and a road to join them.

I have seen WCS dancers advocating some easier way into the dance. If we regard MJ as the seeking highest common factor in the older, more rigid forms, the we are all part of one big happy family.

Another comparison, there are many different branches of Mathematics, but we recognise Mathematics as the common term. The times tables in primary school may be worlds apart from string theory, but there is a continuum between them.

(How did I drag this debate into a beginner thread? :confused: If you want to get lost, I know a short cut ...)

David Franklin
20th-April-2005, 05:18 PM
If the other styles are all part of the MJ universe, then we are not going outside to improve, but instead seeking the handed down higher wisdom of the old masters. We have built a floor beneath their temples and a road to join them.Yup. You're absolutely right. Ballet, African dance, Shaolin Kung Fu, Athletics - all part of the MJ universe. We don't just have the best dancers, we have the best martial artists, the fastest runners, the top gymnasts. And the best bit is, they don't even have to have heard of MJ, and we'll take the credit anyhow. Come to think of it, why are we doing ourselves down about SDF? All nine couples are doing MJ - they just don't know it yet!

Being serious - that MJ is a mongrel dance that takes ideas from elsewhere is undoubtably one of its strengths. But at the end of the day, you've got to be able to make those ideas work inside MJ, or what's the point? I mean, if someone tries to take ideas from WCS, and ends up being indistingushable from a WCS dancer, and unable to make those changes work with 99.99% of MJ dancers - do you really think it makes sense to call what they dance MJ?

P.S. Is everyone else bored by this thread? Doesn't feel it's going anywhere... :tears:

Zebra Woman
20th-April-2005, 06:13 PM
I've been reading with interest :innocent: . Agree with you David :hug:




Almost anything is possible in MJ, but if you want to be able to have a meaningful conversation, (something I am increasingly despairing of), then you need to recognize a difference between what is possible and what is actually happening. Otherwise, fine, if it makes you happy, I'll accept MJ encompasses the whole of WCS. Where does that get us? Does it change the fact that Robert/Deborah, Jordan/Tat, Ben/Melissa, Kyle/Sarah, Benji/Heidi, David/Susan (could go on for another 20 couples, but what's the point?) etc. are all light-years ahead of anyone in the UK?

/snip......

MJ doesn't give people the tools (and teaching etc.) to dance like the top WCS dancers.

/snip..............
In that order. Judging MJ against almost any other style will compare dancing before musicality - Asthetically, I don't really care if the splits don't meet the floor; as long as it was timed with, and suited, the music. You could execute a technically perfect cha-cha-cha with double synchronous turns; but if it didn't match the music or the timing, I would not think that much of it.
Unfortunately for that argument, the top WCS dancers are way ahead of our top dancers in both musicality and technique .
Caveat: our very best dancers have training in other styles, and are much closer to the likes of Robert/Deborah. Unfortunately, the fact that they all look outside of MJ to improve their technique doesn't strike me as a +ve argument for MJ, though I'm sure some will try to argue that way.


:clap: I agree with all of that.

I don't know much about WCS as I'm only a beginner. All I can say is it that in WCS the dancers seems to become an instrument in the music, the lead instrument even. The way that the 6 beat/8 beat patterns enable the dancers feet and bodies syncopate and accent each and and every note of the music is way beyond anything I have ever seen in MJ . I have seen WCS clips where every single note seems to have been recognised and celebrated by the dancers. I have never seen a MJ clip that thrills me in quite the same way. I think it's partly 'cos in the US they do strive so hard for excellence in their dancing, but also WCS seems to have a greater potential for bringing the music to life because of the footwork and body isolations that come with it.


I even feel that thrill myself when I attempt WCS with someone who is feeling the music (Bobgadget for one) . I can even 'follow in a dreamlike state' for a few seconds before I have to return to my beginnerish habit of chanting 1,2, 3&4 .

That said I will always love MJ because it's so inclusive and can has so many elements of so many other dances brought into it. What a delight :drool:

ZW :flower:

David Bailey
20th-April-2005, 07:40 PM
That said I will always love MJ because it's so inclusive and can has so many elements of so many other dances brought into it. What a delight
:yeah:
Honestly, no-one's going to convince me that MJ is the elite of dances. I think the Croninism of "McDonalds of Dance" is a bit harsh (maybe we've got up to Pizza Express level now :) ), but it may never be an exhibition-style dance. The difference between freestyle dancing and MJ in an exhibition is sometimes tricky to pin down, I imagine.

OK, the "it can absorb everything" argument is true, but to my mind, that just means that MJ really doesn't have it's own style in the first place.

But, you know, so what? I've had more fun in MJ, met nicer people, and had a better time, than in any other dance scene. That's the only important thing; if you're not enjoying yourself, who cares if it's a "better" dance.

bigdjiver
20th-April-2005, 08:56 PM
I want to see the best MJ dancers dance at the level we see in those clips. I would hate to imagine that they could not because the rules of MJ forbade it.

MJ for most of us has been going less time than it takes child to get from primary school to University entrance. I think now is the time for our leaders to start deciding what a degree and a Masters degree in MJ would look like, and start forming in their minds the foundation stone for the University of MJ. Ceroc and MJ are fine as they are, and I do not wat to lose any of those achievements, but neither do I want to accept that, if you really want to dance, you have to do something else.

I too am done with this thread, and go away to learn more and hope for inspiration. Thanks to all.

Gadget
21st-April-2005, 12:47 AM
Almost anything is possible in MJ, but if you want to be able to have a meaningful conversation, (something I am increasingly despairing of), then you need to recognize a difference between what is possible and what is actually happening.Fine - you stay grounded in the reality of here and now. I will set some goals, dream some dreams, and work on moving myself as close to the impossible as I can. Should I just accept the level of dancer I am just now? Accept that I can't do some things I want to? Acknowledge the fact that I lead poorly and just live with it?
Should we just look at what the majority of folk are doing just now and fence it off saying "this is Modern Jive". Full stop.?

What is possible is that I will become the best MJ dancer on the planet, but the chances of everyone else being abducted by aliens are fairly slim. The reality is that I am a good dancer and I may be able to reach the heady heights of great but it's unlikely I will be amazing!...
What is possible, and what is actually happening? I recognise that you see what may be possible, but are unwilling to even try to make it happen.


Unfortunately for that argument, the top WCS dancers are way ahead of our top dancers in both musicality and technique .
Caveat: our very best dancers have training in other styles, and are much closer to the likes of Robert/Deborah. Unfortunately, the fact that they all look outside of MJ to improve their technique doesn't strike me as a +ve argument for MJ, though I'm sure some will try to argue that way.
I don't understand the relevance - all this says to me is that MJ can learn from these people how to better find areas in the music to listen to and express. The "Technique" should be about control & mastery of your own body and communication between partners. Can't a MJ dancer do that?

The "style" is young: There are no "Ancient Masters" to learn from. There is no "Mystic Tome" of secrets {excluding the bible of course :rolleyes:} Who else are we going to learn from? Why create new components when the existing ones in other styles have been refined and honed over the years.


Yup. You're absolutely right. Ballet, African dance, Shaolin Kung Fu, Athletics - all part of the MJ universe. We don't just have the best dancers, we have the best martial artists, the fastest runners, the top gymnasts. And the best bit is, they don't even have to have heard of MJ, and we'll take the credit anyhow. Come to think of it, why are we doing ourselves down about SDF? All nine couples are doing MJ - they just don't know it yet! Yes, and no. I know that this was an attempt at sarcasm, but there is an element of truth in it; everyone from these disciplines could bring some of the fundamentals from that sphere into MJ. Just because they have learned them out with modern jive does not mean that they are not/ can not be applied to it.
You're absolutely right: Just because you learn spotting and how to spin/turn in Ballet, then by using this skill you are doing ballet and you don't even know it! wow! Hey, I'm a KungFu master cos I can strike a pose and do that "come on" hand beacon! :D - see I can do sarcasm too :wink:


Being serious - that MJ is a mongrel dance that takes ideas from elsewhere is undoubtedly one of its strengths. But at the end of the day, you've got to be able to make those ideas work inside MJ, or what's the point??? and they don't? Is there a concept or idea in any other dance form that is unable to be assimilated?
The common thread is that every form of dance is trying to interpret the music and transform it into movement shared between two partners. Most dance styles are tied to a musical style: And what defines that music? The rhythm and perhaps an instrument or a way of playing it. So the dance reflects that rhythm and movements try to follow that instrument.

Modern Jive gives the tools to pick out the rhythm of the music and follow whatever path the music takes.


I mean, if someone tries to take ideas from WCS, and ends up being indistinguishable from a WCS dancer, and unable to make those changes work with 99.99% of MJ dancers - do you really think it makes sense to call what they dance MJ?Eh? To take all the ideas from WCS so that it is indistinguishable from WCS means that it is WCS - what people mean about taking an idea is that you take one thing and leave the rest; not take the rest and leave one thing! :rolleyes: If you take the concept of doing everything to a 6 or 8 beat count into MJ, you are taking a core concept to what defines WCS; WCS without it is MJ with some synchronised choreography. {am I wrong? <-genuine}


Honestly, no-one's going to convince me that MJ is the elite of dances.Define "elite". Then see what of those definitions can't be applied to MJ. Just now, it may not seem to be there- but can't you smell the potential?

David Bailey
21st-April-2005, 07:46 AM
The "style" is young: There are no "Ancient Masters" to learn from. There is no "Mystic Tome" of secrets {excluding the bible of course :rolleyes:} Who else are we going to learn from? Why create new components when the existing ones in other styles have been refined and honed over the years.
Mmm, not that young - 25 years at least, and you could argue that other dance forms such as lambada and salsa have been around (in a sense) for comparable amounts of time.



Define "elite". Then see what of those definitions can't be applied to MJ. Just now, it may not seem to be there- but can't you smell the potential?
Errr, no :sad:
The problem is that the dance is inherently structured to be easy to learn - the bar is deliberately set low to encourage beginners, primarily for business reasons (i.e. increasing retention numbers), and the origins of something like Ceroc are business-oriented rather than dance-oriented.

Nothing wrong with that, of course, but it means that there are few inherent style, rules, footwork (of course!), posture, discipline and other areas which are taught routinely with most other dances. The aims of Ceroc were to get lots of people in the doors - the aims of (say) Ballroom teaching were to get people to dance well.

Again, let me re-iterate that I love MJ - but I don't believe it's ever going to be an exhibition-style dance, it just has too many inherent "handicaps" for that to happen. "Exhibition MJ" is nearly a contradiction in terms, it's not designed for that purpose.

I realise one could make the same argument about something like salsa, and to an extent I'd agree, but salsa was not "designed", it just kind of happened, and is more based on dancing than on business. And salsa is evolving, the best salsa dancers now are pretty amazing...

ducasi
21st-April-2005, 08:24 AM
... but I don't believe it's ever going to be an exhibition-style dance, it just has too many inherent "handicaps" for that to happen. "Exhibition MJ" is nearly a contradiction in terms, it's not designed for that purpose. While I agree with your basic thesis – MJ is at heart about enjoying dancing rather than enjoying watching dancing – as you read in my "First-time Impressions" thread, it's still possible to be entertained, amazed and astounded by a couple just doing MJ.

Now if there had been another couple next to them doing WCS or whatever, who knows which one I'd be more entranced by. Maybe it depends on the quality of the dancer more than anything else. :nice:

Yliander
21st-April-2005, 08:37 AM
Again, let me re-iterate that I love MJ - but I don't believe it's ever going to be an exhibition-style dance, it just has too many inherent "handicaps" for that to happen. "Exhibition MJ" is nearly a contradiction in terms, it's not designed for that purpose.some of the cabaret/showcase performances literally take my breathe away - a great Australian example of this is Adrian & Louise from Melbourne :worthy: :worthy:


I realise one could make the same argument about something like salsa, and to an extent I'd agree, but salsa was not "designed", it just kind of happened, and is more based on dancing than on business. And salsa is evolving, the best salsa dancers now are pretty amazing... and the best MJ dancers aren't amazing :confused:

David Bailey
21st-April-2005, 09:13 AM
and the best MJ dancers aren't amazing :confused:
Of course they are, lots of :worthy: to them.

But honestly, I think the very best salsa dancers I've seen have the edge - IMO, of course, and no disrespect to the MJ-ers. Could be that I haven't seen enough really good MJ-ers in exhibition mode of course.

Having said that, there are a lot of really crap salsa dancers around, so I'm not sure whether the average MJ-er is better than the average salsa-er!


While I agree with your basic thesis – MJ is at heart about enjoying dancing rather than enjoying watching dancing – as you read in my "First-time Impressions" thread, it's still possible to be entertained, amazed and astounded by a couple just doing MJ.
I refer the honourable gentleman to my previous answer :)

David Franklin
21st-April-2005, 09:23 AM
What is possible, and what is actually happening? I recognise that you see what may be possible, but are unwilling to even try to make it happen.OK, we're talking about putting WCS into MJ; and I freely admit my main interest in WCS is in terms of moving stuff into MJ (I haven't found it easy at all,which is kind of the point). Surely this has to start with learning about WCS. So how many WCS classes have you been to? How many workshops? What have you read? . I've actually done classes as far away as the US (and I'm going to Atlanta in May for a WCS/Shag event); I've gone to events solely for the WCS teachers; I've even performed a showcase incorporating WCS (OK, so the WCS'ers had to cover their eyes when they watched it, but still!). Many have done a lot more than me. So, exactly who is it who's unwilling to try?


Modern Jive gives the tools to pick out the rhythm of the music and follow whatever path the music takes.The whole problem with MJ is that it is lacking in tools. You keep trying to argue "no preconceptions, no rules" as a strength. But in dancing, the preconceptions and rules [b]are the tools. Even "dance on the beat" is a rule (and like all rules, can be broken for effect). But do you really think a dancer who doesn't know that rule is better than one who does?


Eh? To take all the ideas from WCS so that it is indistinguishable from WCS means that it is WCS - what people mean about taking an idea is that you take one thing and leave the rest; not take the rest and leave one thing! :rolleyes:That's exactly my point. You can do that for some of the things in WCS without too much trouble - e.g. slotting. But the different rhythm/count, the connection and frame seem a lot more fundamental. The fact that the basic count is to every beat in WCS is a very difficult thing to bridge into MJ (or at least I'm finding it so).


If you take the concept of doing everything to a 6 or 8 beat count into MJ, you are taking a core concept to what defines WCS; WCS without it is MJ with some synchronised choreography. {am I wrong? <-genuine}Yes, you're wrong. The basic rhythm and the use of anchor steps rather than rock steps are both far more fundamental, and I'd say if you change those two things in MJ to match WCS, what you have would look more like WCS than MJ.

Let me try to explain why I'm still fighting this corner. In my experience, MJ has a strong tendancy to take the easy fix - to grab a couple of moves and a bit of styling from another dance and say "See! You can do WCS/Tango/Salsa in MJ as well. MJ lets you do all styles!". When in fact all you have is a token gesture, usually 'dumbed down' so the whole feel of the dance that was stolen from is lost anyhow. I'm trying to persuade people it might take a little more than that if we want to get "the good stuff" from WCS.

Let's try something. When someone posts a WCS clip, it can be guaranteed someone will pipe up "Is there anything there you couldn't do in MJ". OK, let me stipulate "yes, you could do all that in MJ". I've resisted doing that before, because my concern is the relevant parties will breath a collective sigh of relief: "Hurrah! MJ is still the greatest style ever. We rock!", rather than taking anything constructive from the clip in terms of what they can learn, what we could be changing in the way MJ is taught etc.

Prove me wrong. Please.

Gadget
21st-April-2005, 09:57 AM
Mmm, not that young - 25 years at least, and you could argue that other dance forms such as lambada and salsa have been around (in a sense) for comparable amounts of time.Really? Salsa is that young? Perhaps the other dance forms seem older because they have stagnated? :innocent:


The problem is that the dance is inherently structured to be easy to learn - the bar is deliberately set low to encourage beginners,That's a problem? You are taught to hold a pencil before you can write. you are taught how to form letters before constructing words. You are taught how to form words into sentences. Just because MJ teaches at the lowest level to begin with, does not automatically imply that the dance is a "lower level" of dance:
With the same core of basic 26 letters, you can write limericks and you can write poetry. You can describe beauty and wonders, convey meaning and emotion, tell stories and imagine things beyond reality. You don't have to be stuck writing "The cat sat on the mat."


... primarily for business reasons (i.e. increasing retention numbers), and the origins of something like Ceroc are business-oriented rather than dance-oriented. Yes, the Ceroc model was brilliantly set up to get people from nothing to a competent level of dancing... and now that dancers are regularly reaching that level, they are looking to cater to these people as well. (Workshops, teaching other styles, experimenting and developing with "advanced" dancing...)


...but it means that there are few inherent style, rules, footwork (of course!), posture, discipline and other areas which are taught routinely with most other dances.
And they are taught in Ceroc - just in a more focused environment where closer tuition and more one-on-one teaching can be given to help people. Workshops. Classes are to give people practice and develop their own styles; workshops are there to get outside advice on how to improve your own dancing.

The aims of Ceroc were to get lots of people in the doors - the aims of (say) Ballroom teaching were to get people to dance well.?? If I am reading you right, I think I disagree here: The aims of Ceroc are to get people to dance. The aims of ballroom are to get people to dance ballroom.
Marketing and a product people want are what gets people in the door - no matter what the product.


Again, let me re-iterate that I love MJ - but I don't believe it's ever going to be an exhibition-style dance, it just has too many inherent "handicaps" for that to happen. "Exhibition MJ" is nearly a contradiction in terms, it's not designed for that purpose.can you explain what you mean by "exhibition-style dance"? I also am unsure of what you mean by inherent "handicaps" :confused: bad habits that people have to improve on?


I realise one could make the same argument about something like salsa, and to an extent I'd agree, but salsa was not "designed", it just kind of happened, and is more based on dancing than on business.Salsa just kinda happened? :rolleyes:
Ceroc is a business based on dancing - not a dance based on business. (At least that's impression I get from the way Franck runs it :worthy: and is probably why we have such a good atmosphere and so many good dancers.)

And salsa is evolving, the best salsa dancers now are pretty amazing...probably. At dancing to a Salsa track. Pity it's such a narrow music taste. Can you give any examples of how is Salsa evolving?
The best MJ dancers are pretty amazing too - a pity that we don't teach people how to do that {<-sarcasm}

David Franklin
21st-April-2005, 10:09 AM
With the same core of basic 26 letters, you can write limericks and you can write poetry. You can describe beauty and wonders, convey meaning and emotion, tell stories and imagine things beyond reality. You don't have to be stuck writing "The cat sat on the mat."I was really tempted to follow up on this analogy, to ask "and would it be better if we didn't have rules for writing? If we didn't have grammatical guidelines, and if punctuation was optional? If we didn't restrict ourselves to the correct spelling of words?"

Then I noticed who I was replying to... :tears: (Though to be fair, Gadget, all that's improved dramatically - what's changed? Using a spellchecker?)

David Bailey
21st-April-2005, 11:01 AM
Really? Salsa is that young? Perhaps the other dance forms seem older because they have stagnated? :innocent:

Boy, I am so not going to rise to that one... Must resist...
Oh OK, then. I'm no expert, but I believe that what we now call salsa is something that evolved / was marketed in the mid-'70's in the States, although up until recently the very word "salsa" was a bit of a marketing thing. Salsa evolved from a variety of dances, including mambo, pachanga, cumbia, you name it - and of course it's similar to Cha-cha and Rumba in many ways.


That's a problem? You are taught to hold a pencil before you can write. you are taught how to form letters before constructing words. You are taught how to form words into sentences. Just because MJ teaches at the lowest level to begin with, does not automatically imply that the dance is a "lower level" of dance
Using the writing analogy, MJ teaches you how to write text messages - fun, useful, quick to learn. But it won't teach you how to write proper-like :)



?? If I am reading you right, I think I disagree here: The aims of Ceroc are to get people to dance. The aims of ballroom are to get people to dance ballroom.

Well, I'd say the aims of the Ceroc organisation are to run a successful business. Call me crazy, I don't care... :whistle:
Sure, the aims of Ceroc teachers and taxi dancers (especially the good ones!) are of course to help get people dancing, and to improve their dancing. But the teachers and the taxi dancers don't define the rules or organisational structure.


Salsa just kinda happened? :rolleyes:
Again, from what I know of the history, "Salsa" was a catchall term for "the way people are dancing in the streets in Latin America", and got started there. So, yes.


Can you give any examples of how is Salsa evolving?
Sure - the whole "cross-body lead" style of dancing has been created, developed, adopted and taught over the past 3-5 years. Similarly, "Dancing on 2" style has evolved as a distinct subcategory. Again, I'm no expert, and I don't even particularly like those styles, but they're there.


The best MJ dancers are pretty amazing too - a pity that we don't teach people how to do that {<-sarcasm}
Well, I'm not the only person to think the best salsa dancers are pretty good (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/showpost.php?p=26269&postcount=17)
(forum searching is a wonderful tool :) )

Sheepman
21st-April-2005, 01:39 PM
But, you know, so what? I've had more fun in MJ, met nicer people, and had a better time, than in any other dance scene. That's the only important thing; if you're not enjoying yourself, who cares if it's a "better" dance. This I would agree with, despite those times when I've felt intimidated, out of my depth, clumsy, slow to learn, etc.
Then I had a thought :really: could it be that MJ is easier to enjoy for all parties across the spectrum because it is easier to accommodate and get around when things are going wrong?
I was talking earlier to a friend who was saying that she finds it hard to enjoy wcs lessons, (as a fabulous dancer, the footwork comes easily to her :angry: ) so she just gets pulled around, or not lead at all, by men who are trying to cope with the move and the leading.
So how many other dance styles are there where it is as easy to gloss over the mistakes? In most styles you will have to almost stop, to pick up the rhythm to get back into your initial step. If someone is doing the wrong footwork then the whole dance feels wrong. So the experts will be less inclined to dance with beginners, leading to more of that elitism. (And no, I'm not saying it doesn't exist in MJ.)

Greg

Almost an Angel
21st-April-2005, 01:47 PM
It is going to be interesting to see who teaches it, and what they teach. I don't watch any of the BBC3 programs - do they show the dancers actually learning the dance?

Yes they do - but only very brief training updates where you see them practising, as for who is teaching them it seems to be Kevan & Vanessa from what I can see. :confused:

Also Kevan is attempting :eek: (I think thats the word) to teach Joe how to 'Hustle' needless to say it's very amusing to watch (and cringeworthy).

David Bailey
21st-April-2005, 02:06 PM
In most styles you will have to almost stop, to pick up the rhythm to get back into your initial step. If someone is doing the wrong footwork then the whole dance feels wrong. So the experts will be less inclined to dance with beginners, leading to more of that elitism. (And no, I'm not saying it doesn't exist in MJ.)
:yeah: Excellent point, I agree - you can swap and stop so easily in MJ, stretch a move out, speed it up or whatever, whereas in other dances (e.g cha-cha), you have to kind of wait till the next cha comes around to get back on the beat - at least I do, but then I'm less-than-competent at cha-cha, I'm still counting steps under my breath :blush:

Gadget
22nd-April-2005, 12:54 AM
{sorry; another long reply... :rolleyes: :D (I missed DavidF's post last time)}

OK, we're talking about putting WCS into MJ ~ Surely this has to start with learning about WCS. ~ [Bluntly, the comments you've made about WCS show you know very little about it].So, exactly who is it who's unwilling to try?
I haven't learned enough about MJ yet to consider moving into anything else; I still find new things to learn and new things to do and new ways to express the music within the dance I do just now - why should I want to look outside it? Do I have to visit Africa to see an elephant?

My comments (on WCS) are based on what people have written about the dance style - If there is that much freedom of expression and room for interpretation, then why bother with the structure? If the structure is important, then it must confine the expression. OK, so it's a balance between the two and seeing how far you can express within the structure of the dance - but what happens when you go out with this structure?
You may know more, have seen more and experienced WCS than I will ever in my life, but your comments from all this experience seem to be saying that MJ will never be as good - I'm just trying to work out how you came to this conclusion and what exactly in WCS makes it so.
You have the wealth of knowledge - do I need to learn the same things as you in order to pick your brains? I would rather you tell me I'm wrong and explain why than berate me for my ignorance.
{sorry - just finished reading the rest of your post and you have :flower: - but I can't be botherd to edit all that again :wink:}

As to the unwilling to try, it was a bit harsh; what exactly are you trying to incorporate, and what are you doing to merge it? Could it be that what actually makes what you are trying to migrate worthy of migrating is the structure it's contained within; remove the WCS structure and the concept is nothing but a simple thing that MJ already has/does. ? Dunno; just guessing.


The whole problem with MJ is that it is lacking in tools. You keep trying to argue "no preconceptions, no rules" as a strength. But in dancing, the preconceptions and rules are the tools. Even "dance on the beat" is a rule (and like all rules, can be broken for effect). But do you really think a dancer who doesn't know that rule is better than one who does? There are rules; no pain or discomfort, dance to the music, lead/follow. The only one that is not "natural" and needs specific tutorage is the lead/follow: People tend to avoid pain and inflicting it. Dancing is moving to music or a rhythmic pattern; without that, you are not dancing.

Do I think that one dancer who knows to dance on every beat is worse than one who does not know it; they just do it? Yes. The latter is more likley to actually dance to the music rather than just following a beat.

Preconceptions and rules are the guidelines within which the tools are used - I dissagree that they are the tools. MJ gives you some basic tools and says "go build." Other styles give specific tools and say "go build a bordello" or "go build a mansion" or "go build a fun fair"... the MJ dancer can pick up the tools from any of these things and have a helter-skelter going through the living room to end in the madam's boudoir!


Let me try to explain why I'm still fighting this corner. In my experience, MJ has a strong tendancy to take the easy fix ~ When in fact all you have is a token gesture, ~ I'm trying to persuade people it might take a little more than that if we want to get "the good stuff" from WCS.Why would you want more than a token gesture? Yes, I agree that saying "look - MJ can do all these dance styles" is wrong, but "look - MJ can dance to all these styles of music" is right. There is a lot of "acting" in musical interpriation - as such, you only want get accross the look and feel of the stolen stuff; it does not (and IMHO should not) be the genuine artical.
BTW what is the "good stuff"? styling? movement? musical interpritation?


"yes, you could do all that in MJ".~ rather than taking anything constructive from the clip in terms of what they can learn, what we could be changing in the way MJ is taught etc. What you could take costructivly from the clip would be styling, where and how music was emphisised in the dance, how the 'connction' worked between the dancers, ... and stuff from what you see.
To exrtrapolate from this that to get this good from doing the basics in such a way into "we must change our way of learnig to match theirs so that we can be like them" is more than one step too far.


I believe that what we now call salsa is something that evolved / was marketed in the mid-'70's in the States, ... I didn't know that. :cheers:
Re: salsa developing -So that salsa I learned a few years ago is 'out of date' ? :what:{assuming I could remember any of it :blush:}




Using the writing analogy, MJ teaches you how to write text messages - fun, useful, quick to learn. But it won't teach you how to write proper-like :) :what: You might be righ for beginner's classes - but again I'll say it: workshops.


Well, I'm not the only person to think the best salsa dancers are pretty good (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/showpost.php?p=26269&postcount=17)
(forum searching is a wonderful tool :) )2003? I think it's wrong to assume that the opinion has not changed in a couple of years. :rolleyes:

David Bailey
22nd-April-2005, 08:01 AM
Re: salsa developing -So that salsa I learned a few years ago is 'out of date' ? :what:{assuming I could remember any of it :blush:}

Yes - depressing, isn't it? I'm in exactly the same boat, for what it's worth, all this new-fangled moves, can't handle it, brain hurts... :sick:


2003? I think it's wrong to assume that the opinion has not changed in a couple of years. :rolleyes:
Anything's possible (I change my mind every week :) ). You could always ask...
However, I've seen similar other comments recently, I think Adam (cerocmetro) said something similar a while back. We really should have an FAQ!

Yogi_Bear
22nd-April-2005, 08:34 AM
Just found very nice video clips of Tatiana Mollman and Jordan Frisbee. Someone, somewhere on the forum was looking for these but I can't find the right tread- Sorry! Really can't wait to see them in action at Southport. :D
http://www.helenanderic.com/video_wcs.htmlExcellent videos - thanks for the link! :clap: