What is Ceroc

[cerocmetro]

From someone who has been dancing Ceroc for 15 years you would think I would know, I thought I knew, but it appears I do not. :sick:

Would someone please define Ceroc. Make it nice and clear and easy for everyone to understand so that there can be no confusion about what exactly it is. :worthy:

I want a precise definition so that if anyone does something else it can be said they are not doing Ceroc. :what:

My problem is, at a recent competition teams were disqualified for not doing Ceroc.After much reflection I have realised that to go down that road would mean that any future competition should have set moves. ie you must dance a first move, a pretzel 4 double spins etc. :sick:

In other words is Ceroc heading towards its ultimate end, is it becoming ballroom. :rolleyes:

If it is, I get off the boat here.

Your thoughts please

Adam

[Dreadful Scathe]

Is Ceroc a dance style? We discussed that in this thread (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/showthread.php?t=560). I think the answer to your question though, is if it has to be 'Ceroc' than any move not on Cerocs official list of moves would be illegal. Teachers learn from documented moves do they not? So its either a move on the list or not. Simple answer. The judges would need to pay very close attention and it seems a bit restrictive to me :(.

[MartinHarper]

Would someone please define Ceroc.

1) The name of a company.
2) The modern jive variant taught by that company.

I've not heard of any competitions that require people to dance Ceroc - only ones that require people to dance a modern jive. What competition is this?

[David Bailey]

Would someone please define Ceroc. Make it nice and clear and easy for everyone to understand so that there can be no confusion about what exactly it is.
Sure, no problem. Ceroc is the name of a company, based around the UK, but apparently also active in OZ and NZ, which bases its business around the teaching of Modern Jive-type dancing.

There, that was easy, do I get lots of rep now? :innocent:

Oh, OK then, I know what you mean really - "What is Ceroc dancing?".
Hmmm.... Well, I'd suggest that's up to the business owners to define - from what I understand, they do this pretty damned rigorously. However, I dunno if they define what isn't "proper" Ceroc dancing, i.e. how much wiggle-room there is around the edges.

And hey, if there's no wiggle room, I don't want to dance it :)


My problem is, at a recent competition teams were disqualified for not doing Ceroc.After much reflection I have realised that to go down that road would mean that any future competition should have set moves. ie you must dance a first move, a pretzel 4 double spins etc. :sick:

In other words is Ceroc heading towards its ultimate end, is it becoming ballroom. :rolleyes:
:yeah:

I think this is an extremely good point - Gadget raised it in the previous thread Competitions: performance or dancing (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5411). Then I re-stated it ins another thread MJ competitions: why bother (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5210) (where, admittedly, I went a bit OTT in describing Ceroc as a Mickey-Mouse dance, apologies again).

I don't support competitions, eccept possibly of the DWAS type, mainly because I think this can lead to a "spectator sport" mentality. Ceroc dancing, to me, is about dancing with a changing set of partners, and trying to dance with them as well as you can within a very loose set of rules.

I realise this is a minority view, and I certainly don't want to detract from the enjoyment and preparation people make for these events - I just don't believe they're really appropriate for MJ.
(Or, perhaps I'm just too cr*p a dancer to enter them and I'm just jealous)

Basically, any attempt to codify, formalise or fossilise these rules I think is a Bad Thing.

[Andy McGregor]

I remember this debate going on at some length. As I was writing the rules for Britroc at the time I was keen to get a definition. I also had many real-time real-life debates on the subject with the gurus of MJ.

It became clear to me that it was much easier to define what MJ is NOT! It isn't salsa or ballroom or Lindy Hop or tango, etc, etc. Every time I thought I had a simple definition I found a common MJ move that defied that definition. This eventually leads you down the road that defines MJ by its moves - but that way lies stagnation and one of the great things about MJ is that it's constantly changing. IMHO a move based definition of what MJ is would we loads of work to produce and out of date before the paper had cooled in the out tray of your laser printer!

We think we can look at a dance and say if it's MJ or not - but take a cursory look at many of the dances done in Strictly Dance Fever and you will see a few that look like MJ - Hustle, Milonga, couples line-dance, etc.

My reasoning at the time reached the point where I'd worked out that MJ is defined by the music it's danced to: just like the waltz is danced to waltz music. So, 99% of the time MJ is danced to music which is 4 beats to the bar and 90% of the time it's danced with a weight change or movement on beat 1 and 3 in that 4 beat bar. HOWEVER, there are also many moves that use the even numbered beats too ...

.. at this point I found other things more interesting.

[David Bailey]

{ snip superb points }

MJ is defined by the music it's danced to: just like the waltz is danced to waltz music. So, 99% of the time MJ is danced to music which is 4 beats to the bar and 90% of the time it's danced with a weight change or movement on beat 1 and 3 in that 4 beat bar.
Hey, that's the best definition I've ever heard, :worthy:


.. at this point I found other things more interesting.
Surely not? :grin:

But the original point was that you have a real pressure to clearly define Ceroc / MJ if you're judging a Ceroc / MJ competition, or drawing up the rules for such a competition (if you're not, then fair enough, it's too geeky to worry about :) ).

My solution: no competitions - problem solved :innocent:

From the original point, driven presumably by this 4-teams-disqualified thing, it does sound a little strange. Although, again, if you clearly define the rules of the game, you've got a right to expect people to follow those rules.

The cerocchamps definitions include this: "Routines, whilst judged for their entertainment value‚ hence the "cabaret" element ‚ must be predominantly Ceroc-based: no matter how entertaining, if the routine is not sufficiently dance-based, it will not be considered for a place in the final."

So, I'd imagine that "not dancing ceroc" (whatever that means) will mark you down, but disqualification would seem a tad harsh. OTOH, I dunno if those are the same rules for the OZ champs, although they seem sensible...

[David Franklin]

Would someone please define Ceroc. Make it nice and clear and easy for everyone to understand so that there can be no confusion about what exactly it is. :worthy: I don't think this can be done. If you look at the analogous situation in the US, the NASDE rules (http://users.erols.com/crhutch/nasderu.html) attempt to define swing, but I don't find their definition particularly clear, and it certainly hasn't prevented the kind of dilemma you are currently facing.


My problem is, at a recent competition teams were disqualified for not doing Ceroc.After much reflection I have realised that to go down that road would mean that any future competition should have set moves. ie you must dance a first move, a pretzel 4 double spins etc. :sick: I think there will always be a grey area which require subjective decisions (by a judge). But I think you can at least try to define some black and white areas. Surely there's nothing wrong with saying "this {list of moves} is definitely Ceroc", or "waltz is definitely not Ceroc".

Partly from curiosity, and partly because I think it would be helpful to the thread - can you describe what these teams actually did that (potentially) "wasn't Ceroc"? Or if that is currently too contentious, can you give some other illuminating examples?

[Lou]

Adam - I can appreciate your dilemma. Unfortunately, I don't think you'll ever get a short, precise definition of what ceroc/Ceroc™/MJ is.

It'd be a good exercise to return to trying to define MJ - without getting sidetracked into the history of Ceroc™/LeRoc, etc., what the dance should be called, or how to run a competition, etc...

So to expand on Andy's excellent post:-


My reasoning at the time reached the point where I'd worked out that MJ is defined by the music it's danced to: just like the waltz is danced to waltz music. So, 99% of the time MJ is danced to music which is 4 beats to the bar and 90% of the time it's danced with a weight change or movement on beat 1 and 3 in that 4 beat bar. HOWEVER, there are also many moves that use the even numbered beats too ...

The significant bit is the 4/4 time & the use of the downbeats. Can we also say that:


Mostly it's danced by a couple - one leads, the other follows
The lead & follow aspect is important, as it's not a choreographed dance
There's a characteristic rockstep back at the start of moves
Involves the use of leverage & compression to lead the dance
Not necessarily slotted

[DavidB]

OK - here goes.....


Definition of Modern Jive

The basic definition is:

Modern Jive is a Lead/Follow Partner Dance done to the music on the down-beat.

In more detail (split into two parts - partnering and timing)

Partnering
Partner Dance.
MJ is a partner dance. There is a minimum of one leader and one follower. It is not possible to dance MJ by yourself.

Lead & Follow
There must be a connection to lead a move, although this does not necessarily have to by physical contact. This connection does not have to be maintained throughout the whole move, eg in a freespin. Typically moves are led via a physical connection or by visual signals.

Partner holds
There is no fixed position or handhold. Open, Closed, Shadow, Catapult, Wrapped positions are all allowed. Single handed, 2 handed, crossed-hand, shoulder, arm, waist holds are acceptable.

Movement around the dancefloor
Modern Jive is not a progressive dance (such as Waltz). However movement around the floor is allowed if space allows.

Movement around each other
It can be circular (clockwise or anti-clockwise) or slotted.

Footwork
There is no fixed footwork

Lifts and Drops
Lifts and drops are allowed, but not mandatory

Separation and Solo dancing
This is allowed. The absence of a lead allows the follower to do anything she wants. However the aim should be to continue lead/follow partner dancing at some point.


Timing
Movements
Moves can be broken down into a series of movements. Typically each movement takes 2 musical counts, or a multiple of 2 musical counts. Movements finish on the downbeat (1,3,5,7 of the music).

Extensions
A movement can be stretched to take longer, but should be by a multiple of 2 counts. A movement can also be shortened to 1 count, but another movement must then be changed to keep the overall timing to a multiple of 2 musical counts.

Length of moves
There is no standard length of a move. However each move would take a multiple of 2 musical counts.

Musical Interpretation
This can take precedence over dancing to the down-beat.


Competitions would normally have specific rules to cover how much solo dancing is allowed, the number and type of aerials, etc.

Any detailed definition will never cover every specific case. The 'spirit' of this definition is the basic definition given at the start, and should be applied to anything not covered in detail.

DavidB
(PS This is, and always will be, a "work in progress"!)

[David Bailey]

There's a characteristic rockstep back at the start of moves
Hmmm, thinking about it, I very rarely use the rockstep now - I'd probably be automatically disqualified then - good thing I, unlike Gus, stick to my principles :rofl:

Dunno why I don't use it, I guess it's that it seems to slow it down / chope the moves up a bit too much for my dancing. I prefer a more continuous "flowing" style. Although the rockstep is probably good as punctuation, for these Evil Lindy People :)

[clevedonboy]

Nice bit of "Work in progress" there - The extensions bit interests me as I tend to strech a number of moves without checking about the 2 count thing - something to add to my must work on list

Lou WRT you new signature http://www.badwolf.org.uk/ ba bada dee dum

[Dance Demon]

The significant bit is the 4/4 time & the use of the downbeats. Can we also say that:
There's a characteristic rockstep back at the start of moves
[

I wouldn't say it was a rock step. It is a definite step back, whereas a rock step is a step back on one foot and forward on the other, as done in Lindy, Ballroom jive etc. Ceroc teachers teach a definate step away and back in giving a distinctive in & out movement. A move commonly used in the "Ceroc Essentials" part of the beginners class to demonstrate this is the simple "in & Out"... which shows this movement.

Hope i'm not being a pedant...... :o

[Lou]

Hmmm, thinking about it, I very rarely use the rockstep now - I'd probably be automatically disqualified then - good thing I, unlike Gus, stick to my principles :rofl:

I pondered about including it, too. Mine's definitely much more minimal these days, but it's still there - and it's why I find swapping to WCS tricky. :D

DavidB's a genius, of course. :worthy:

[Lou]

I wouldn't say it was a rock step.
Hope i'm not being a pedant...... :o

Feel free. I'm notoriously lousy at terminology! :)

[Andreas]

I generally agree with what has been posted before. Andy gave some very good points, though, classifying a dance by the music it is danced to is flawed:

1) I have danced Ceroc/MJ to Waltz music. It is a challenge but great fun. It did not make my dance a Waltz. Maybe it did but nobody would have called it this. Too many 'new moves' :rofl:

2) A lot of music Ceroc/MJ is being danced to is Cha Cha and Swing (being major contributors). It would not automatically make the dance style teither of those.


DavidB has posted a potentially more comprehensive list.

----------

As far as the NZ competition goes, I am not sure why some of the teams were disqualified. If this is because of breaking apart for too long, this is no new rule; at least not down-under. 15 seconds was usually the max time. It kind of makes sense but obviously is very limiting with the evolution of the dance form as such.

What I found stupid in the pre-comp discussions (of involved people and NZ teachers) was the fact that they tried to enforce disqualifying for 'too high latin content' in the dance! It is not only denying the roots of the dance style but also implies that anybody is able to make more than an arbitrary judgement of how much is too much and what IS in the first place. So I hope they did not disqualify anybody on those grounds.

--------------

On that note, I danced with a girl last night and she was saying "this is not Ceroc, right?" Me asking why not she said, too close, too many wiggles ... Looks like I have to re-learn all my stuff :rofl:

[bigdjiver]

OK - here goes.....
Definition of Modern Jive

The basic definition is:One definition is?


Modern Jive is a Lead/Follow Partner Dance done to the music on the down-beat.Mostly done?


In more detail (split into two parts - partnering and timing)

Partnering
Partner Dance.
MJ is a partner dance. There is a minimum of one leader and one follower. It is not possible to dance MJ by yourself.

Lead & Follow
There must be a connection to lead a move, although this does not necessarily have to by physical contact. This connection does not have to be maintained throughout the whole move, eg in a freespin. Typically moves are led via a physical connection or by visual signals.visual or aural?

Partner holds
There is no fixed position or handhold. Open, Closed, Shadow, Catapult, Wrapped positions are all allowed. Single handed, 2 handed, crossed-hand, shoulder, arm, waist holds are acceptable.

Movement around the dancefloor
Modern Jive is not a progressive dance (such as Waltz). However movement around the floor is allowed if space allows.

Movement around each other
It can be circular (clockwise or anti-clockwise) or slotted.
over or under?

[QUOTE]Footwork
There is no fixed footwork usually no fixed footwork, unless the move demands it.


Lifts and Drops
Lifts and drops are allowed, but not mandatory

Separation and Solo dancing
This is allowed. The absence of a lead allows the follower to do anything she :whistle: wants. However the aim should be to continue lead/follow partner dancing at some point.

Timing
Movements
Moves can be broken down into a series of movements. Typically each movement takes 2 musical counts, or a multiple of 2 musical counts. Movements finish on the downbeat (1,3,5,7 of the music). ...counts, and movements finish ... (to allow for atypical exceptions).


Extensions
A movement can be stretched to take longer, but should be by a multiple of 2 counts. A movement can also be shortened to 1 count, but another movement must then be changed to keep the overall timing to a multiple of 2 musical counts.A movement can be lengthened or shortened, but a contiguous movement must then be changed to keep the overall timing to a multiple of 2 musical counts?


Length of moves
There is no standard length of a move. However each move would take a multiple of 2 musical counts. ... move. Each move will normally take a multiple of 2 counts ... Perhaps redraft this, and combine it with the "Extensions" paragraph?


Musical Interpretation
This can take precedence over dancing to the down-beat.This is not necessary if the "usually" change is made to the down-beat paragraph. All non-safety based rules can be temporarily suspended in the pursuit of musical interpretation, but there should be an apparant reason why MJ rules were inadequate and have been suspended?


Competitions would normally have specific rules to cover how much solo dancing is allowed, the number and type of aerials, etc.


Any detailed definition will never cover every specific case. The 'spirit' of this definition is the basic definition given at the start, and should be applied to anything not covered in detail. :yeah:


DavidB
(PS This is, and always will be, a "work in progress"!)Thanks.

[spindr]

Definition of Modern Jive
[snip]

Actually this is also quite a fair stab at describing salsa?

SpinDr.
P.S. Is it me or does the arm-jive look like a really bad salsa basic.

[MartinHarper]

One distinction in my mind is that MJ doesn't have an "anchor step" - hence, the MJ Travelling Return is four beats, whilst a Lindy right side pass is six beats. For me, this is the most concrete difference between MJ and dances like WCS, Lindy, ballroom jive, etc.

[DavidB]

One distinction in my mind is that MJ doesn't have an "anchor step" - hence, the MJ Travelling Return is four beats, whilst a Lindy right side pass is six beats. For me, this is the most concrete difference between MJ and dances like WCS, Lindy, ballroom jive, etc.I've had a discussion about this before with someone. I can't remember who, just what they said. The anchor step is more a defining feature of the other dances, but its absence isn't a defining feature of Modern Jive.

In other words, if you lead an anchor step in MJ, whilst keeping to the modern jive timing, you are still doing MJ.



Movement around each other
It can be circular (clockwise or anti-clockwise) or slotted.over or under?Not quite sure what this means? Or if I have just guessed wrong what was quoted and what was written?

But everything else is good feedback.


I'm thinking of putting this definition on the CMJ Australia www.Cerocwiki.com site. It is perfectly suited for developing definitions like this, and allows updates to be made by anyone quite easily.

As it keeps track of who writes what, I'll only submit my original definition, but would welcome any updates to it.

David

[David Bailey]

Actually this is also quite a fair stab at describing salsa?
Well, yes, except for:


done to the music on the down-beat.
and:

Footwork
There is no fixed footwork
and:

Length of moves
There is no standard length of a move.
and the lack of anything about shines, and...


P.S. Is it me or does the arm-jive look like a really bad salsa basic.
Nope, you're on your own with that one :)

DavidB, your definitions are :worthy:

However, the question is "What is Ceroc?", and not "What is Modern Jive" - I think it's possible (though difficult and changing constantly) to define Modern Jive, but defining the differences between MJ and Ceroc, hmmm, that's what I call a challenge. And applying those definitions in a judging, to the point of disqualification, well "whooo" is all I can say about that...


I'm thinking of putting this definition on the CMJ Australia www.Cerocwiki.com site. It is perfectly suited for developing definitions like this, and allows updates to be made by anyone quite easily.

As it keeps track of who writes what, I'll only submit my original definition, but would welcome any updates to it.
Excellent idea - that's what Wikis are there for, and :clap:

[spindr]

Actually this is also quite a fair stab at describing salsa?
Well, yes, except for:

done to the music on the down-beat.
Well the dominant step in on-1 salsa is on beat 1 and 5 and closing on beats 3 and 7 -- so that should be the downbeats (?) (And of course, if I'm wrong, then I'd argue using an on-2 count :))



and:

Footwork
There is no fixed footwork
Ummm, there isn't fixed footwork in salsa -- it's also optional -- it just takes longer to realise that it's optional. In fact some of the best teachers dance salsa without moving their feet :)

Anyway, saying that there's no requirement for fixed footwork doesn't mean that you can't dance MJ with fixed footwork -- I'm fairly sure a lot of the Aussie contingent do -- and in fact step on every beat (not just the downbeats).



and:

Length of moves
There is no standard length of a move.
I guess it depends on what you consider to be "a move".

I could argue that if salsa 8-beat counts flow smoothly together then you wouldn't necessarily see a join -- then your moves can be any length.


and the lack of anything about shines, and...
Well, not a definite requirement for salsa.

But I don't see anything major there to "disqualify" anyone for dancing salsa moves in a MJ/Ceroc comp -- probably just as well since I've seen cross-body moves taught as "legitimate MJ", i.e. not in any "xxx-fuzion"-style class.

SpinDr.

[Andy McGregor]

However, the question is "What is Ceroc?", and not "What is Modern Jive" Ceroc is a brand of Modern Jive - much like the Big Mac is a brand of Hamburger. Ceroc is a version of MJ, but its not the only one - very much like the Big Mac doesn't define a hamburger.

I've noticed that a great deal of DavidB's definition is about what MJ isn't. IMHO what something is not isn't a definition at all and those bits could be left out. A definition is, IMHO, what something is - if we were to use DavidB's method elswhere the definition of pretty would need to include 'not ugly' and tall would need to be 'not short', etc :confused:

N.B. Two posts in a day! I'll need to lie down now :wink:

[bigdjiver]

My "over or under" comment was a reference to my penchant for "showy" moves. e.g astride jump, pushing lady down into crouch, jump over her, offer both hands and pull her through my legs. (This actually gets requested :confused: )

[Andy McGregor]

downbeats (?) .
:yeah:

What is a down beat? Is it the one with the drum or the snare? I thought there were just beats, one after the other :confused:

[clevedonboy]

On the assumption that Andy isn't messing about (I never can tell) an explanation that helps with on and off beats

"Glenn Tilbrook invited audience participation for the old Ray Charles hit "What'd I say", which involves lots of chanting back and forth. They sort of got the idea, even if they chanted back a bit belatedly.
But Mr Tilbrook wasn't entirely happy.

"You're clapping like Germans," he said at one point.

For a moment this caught me on the wrong foot. How exactly do Germans clap? Do they do it with very stiff hands? Do they do it with one hand over their head, ha ha? Do they pay Turkish immigrant workers to do it for them? Do they fall behind and then win with a couple of late claps, as against Mexico?

Then the penny dropped. He meant that the crowd were all clapping on the beat. Very stolidly. They were clapping on the first and third beats of the bar, as if they were accompanying a regiment marching by, and coming out with this lumpen, dead sound. It is a sound you sometimes get at the end of a concert when everyone in the hall is clapping loudly but randomly, and the separate claps suddenly coagulate into one enormous, repeated beat as everyone claps at the same time, as if some messianic dictator was about to appear.

What he wanted was for them to clap on the off beat, on the second and fourth beats of the bar. Well, I have records of people performing in concerts in Germany, and you do indeed sometimes get the audience clapping woodenly on the beat, but you get the same in England too. What Glenn Tilbrook wanted, and what Ray Charles wanted originally, was for them to clap on the off beat, on the second and fourth beats of the bar. "

[Will]

Ceroc is a brand of Modern Jive - much like the Big Mac is a brand of Hamburger. Ceroc is a version of MJ, but its not the only one - very much like the Big Mac doesn't define a hamburger.

As has been said before by quite a few people, quite a few times, Ceroc (1980?) and Leroc (1982?) both existed many years before the phrase "Modern Jive" (1990?) was first coined (by Robert Austin). So the "Ceroc is a Big Mac" analogy doesn't fit.

Nice to see you posting again! :cheers:

[TheTramp]

As has been said before by quite a few people, quite a few times, Ceroc (1980?) and Leroc (1982?) both existed many years before the phrase "Modern Jive" (1990?) was first coined (by Robert Austin). So the "Ceroc is a Big Mac" analogy doesn't fit.
And the first person who invented the 'hamburger' called it that?? But that's what it's generally accepted as being called these days. Now that more than one person (or two people) make them.

Nice to see you posting again! :cheers:
It is? :sick: :what:

:whistle:

[Lou]

It'd be a good exercise to return to trying to define MJ - without getting sidetracked into the history of Ceroc™/LeRoc, etc., what the dance should be called, or how to run a competition, etc...

:wink: Shame on you!

[David Bailey]

Well the dominant step in on-1 salsa is on beat 1 and 5 and closing on beats 3 and 7 -- so that should be the downbeats (?) (And of course, if I'm wrong, then I'd argue using an on-2 count :))
Darn, the "Dancing on 2" counter-argument is foiled, curses...


Ummm, there isn't fixed footwork in salsa -- it's also optional -- it just takes longer to realise that it's optional. In fact some of the best teachers dance salsa without moving their feet :)
:eek: OK, that's news to me - you could well be right, but all the classes I've been to have had some footwork element in them. Certainly, salsa has more inherent footwork than MJ, I believe, weirdo Aussies notwithstanding. :flower:


I could argue that if salsa 8-beat counts flow smoothly together then you wouldn't necessarily see a join -- then your moves can be any length.
Think that's a little hair-splitting; there's definitely an 8-beat structure there - ie. you follow the clave or whatever the thing's called.


But I don't see anything major there to "disqualify" anyone for dancing salsa moves in a MJ/Ceroc comp
Indeed, as long as they fit in - for example, I've been taught the tunnel in ceroc and salsa classes.

[DavidB]

I've noticed that a great deal of DavidB's definition is about what MJ isn't. I tried very hard not to fall into this trap. I've re-read my definition, and the only thing that I've said MJ isn't is 'a progressive dance'.

A progressive dance is one that moves around the whole floor - traditionally anticlockwise. Ballroom dances (Waltz, foxtrot, quickstep, tango, Viennese waltz) do this, as do some C&W partner dances.

However many other dances do not move around the floor. I just didn't know what to call them. What is the opposite of a progressive dance? I originally wrote "stationary", but felt "not progressive" was more descriptive. A better term would be gratefully received.

Other times I've listed features that are commonly used to define other dances (such as footwork, standard length of moves etc) that do not apply to MJ. I could have left these out, but I think the fact they don't apply improves the definition.

I'm not sure about listing things that are allowed (such as aerials, drops, solo dancing). Maybe these would be better in the 'rules of a competition' rather than the 'definition of the dance'?

[David Bailey]

And the first person who invented the 'hamburger' called it that?? But that's what it's generally accepted as being called these days. Now that more than one person (or two people) make them.
:yeah:

People were dancing MJ before the term existed - certainly before Leroc or Ceroc existed. OK, they didn't call it MJ, but that's what they were doing.

[Ballroom queen]

1) I have danced Ceroc/MJ to Waltz music.

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

[Ballroom queen]

Ceroc is a brand of Modern Jive - much like the Big Mac is a brand of Hamburger. Ceroc is a version of MJ, but its not the only one - very much like the Big Mac doesn't define a hamburger.



:yeah: :clap: :yeah:

[Gadget]

I think that one defining point that has been skimmed over is footwork patterns: If the majority of the dance dance contains a defined(recognisable) footwork pattern, then it's not MJ. And to me, this includes the "marching" 1-2 step: this is leaning towards more "swing" and "lindy" in my book.

I'm also of the conviction that verbal/visual "signals" are not a defining part of MJ: they may be used as 'dancing aids', but the dance is still MJ without them. (Actually I would say more so because it reduces the number of choriographed segments in the dance)

I also think that a key point is missed in all of the above: It is a dance that expresses and changes with the music. More as a guideline: the dance should make the music appear like a sound-track to the dancers movements.
{But couldn't you say that of all dance forms? :rolleyes:}

In my opinion, the dancer's should have a connection between themselves rather than with an audience or third party: Ceroc is a partner dance; not a performance dance.

Moves should be able to be led/followed with any partner who understands the basic "lead and follow" philosophy: Any move that you can only dance with a specific partner who has to have prior knowledge of what is expected is not MJ in my thinking. (Which is why I don't see any 'accrobatic' moves as being MJ)

Ceroc is a Social dance. A Ceroc competition should judge your social dancing skills. Not your performance skills. (IMHO)


I also stand by what I said here (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/showpost.php?p=82838&postcount=18) and here (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/showpost.php?p=86653&postcount=116) and here (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/showpost.php?p=18908&postcount=47) about defining what MJ is to me. {pretty anologies}

[Trousers]

Phew

Am I glad I ain't a geek!

Shut up, turn the music on and dance!

[Andy McGregor]

Ceroc is a Social dance. A Ceroc competition should judge your social dancing skills. Not your performance skills. (IMHO)Now I remember why I stopped posting ...

[Dreadful Scathe]

Phew

Am I glad I ain't a geek!

Shut up, turn the music on and dance!

:yeah:

[Lory]

Shut up, turn the music on and dance!
:yeah: :clap: :D

[Amir]

I once put some avocado in a fruit salad and everyone got very upset.

According to the botanical definition of fruit I could also have used bean pods, corn grains, tomatoes and cucumbers.


Sometimes definitions are not very useful, and lead to crappy fruit salads and dance competitions.

[Lou]

:yeah: :clap: :D
Oi! Nerds & geeks like dancing, too! :D

[bigdjiver]

...Sometimes definitions are not very useful, and lead to crappy fruit salads and dance competitions. :yeah: Competitions are usually designed for people who want to win, rather than who want to dance. I want to see new delicious new varieties of fruit.

[David Bailey]

Phew

Am I glad I ain't a geek!

Shut up, turn the music on and dance!
Err, quite difficult to do at work, I'd possibly get some funny looks (OK, even more funny looks :) )

So I have to dance vicariously through geeky postings at lunchtimes :tears:

As for the nerd / geeky thing, yup, that's me.
{sarcasm trowel}
Somehow I manage to dance with Normal People, despite this terrible social handicap, I can only bow down to them in gratitude for deigning to spend three minutes of their precious time with someone as patently unworthy as me. Thankyou, thankyou, thankyou... :worthy:
{/trowel}

In case this misses the point, I can only quote:

Oi! Nerds & geeks like dancing, too! :D
Nice one Lou, you're clearly a lovely man. :)

[Andy McGregor]

Nice one Lou, you're clearly a lovely man. :)I have danced the woman's part with Lou - but that doesn't make her more of a man than I am - does it? :confused:

[David Bailey]

I have danced the woman's part with Lou - but that doesn't make her more of a man than I am - does it? :confused:
It's an in-joke, you wouldn't get it, being such a newbie and all :innocent:

(OK, all is revealed here (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3720&page=2&pp=17))

[Andy McGregor]

It's an in-joke, you wouldn't get it, being such a newbie and all :innocent:

(OK, all is revealed here (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3720&page=2&pp=17))
I did know about the first post but hadn't realised that somebody had already spilled the beans about Lou being one of the most sexy women on the MJ scene.

But, to get back on thread. I think that Gadget is completely wrong (nothing new there) and has missed the point entirely (nothing new there either). Competitions are about finding a winner based on the criteria set by the competition organiser. If Gadget thinks that there should be a competition to see who are the friendliest dancers he should organise one himself. In the meantime I rather like the ones where we choose the couple who put on the best performance.

[stewart38]

Ceroc is a brand of Modern Jive - much like the Big Mac is a brand of Hamburger. Ceroc is a version of MJ, but its not the only one - very much like the Big Mac doesn't define a hamburger.

I've noticed that a great deal of DavidB's definition is about what MJ isn't. IMHO what something is not isn't a definition at all and those bits could be left out. A definition is, IMHO, what something is - if we were to use DavidB's method elswhere the definition of pretty would need to include 'not ugly' and tall would need to be 'not short', etc :confused:

N.B. Two posts in a day! I'll need to lie down now :wink:

Let’s review Lesson 4

How to define something

In technical writing, clear and accurate definitions are critical in order to ensure that readers understand key terms and concepts. The most commonly used definition is a form of classification.

Exercise 1

In the formal definition, you define a term by placing it in a category followed by the explanation of the features.

e.g. A gadget is a small machine or device that does something useful.

term category features


We have been asked what is 'ceroc' not anything else.

One post is too many 100 never enough :grin:

[Andy McGregor]

We have been asked what is 'ceroc' not anything else.Yes we have. And Stewart 38's post has failed to answer that question. It is a post about whether or not a post or part of a post should have been posted. Stewart38's post is the kind of post that adds nothing to the debate - rather like this one ...

[mick]

Sure, no problem. Ceroc is the name of a company, based around the UK, but apparently also active in OZ and NZ, which bases its business around the teaching of Modern Jive-type dancing.

There, that was easy, do I get lots of rep now? :innocent:

Oh, OK then, I know what you mean really - "What is Ceroc dancing?".
Hmmm.... Well, I'd suggest that's up to the business owners to define - from what I understand, they do this pretty damned rigorously. However, I dunno if they define what isn't "proper" Ceroc dancing, i.e. how much wiggle-room there is around the edges.

And hey, if there's no wiggle room, I don't want to dance it :)


:yeah:

I think this is an extremely good point - Gadget raised it in the previous thread Competitions: performance or dancing (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5411). Then I re-stated it ins another thread MJ competitions: why bother (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5210) (where, admittedly, I went a bit OTT in describing Ceroc as a Mickey-Mouse dance, apologies again).

I don't support competitions, eccept possibly of the DWAS type, mainly because I think this can lead to a "spectator sport" mentality. Ceroc dancing, to me, is about dancing with a changing set of partners, and trying to dance with them as well as you can within a very loose set of rules.

I realise this is a minority view, and I certainly don't want to detract from the enjoyment and preparation people make for these events - I just don't believe they're really appropriate for MJ.
(Or, perhaps I'm just too cr*p a dancer to enter them and I'm just jealous)

Basically, any attempt to codify, formalise or fossilise these rules I think is a Bad Thing.

Well said.
See duende:http://www.salsaforums.com/archive.php/o_t__t_323__salsa-as-a-dance-of-a-mystic.html

[Gadget]

I think that Gadget is completely wrong (nothing new there) and has missed the point entirely (nothing new there either).
I specifically said "Ceroc" rather than "Modern Jive": I think that Ceroc is a social dance, taught in a social way, danced by a majority of people who like to dance socially and is based on being pleasant to dance rather than looking flash.
The Ceroc Basic Workshops and Ceroc Intermediate (I,II,III) Workshops teach moves, movement, leading and following. If you want to learn presentation skills, there are specialist workshops and private lessons, but it is not what Ceroc is about (IMHO).


Competitions are about finding a winner based on the criteria set by the competition organiser. If Gadget thinks that there should be a competition to see who are the friendliest dancers he should organise one himself. In the meantime I rather like the ones where we choose the couple who put on the best performance.

Competitions are competitions: comparing one couple against another to assess who's best. If the competition is important to you, you will want to impress the people doing the assessing: presenting your dance to them.
I agree that competitions judge who has put on the best performance - is this the best dancer?

Should we be taught dramatisims, body lines, contrast and stage-craft as part of the regular lesson? Should the last freestyle be changed into a mini competition so that we can hone our skills and judge others? Should we find partners and practice solely with them so we know each other's movements instinctively?...
Isn't that what you have to do to win a competition: to be "the best dancer"?

To me, dancing is about music and lead&follow. I would like to think that the DWAS/J&J style competition is the closest test of these skills.

{A "friendliest dancer" competition? ... isn't that "blues"? :whistle:}

[David Bailey]

To me, dancing is about music and lead&follow. I would like to think that the DWAS/J&J style competition is the closest test of these skills.
"J&J"? :confused:


{A "friendliest dancer" competition? ... isn't that "blues"? :whistle:}
There's a competition I'd be interested in :)

P.S. Yay! A Gadget-McGregor fight! :clap:

[Gadget]

J&J = "Jack & Jill" - an american form of "dance with a stranger", except they swap partners all through the competition rather than just randomly{:confused:} selecting one at the start.

P.S. you mean another Gadget-McGregor fight :rolleyes: :sick:


The point I was trying to make in my first post was that Modern Jive is more a concept than a dance: where every other dance can be defined by specific footwork patterns and/or music, MJ cannot. Where every other dance has a "right" and "wrong" way to execute a move, MJ does not (exception being the "pain" rules outlined elsewhere). Where every other dance form has a defining boundary that you can say "this is: that is not", MJ has none. It is just dancing. If you stay "too long" in one particular style, then you can be deemed to be dancing it - and if you are dancing it, then you cannot be dancing MJ.

[DavidB]

The point I was trying to make in my first post was that Modern Jive is more a concept than a dance: where every other dance can be defined by specific footwork patterns and/or music, MJ cannot. Where every other dance has a "right" and "wrong" way to execute a move, MJ does not (exception being the "pain" rules outlined elsewhere). Where every other dance form has a defining boundary that you can say "this is: that is not", MJ has none. It is just dancing. If you stay "too long" in one particular style, then you can be deemed to be dancing it - and if you are dancing it, then you cannot be dancing MJ.I think this is totally wrong. MJ is no more or less a dance than any other style. It doesn't have anything magical about it that makes it superior, or anything deficient about it that makes it inferior. It is just a form of dance.

Ultimately you are holding your partner's hand. The connection is the same. The range of motion is the same. The reactions of the lady are the same. It is not as if MJ men have 3 hands, or MJ ladies have 3 feet (Sellafield Ceroc excepted).

People always say that you can put moves from any other style into MJ. But it is not just a one-way street. Anything you can do in MJ can also be done in other styles.

The only thing 'wrong' in any dance is defined by pain. The fact that teachers in other styles are more pro-active (or better informed) about what is 'better' or 'worse' is nothing to do with the dance itself.

You can define any dance (including MJ) by the same two footwork patterns - Left Right and Right Left. You just vary them as you see fit. You can't set in stone anything beyond this.

You can define any dance (including MJ) by the time signature of the music (typically 3/4 or 4/4), the tempo, and the beat that gets emphasised.

The boundaries of a lot of dances are getting blurred. Sometimes you can only find out what people are doing when they actually tell you.

The only thing unique about MJ is the number of people who do it at the moment. But if the history of dance is anything to go by, that will be temporary.

David

[Lou]

I did know about the first post but hadn't realised that somebody had already spilled the beans about Lou being one of the most sexy women on the MJ scene.
:rofl:
Andy - I love you, and I want you to have my babies! :hug:

[Whitebeard]

Andy - I love you, and I want you to have my babies!
Hey, cool it gal. We're talking dance here; not procreation. Anyway, how does a guy have babies ??

[Lou]

Hey, cool it gal. We're talking dance here; not procreation. Anyway, how does a guy have babies ??
Ahhh... but I'm a man, and Andy's..... well...... Andy! ;)

p.s. excellent thread drift! :clap:

[David Bailey]

Hey, cool it gal. We're talking dance here; not procreation. Anyway, how does a guy have babies ??
Simple - pick 'em up, take them away, there you go. They're generally not very big, so shouldn't put up too much of a fight.

I'm a bit surprised Lou's giving them away though... Must be a Man Thing :innocent:

[clevedonboy]

Well my wife enjoyed her dance with Lou last night - best leader in the room apparently

[Gadget]

I think this is totally wrong. MJ is no more or less a dance than any other style. It doesn't have anything magical about it that makes it superior, or anything deficient about it that makes it inferior. It is just a form of dance.Superior or inferior... no; but I do think that there are elements that make it magical and deficencies that counteract this. I'm sure that almost every dance style has something it can lend to MJ, but I'm not sure that other dance styles could take anything from it that they don't already have.


Ultimately you are holding your partner's hand. The connection is the same. The range of motion is the same. The reactions of the lady are the same.Yes, the connection is the same.
Yes, the physical range of motion is the same - but the repertoir of movement differs; I can't see the place of an elbow-roll or nose-dive in a waltz.
Yes, the physical and immediate reaction to a lead may be the same for most ladies - but the resultant movement and consequences of that lead may be vastly different; Would a Salsa dancer react in the same way to a WCS lead as someone who danced WCS?

Ultimately, the lead leads the moves that they think match the music - the follower attempts to follow them.
Knowledge of specific patterns and movements by both partners can 'shortcut' the communication within the lead - these patterns have fuzzy outlines in MJ that can result in the follower having to do more "guesswork" and the lead starts out much more ambiguous.


People always say that you can put moves from any other style into MJ. But it is not just a one-way street. Anything you can do in MJ can also be done in other styles.True, but is that not 'breaking' the dance? If you put a Rock&Roll slide-through in the middle of a foxtrot, is it still a foxtrot? If you put a waltz box-step into a MJ dance, it does not break it: it adds to it.


The only thing 'wrong' in any dance is defined by pain. The fact that teachers in other styles are more pro-active (or better informed) about what is 'better' or 'worse' is nothing to do with the dance itself.?? I thought that it had everything to do with the dance: how can you learn a specific style if there is no 'right' and 'wrong' way to do it? How can you get the "style" of a style if doing things one way isn't 'better' or 'worse' than another?
Am I wrong in thinking that these are the things that enable a teacher to teach the dance?


You can define any dance (including MJ) by the same two footwork patterns - Left Right and Right Left. You just vary them as you see fit. You can't set in stone anything beyond this.

You can define any dance (including MJ) by the time signature of the music (typically 3/4 or 4/4), the tempo, and the beat that gets emphasised.
It's movement to/with the music. If the music changes, or the way you hear the music changes, then the dance should change. I don't think that even the R-L/L-R is set in stone. But I dissagree that the footwork pattern does not describe the dance: it is the mechanism that dancers use to time the dance and get the rhythm of the music into the dance. It's as intregal a part of the dance as the music is.


The boundaries of a lot of dances are getting blurred. Sometimes you can only find out what people are doing when they actually tell you.Is this a good, or a bad thing? If they are blurring, then they are loosing their definition; if you can't tell what dance a couple are doing, why bother defining them in the first place? Why not just make it all "dance" and not bother about what style belongs to what dance?


The only thing unique about MJ is the number of people who do it at the moment. But if the history of dance is anything to go by, that will be temporary.Don't we learn from the past to shape the future? I can only envisage MJ sprawling even more, but perhaps loosing any definition it did have to that generic "dance" title.

[David Bailey]

{ lots of lovely points, as always }

People always say that you can put moves from any other style into MJ. But it is not just a one-way street. Anything you can do in MJ can also be done in other styles.
Weeelll... I think that's a bit strong. There are some moves inherent to any dance style. OK, technically you can force these moves into other styles, but basically, they look naff, they just don't fit.

My only real experience in this area is with porting to and from salsa-MJ, so in that circumstance, I can't see a First Move going down well in salsa, or, I dunno, a half-windmill. Similarly, a salsa basic, side-to-side or open-out don't really work in MJ.

(However, some moves work equally well in both - in fact, I'd say the Tunnel is better in salsa than MJ. And the salsa cross-body lead in MJ, yum!)


The boundaries of a lot of dances are getting blurred. Sometimes you can only find out what people are doing when they actually tell you.
I am so glad you said that - I thought it was just me getting confused :)

[David Bailey]

I can only envisage MJ sprawling even more, but perhaps loosing any definition it did have to that generic "dance" title.
I think if Ceroc expands further, we'll see "flavours or "dialects" of Ceroc developing over time (in line with my wonderful "Ceroc is English" analogy :) )

In fact, you could say that we're already seeing that developing, with the OZ / NZ styles and discussions. We may even have this in the UK, if there's a distinct Scots identity for Ceroc, but I dunno, the only dancing I've done in Scotland is salsa...

[Will]

People were dancing MJ before the term existed - certainly before Leroc or Ceroc existed. OK, they didn't call it MJ, but that's what they were doing.
Not sure what you mean.

If you mean before Ceroc became a trademark in about 89 then I'd agree with you.

If you are refering to that which was done in France before James Cronin started it in the UK in 1980 then I'm afraid I don't agree. Go to France, see what real French Jive is like - there is a significant difference! Ceroc (or modern jive) is an adaptation of it.

"Modern Jive" is a political name, borne out of the fact that the name "Ceroc" was made a copyright (in 89) about a year before it's birth (in 90). It is also a very good name for the dance form as it describes very well what the dance style is. I think that this fact has been why the name MJ has caught as a generic name where others have failed.

At the end of the day, I think it's valid for people to refer to the dance form we all do as ceroc, leroc, and modern jive. Live and let live eh!?

[Andy McGregor]

At the end of the day, I think it's valid for people to refer to the dance form we all do as ceroc, leroc, and modern jive. Live and let live eh!?Will is absolutely right to say this. We can call it what we like as we all know what it means.

The topic of this thread is "What is Ceroc?"

Do we need to start another thread called "Please propose a definition of the dance which is called the following names: Ceroc, LeRoc, Modern Jive, French Jive, etc?"

I think DavidB has made a very good start in providing a difinition of the dance. Some poeople have tried to hijack the thread to bang their own particular drums. And I'm half expecting Lounge Lizard to find a way to twist this thread to promote his Wednesday class at the Winning Post and to remind us that he's the best DJ in the country and the greatest teacher of drops and seducers ever (so I've done it all for him :wink: ).

Then again, I could be wrong and people might not see this thread the way I do :tears:

[Lou]

Some poeople have tried to hijack the thread to bang their own particular drums.
Of course. It always happens. On the positive side, this time there's been less of it - probably because several of us have been there before. And, this time, there's an actual real need to determine what MJ is - if only to try to help Adam & the good people of New Zealand solve their particular competition issues. :D

[Will]

Some poeople have tried to hijack the thread to bang their own particular drums. And I'm half expecting Lounge Lizard to find a way to twist this thread to promote his Wednesday class at the Winning Post and to remind us that he's the best DJ in the country and the greatest teacher of drops and seducers ever (so I've done it all for him :wink: ).
Or Mr Nathanson managing to plug JiveMasters Videos! :wink:

[Andy McGregor]

Or Mr Nathanson managing to plug JiveMasters Videos! :wink:
Are there still some left? Were we all doing Modern Jive on them?

I've just been thinking, do we need a definition of Salsa for the Weston Competition? You wouldn't be able to use music to define Salsa as only one of the 2 tracks in the 2004 competition was actually Salsa :whistle:

[Lou]

Are there still some left? Were we all doing Modern Jive on them?

I've just been thinking, do we need a definition of Salsa for the Weston Competition? You wouldn't be able to use music to define Salsa as only one of the 2 tracks in the 2004 competition was actually Salsa :whistle:
:na: Blimey, you're tetchy today.

[David Bailey]

Do we need to start another thread called "Please propose a definition of the dance which is called the following names: Ceroc, LeRoc, Modern Jive, French Jive, etc?"
"Do we need?" - Definitely not, even I would consider that too geeky.
But "Will someone?" - Possibly... :rolleyes:


I think DavidB has made a very good start in providing a difinition of the dance.
:yeah:


I'm half expecting Lounge Lizard to find a way to twist this thread to promote his Wednesday class at the Winning Post and to remind us that he's the best DJ in the country and the greatest teacher of drops and seducers ever
Hey, I didn't know that! Where does he teach again? :innocent:
:rofl:

But I still can't find anybody prepared to say what the differences are, if any; which I took to be the main point of the thread. i.e. is a Ceroc competition always the same as another-brand-of-MJ competition? Or are there rules specific to Ceroc?

[Lou]

But I still can't find anybody prepared to say what the differences are, if any; which I took to be the main point of the thread. i.e. is a Ceroc competition always the same as another-brand-of-MJ competition? Or are there rules specific to Ceroc?

Ahhhh.... and there was the rest of us thinking Adam was asking for a generic ceroc/MJ definition. I guess he'd better enlighten us as to what he actually wants! :D

[David Bailey]

Ahhhh.... and there was the rest of us thinking Adam was asking for a generic ceroc/MJ definition.
Hey, I'm a man away in my own little world, you know... :D

[Lou]

Hey, I'm a man away in my own little world, you know... :D
:rofl:

It's a good question, though. I'd be interested to find out a bit more about NZ ceroc.

[Andy McGregor]

But I still can't find anybody prepared to say what the differences are, if any; which I took to be the main point of the thread. i.e. is a Ceroc competition always the same as another-brand-of-MJ competition? Or are there rules specific to Ceroc?I'm not sure that is the main point of this thread. But, for a moment let's consider the difference between the rules of the UK Ceroc champs and the other competitions. The biggest difference is that the Ceroc rules are a secret. And because they are a secret we need to look at the results to fathom the rules.

And the results give a clear indication that the rules of a Ceroc competition say that you've got to be good looking: apart from the year the Tramp won - maybe that's what prompted the addition of the beauty clause :devil:

After all, if you're going to use your photos of your winners in your corporate publicity they do need to be decorative :flower:

Modern Jive = a partner dance with moves/weight transfer on beats 1 and 3 in the bar.

Ceroc = a version of Modern Jive done by young, pretty people and Adam Nathanson :devil:

[Gus]

And, this time, there's an actual real need to determine what MJ is - if only to try to help Adam & the good people of New Zealand solve their particular competition issues. :DThe issue in NZ doesnt relate to "what is Ceroc" ... the Kiwis KNOW and are VERY good at it. The issue relates to an interpretation of the rules, and whether the rule in question had been communicated properly .... at least from what I've heard so far.

[Lou]

The issue in NZ doesnt relate to "what is Ceroc" ...
So why did Adam start this thread by saying:


From someone who has been dancing Ceroc for 15 years you would think I would know, I thought I knew, but it appears I do not. :sick:

Would someone please define Ceroc. Make it nice and clear and easy for everyone to understand so that there can be no confusion about what exactly it is. :worthy:

I want a precise definition so that if anyone does something else it can be said they are not doing Ceroc. :what:

My problem is, at a recent competition teams were disqualified for not doing Ceroc.After much reflection I have realised that to go down that road would mean that any future competition should have set moves. ie you must dance a first move, a pretzel 4 double spins etc. :sick:

[Andreas]

The issue in NZ doesnt relate to "what is Ceroc" ... the Kiwis KNOW and are VERY good at it. The issue relates to an interpretation of the rules, and whether the rule in question had been communicated properly .... at least from what I've heard so far.

I don't think I can disclose details here but fact is that the arguments of the intense discussion in the forefield about the rules were conveniently ignored in the end - and I know who I blame for it. :mad:

However, the rules have been given to the franchises well in advance of the comp. So disqualifications did not need to happen.

[bigdjiver]

I have come up with two definitions of Ceroc. At this point in the thread it seems to be the place for the boring one. Ceroc is the trademark of a dance organisation, and they can use it any way that suits them within the law. Ceroc (98) can be a very different dance from Ceroc 2005, version 2 revision 3.

Ceroc, the dance, is whatever Ceroc, the company, says it is.

[Andy McGregor]

Ceroc, the dance, is whatever Ceroc, the company, says it is.And Ceroc (UK) can be a different thing from Ceroc (NZ) as the Trademark is held by different companies AFAIK.

[cerocmetro]

The issue in NZ doesnt relate to "what is Ceroc" ... the Kiwis KNOW and are VERY good at it. The issue relates to an interpretation of the rules, and whether the rule in question had been communicated properly .... at least from what I've heard so far.

Actually I tend to disagree Gus and you have missed the point. I have had many conversations with people all over NZ, teachers, franchisees, even the owner and there are many interpretations of what Ceroc is. There have been some great explanations here and as always the Bard was very informative. However I have always loved Ceroc because I have always felt it is what ever you want it to be within certain boundaries, the most important of those being a) it is a partner dance and b) it is accessible to the masses c) there are few rules just guides and ideas.

Personally I do not consider Ceroc to be a series of gymnastic moves. Ceroc was always supposed to be danced in nightclubs by average people.

The competition I recently attended was more like an attempt at a Ballroom competition. The smiles were incredible. Half the fun of being a judge was seeing if I could make anyone break their smiles :devil:

The couples paraded onto the floor as though Angela Rippon was personally watching and the clothing would not have been out of place in strictly ballroom.

I did not feel I was at a Ceroc comp at all and pined (not sure how to spell that but as in Python for the Fjords),for the UK where there is a far more social feel to the whole thing.

Teams and individuals were disqualified. However the reasons were mainly subjective. It also turns out that in a few cases where the rules where not clear people made enquiries beforehand of people who should have known and it appears were given the wrong advise.

It is all very well saying people should have read the rules, but those people should check facts before criticising others. There also appears that there may be cultural issues just to add to the confusion.

IMHO comps in Ceroc are a necessary evil. However in business terms we lose more people from Ceroc from the comps than we attract. People become deflated, disillusioned and also in some cases so badly treated that it just turns people away.

We would not have these issues if we were all dancing the same dance. eg as I said before you have to include given moves. The moves have to be as defined in for example the Ceroc manual. But then where does that leave other MJ comps where there is no manual of the moves?

I have now realised why we see the same faces again and again, they are the only people who are prepared to put themselves through this hell. DWAS is popular. It is fun and no one has expectations of winning. Therefore it encapsulates the real reason Ceroc was created and enjoyed so much, it is fun.

I would prefer to see all MJ comps dropped. That will not happen. We created the JiveMAsters concept of the audience voting to try and resolve the issue. I think they make the best judges. I worry about the majority of judges at these events. Most of them can barely dance to a high standard themselves. Anyone it appears can call themselves a teacher of MJ. I know I have lost count of the number of my dancers go off and set up themselves to make a quick buck ( I would of course question their sanity). And then what are they teaching. Their own names for moves that become watered down. Again in most other dance disciplines teachers usually have to become accredited by a national body, not some made up body.

What is Ceroc NZ or OZ, they are both near clones of Ceroc UK. UK Ceroc has over the past 10 years melded into Latin and Swing whereas NZ and OZ have evolved in a different direction.

The Brits by nature are not competitive. We are proud when we come third. Downunder you win or you are a loser. They strive for excellence in everything. I am not saying this is a bad thing but it does mean that Ceroc is very different down under. The classes however are much smaller because at the end of the day most people go dancing for pleasure. It was no surprise that as soon as we relaxed it all in Wellington and brought in the UK format the numbers went up 300% in 5 weeks. It is unlikely we will produce many comp winners but we do have a lot more people enjoying what I see as pure Ceroc.

Adam

[ChrisA]

We created the JiveMAsters concept of the audience voting to try and resolve the issue. I think they make the best judges.

In that case, Adam, how about for next year's Jivemasters, you structure the voting differently?

Get rid of the categories, and just have people place the couples in their order of preference.

I think it's just too difficult for most people to award points objectively in the presentation/technical/interpretation categories - a subjective placing for each couple would be simpler, much quicker, and maybe even more accurate.

[David Bailey]

(Scary description of competition )

:eek: :sick: and :tears: , that's all I can say.

Ignoring the points about disqualifications, which most of us are not, ahem, qualified to comment on without any information,...


IMHO comps in Ceroc are a necessary evil. However in business terms we lose more people from Ceroc from the comps than we attract.
Take away the "necessary" and we're in complete agreement. :innocent:
Also, if they lose business, exactly why are they necessary? It's not as if anyone's forcing them to be organised...


We would not have these issues if we were all dancing the same dance. eg as I said before you have to include given moves.
Have to disagree - I think if you have competitions, and they progressively more more "professional", the rules and interpretations of the rules become more important. The fun, and I suspect a lot of the dancing itself, gets "dried out" by the technicalities and restrictions. Watch the film "Strictly Ballroom" - it seems less like a parody now...


DWAS is popular. It is fun and no one has expectations of winning. Therefore it encapsulates the real reason Ceroc was created and enjoyed so much, it is fun.
DWAS is better, I'd say, especially a rolling DWAS - still not sure if it's wonderful though.


I would prefer to see all MJ comps dropped.
:yeah:


That will not happen. We created the JiveMAsters concept of the audience voting to try and resolve the issue. I think they make the best judges.
For judging techincal ability, interpretation, balance, lead-and-follow techniques, I dunno. However, for judging "Ceroc as a fun dance", quite possibly - in that the audience aren't bound by needing to consider those issues.


I worry about the majority of judges at these events. Most of them can barely dance to a high standard themselves.
Hey, even I'd say that's being a little harsh! I believe most of the judges are competent, and some are outstanding. It's not the judges, it's the system in my view.

[Andy McGregor]

We would not have these issues if we were all dancing the same dance. eg as I said before you have to include given moves. The moves have to be as defined in for example the Ceroc manual. But then where does that leave other MJ comps where there is no manual of the moves?IMHO Ceroc UK would rather stop running competitions that publish their manual of moves.

When I enter a competition I spend time reading and re-reading the rules. I even give the organisers a call if something is not clear to me. To enter a competition without knowing the rules is downright daft - especially when you're spending so many, many hours practicing, sewing on sequins, dreaming up and making costumes, etc, etc.

[cerocmetro]

:Hey, even I'd say that's being a little harsh! I believe most of the judges are competent, and some are outstanding. It's not the judges, it's the system in my view.

Actually that was a bit harsh and I don't wont anyone offended. I agree it is the system at any given comp that is the issue. eg judges only being given 60 seconds to place 8 couples, or the organisers changing the judging criteria or not clear guidlines given to the judges.

[Gadget]

Take away the "necessary" and we're in complete agreement. :innocent:
Also, if they lose business, exactly why are they necessary? It's not as if anyone's forcing them to be organised...
While I may not like them, I do actually agree that they are a (quote)necessary evil(/quote)...

- they draw dancers from all over and give "the best" a chance to prove that they are "the best"
- they could be used to raise the profie of the dance in general.
- the winners get a recognised 'qualification' that gives more creedance to any workshops or teaching gigs.
- the 'judges' get some recognition and a different 'qualification' for their CV.
- they give an outlet to those dancers who like an audience
- they give dancers a chance to judge themselves by how far they got and who went out in the same round, etc...
- they give an excuse for dedicated practice and personal development: a target to aim for.
- they produce videos/dvds of the good (and not so good) to both draw inspiration from and what not to do.
- they provide a luring spectal for people to actually watch without having to join in or go to workshops.

[bigdjiver]

I have always loved Ceroc because I have always felt it is what ever you want it to be within certain boundaries, the most important of those being a) it is a partner dance and b) it is accessible to the masses c) there are few rules just guides and ideas. :yeah:

Personally I do not consider Ceroc to be a series of gymnastic moves. Ceroc was always supposed to be danced in nightclubs by average people. :yeah: but I love the gymnastic moves, which is why I say I do MJ.
:devil: Ceroc is MJ by committee? :devil:

... The competition I recently attended was more like an attempt at a Ballroom competition... Once the old, huge ballrooms were filled every week by social ballroom dancers. The scene segregated into those out to win medals and competitions and the social crowd. The classes were run by those that loved dance, and wanted it to be "better", and became aimed at medals, at the expense of having fun.

...IMHO comps in Ceroc are a necessary evil... :yeah:

...However in business terms we lose more people from Ceroc from the comps than we attract... Can you substantiate this? I do know of dancers who gave up after a bad competition experience, but I would have thought that far more would have been inspired by what they have seen.

...We would not have these issues if we were all dancing the same dance. eg as I said before you have to include given moves. The moves have to be as defined in for example the Ceroc manual... This is similar to the Ice Skating model of the set program. Beautiful skating, honed near to the defined perfection, and, too most people, it rapidly gets boring.

I would prefer to see all MJ comps dropped. That will not happen. We created the JiveMAsters concept of the audience voting to try and resolve the issue. I think they make the best judges. I worry about the majority of judges at these events. Most of them can barely dance to a high standard themselves. :devil: Where is the "own goal" or "shoot yourself in the foot" smiley?

... in most other dance disciplines teachers usually have to become accredited by a national body, not some made up body...They are "made up" national bodies that have achieved domination by persisting.

...The Brits by nature are not competitive... Tell that to our Olympians.

... it does mean that Ceroc is very different down under. The classes however are much smaller because at the end of the day most people go dancing for pleasure. It was no surprise that as soon as we relaxed it all in Wellington and brought in the UK format the numbers went up 300% in 5 weeks... I suspect that the novelty factor had a lot to do with that rapid an increase, although my guess is that the "fun" way will continue to prosper.
---
I cannot +rep you this time cos I -repped you last time. :mad: :tears:

If life was fair a better sperm would have made it.

[David Bailey]

While I may not like them, I do actually agree that they are a (quote)necessary evil(/quote)...

( snip long list )

.

You'd get most all those benefits with a set of exhibitions; possibly even more so in some cases. Exhibitions are great, I love them, and I wish we had more of them. And less competitions of course :innocent:

[DavidB]

You'd get most all those benefits with a set of exhibitions; possibly even more so in some cases. Exhibitions are great, I love them, and I wish we had more of them. And less competitions of courseSo where do you expect budding cabaret performers to cut their teeth? Or organisers to see couples before they book them.

[David Franklin]

Comps in Ceroc are a necessary evil.
Of course, a certain wizened green Jedi would agree...

Competitions are the path to the dark side. Competing leads to practising. Practising leads to hotshots. Hotshots lead to envy. Envy leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering...
Of course, you've got to wonder about the wisdom of Yoda based upon the evidence - any rational government would have put him in the 'B-Ark'!

[Ballroom queen]

I have come up with two definitions of Ceroc. At this point in the thread it seems to be the place for the boring one. Ceroc is the trademark of a dance organisation, and they can use it any way that suits them within the law. Ceroc (98) can be a very different dance from Ceroc 2005, version 2 revision 3.

Ceroc, the dance, is whatever Ceroc, the company, says it is.

And now that they teach Waltz, Quickstep, social foxtrot, Cha Cha and Rumba (at strictly no sequins), under the marketing of Ceroc does that make Ceroc all those 5 dances as well???? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

(light blue touch paper again, and run... :rofl: :rofl: )

The whole competition thing is interesting - I remember when James Cronin said he didn't want comps as they take away from the social element of dance - then he saw Rob Austin doing his comp and making money, and the ceroc comp started... Hey ho...

[Andy McGregor]

And now that they teach Waltz, Quickstep, social foxtrot, Cha Cha and Rumba (at strictly no sequins), under the marketing of Ceroc does that make Ceroc all those 5 dances as well???? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: This is a very interesting point that we haven't considered. If you went to Ceroc on a Tuesday in NW London you would be right in saying "I went to Ceroc on Tuesday and learnt the Quickstep" - but only if "Ceroc" is a company name. If Ceroc is the name of a dance form it would be like saying "I went to Waltz on Tuesday and learnt to Quickstep".

So, there we have it. Ceroc is a company name. It can not be a dance form in it's own right without being a paradox. So, to disqualify someone for not doing Ceroc is a nonsense. You might as well disqualify someone from the vegetable contest for not doing a Birds Eye, Findus or Tesco own-label :devil:

[ChrisA]

Hoover first marketed the vacuum cleaner.

"Hoover" would have been a perfectly good name for the device until the next manufacturer came along. But once Electrolux and others had their fingers in the pie, it hardly made sense to call the device a Hoover any more.

The emergence of new variants forces the adoption of a generic name.

And just as the term "Vacuum Cleaner" takes nothing away from Hoover, so "Modern Jive" takes nothing away from Ceroc.

As Andy says, Ceroc is a company. When there was only Ceroc, it made sense to call the dance Ceroc. But now it doesn't, except in the sense that my mum still talks about the Hoover, even though she owns an Electrolux.

I don't think there's any need for Ceroc the company to feel defensive about this shift in terminology, for that's all it is. It did the dance world a colossal service in bringing MJ to this country, and changing the name to something that applies to all the variants that now exist takes nothing away at all.

[cerocmetro]

Hoover first marketed the vacuum cleaner.

"Hoover" would have been a perfectly good name for the device until the next manufacturer came along. But once Electrolux and others had their fingers in the pie, it hardly made sense to call the device a Hoover any more.

The emergence of new variants forces the adoption of a generic name.

And just as the term "Vacuum Cleaner" takes nothing away from Hoover, so "Modern Jive" takes nothing away from Ceroc.

As Andy says, Ceroc is a company. When there was only Ceroc, it made sense to call the dance Ceroc. But now it doesn't, except in the sense that my mum still talks about the Hoover, even though she owns an Electrolux.

I don't think there's any need for Ceroc the company to feel defensive about this shift in terminology, for that's all it is. It did the dance world a colossal service in bringing MJ to this country, and changing the name to something that applies to all the variants that now exist takes nothing away at all.


And that is why the Hoover building in West London is now called the "Vacuum cleaner building" :confused:

No I think Mr McGregor has it and I think we are in agreement, Ceroc is a company name. Therefore how can it be judged.Time to turn the clocks back and pretend we never had competitions.

Except the JiveMasters of course

I like DJ's idea of just showcases which is exactly what we are having a whole weekend of here in sunny Wellington in October.

[MouthoftheSouth]

: I suspect that the novelty factor had a lot to do with that rapid an increase, although my guess is that the "fun" way will continue to prosper.


As a recipient of the change I beg to differ.

the previous franchise owner here was essentially "worn out", and the "novelty factor" you mention is nothing more than an owner who is treating the business liek a business instead of a hobby, and doing business liek things to maximise profit.

It's a people business - to make the money you have to get people along. The new owners are doing that my making and keeping it fun - I've had more variety of dancing in hte last 6 months than I had in the 3 1/2 yrs I'd been learning here before then.

New Zealand suffers from a lack of scale - ther's only 4 million people in the country - what's that - 1/4 the size of London, spread around a country larger than the British Isles? Most of the Franchises here are run as part time hobbies by enthusiasts, and it is a real shot in the arm to get someone who makes their living from it taking over!!

What is Ceroc? Ceroc is whatever you choose to define it as - we've danced to the Blue Danube in front of 30,000 ppl here - that was Ceroc too! :)

[David Bailey]

Of course, a certain wizened green Jedi would agree...



Competitions are the path to the dark side. Competing leads to practising. Practising leads to hotshots. Hotshots lead to envy. Envy leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering...

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: Fantastic!

But I still prefer the Buffy version:
"Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to anger. No, wait, hold on. Fear leads to hate, hate leads to the dark side. Hold on, no... First you get the women, then you get the money, then you... Okay, can we forget that?"

[David Bailey]

So where do you expect budding cabaret performers to cut their teeth? Or organisers to see couples before they book them.
Err, dunno... are competitions essential for exhibitions then?

I'd have thought people with an interest in "displaying their wares" (selling workshops / classes / videos etc) would still have an inbuilt commercial interest in giving exhibitions, without competitions.

I confess, though, I'm not sure of the relationship between the two areas. Or any areas, really; the whole world of Commercialism and Modern Jive just sort of whizzes past me whilst I'm, well, enjoying myself dancing... :grin:

[David Franklin]

Err, dunno... are competitions essential for exhibitions then?

I'd have thought people with an interest in "displaying their wares" (selling workshops / classes / videos etc) would still have an inbuilt commercial interest in giving exhibitions, without competitions.I think it's more the other way around - it's not so much people won't do demos outside of competitions, it's that without competition exposure, they won't be asked to do demos anywhere else.

Certainly as far as posted opinions go on the forum, the attitude seems to be "unless your cabaret is of very high standard, don't waste our freestyle time performing it". So if you're not (yet) part of the 'A-list', competitions are a good way of getting a chance to perform in front of an audience. (And I know for us, at any rate, performing in front of an audience is important experience. It is a very different feeling from practising in the privacy of a gymnasium!).

Dave

[David Bailey]

I think it's more the other way around - it's not so much people won't do demos outside of competitions, it's that without competition exposure, they won't be asked to do demos anywhere else.
Fair enough - certainly, competitions seem to be a good way for professionals to gain exposure. But if that's the only raison d'etre (where's that dratted circumflex...), it seems to indicate that competitions are basically evolving into proto-exhibitions, and the gap between the normal amateur dancers and professional exhibitor / competitors seems to be widening...

Also, I'm not sure that competitions are essential for exhibitions. The best, and I mean the very best, dance exhibition I've ever seen was in a St. Albans salsa venue, around 5 years ago, by Edie Espinoza ("Edie the salsa freak") and her troupe. 5 dancers (2 male, 3 female), all gorgeous, in a fantastic 10-minute cabaret slot. And AFAIK, Edie's never done a competition, but is (in salsa terms) world famous, and does exhibitions and shows all over the planet.

So competitions are not essential - but I'll admit, they seem to be helpful... :sad:

[Will]

Hoover first marketed the vacuum cleaner.

"Hoover" would have been a perfectly good name for the device until the next manufacturer came along. But once Electrolux and others had their fingers in the pie, it hardly made sense to call the device a Hoover any more.

The emergence of new variants forces the adoption of a generic name.

And just as the term "Vacuum Cleaner" takes nothing away from Hoover, so "Modern Jive" takes nothing away from Ceroc.

As Andy says, Ceroc is a company. When there was only Ceroc, it made sense to call the dance Ceroc. But now it doesn't, except in the sense that my mum still talks about the Hoover, even though she owns an Electrolux.

I don't think there's any need for Ceroc the company to feel defensive about this shift in terminology, for that's all it is. It did the dance world a colossal service in bringing MJ to this country, and changing the name to something that applies to all the variants that now exist takes nothing away at all.
:yeah:

[Will]

This is a very interesting point that we haven't considered. If you went to Ceroc on a Tuesday in NW London you would be right in saying "I went to Ceroc on Tuesday and learnt the Quickstep" - but only if "Ceroc" is a company name. If Ceroc is the name of a dance form it would be like saying "I went to Waltz on Tuesday and learnt to Quickstep".
Andy, you seem to have hit the nail on the head with your understanding of the issues and then totally come to the wrong conclusion! Your later statement is the one that is actually relevant :-

i.e. "I went to Strictly no sequins on Tuesday and learnt to Quickstep".

The very reason it is called Strictly no sequins instead of Ceroc is to differentiate between ceroc dancing and ballroom dancing.



So, there we have it. Ceroc is a company name.

Ceroc is a dance form AND and company name. Modern Jive is also a name for the same dance form. Both are valid in my opinion.

[Lou]

Ceroc is a dance form AND and company name. Modern Jive is also a name for the same dance form. Both are valid in my opinion.
And it's fine to say that you're dancing ceroc at a Ceroc™ class or event. You can even say you're dancing Modern Jive at that Ceroc™ event. However, I doubt anyone says that they are ceroccing at events held by any LeRoc organisation, Blitz, MoJive, Ginger Jive, etc... (Here in Bristol, many dancers hadn't even heard of the term "ceroc" up until recently). However, the term "Modern Jive" (as inelegant as it is), remains perfectly valid.

Ceroc as a dance can only be defined by its relationship to Ceroc™. And much of that is due to Ceroc™'s trademarking of the name to ensure the quality and control of the brand. Which is fair enough. :nice:

[Will]

However, I doubt anyone says that they are ceroccing at events held by any LeRoc organisation, Blitz, MoJive, Ginger Jive, etc... (Here in Bristol, many dancers hadn't even heard of the term "ceroc" up until recently).
I understand what your saying and agree with alot of your post. But this bit is a mute point as in 99% of cases, the people at Xroc or Xjive who haven't heard of the term ceroc are being taught by people who learnt to dance at ceroc, or if not, they in turn were taught by someone who learnt at ceroc.


However, the term "Modern Jive" (as inelegant as it is), remains perfectly valid.Whilst I'd argue that ceroc is a still a valid name (and is far more recognised outside the dancing fraternity than modern jive), I also agree with this absolutely (on both counts). :flower:

[David Franklin]

Fair enough - certainly, competitions seem to be a good way for professionals to gain exposure. But if that's the only raison d'etre (where's that dratted circumflex...), it seems to indicate that competitions are basically evolving into proto-exhibitions, and the gap between the normal amateur dancers and professional exhibitor / competitors seems to be widening...As far as spotlight goes, I'd say that's exactly right. Most people spend months practising (with hiring studios etc.) their routines - already that's way beyond normal amateur dancers. And I'd say quite a few teachers have looked out of their depth in showcase.


Also, I'm not sure that competitions are essential for exhibitions. The best, and I mean the very best, dance exhibition I've ever seen was in a St. Albans salsa venue, around 5 years ago, by Edie Espinoza ("Edie the salsa freak") and her troupe. 5 dancers (2 male, 3 female), all gorgeous, in a fantastic 10-minute cabaret slot. And AFAIK, Edie's never done a competition, but is (in salsa terms) world famous, and does exhibitions and shows all over the planet.Um, Edie won the Mayan (Amateur) back in 1996 (http://www.dancefreak.com/stories/contest.htm) (and entered the pro the next year, I think). I think your base point stands - you don't need to compete. But one way or another, you need to get organisers to book you - either by being pushy, being an organiser yourself, or whatever. And clearly, being a competition winner is only going to help.

Personally, I've always enjoyed the spotlight category - it's always one of the highlights of a weekender for me, and that was true even before I had any aspirations to do one myself. But it seems one of the things people would be happiest to drop from the competitions and dance events. :tears:

[Lou]

I understand what your saying and agree with alot of your post. But this bit is a mute point as in 99% of cases, the people at Xroc or Xjive who haven't heard of the term ceroc are being taught by people who learnt to dance at ceroc, or if not, they in turn were taught by someone who learnt at ceroc.
I'm sorry I'm being pedantic, Will! :nice: The point isn't moot, as we have the weird exception in this part of the country, where 100% of LeRoc teachers are not Ceroc™ trained - but can be traced back to Michel Gay and the original LeRoc/ceroc split (which is still somewhat obscured by secrecy and time....). I have no idea on the pedigree of teachers from other organisations, but would agree with you that Ceroc™ would probably feature somewhere in the family tree of the majority (but whether it's as much as 99%, I can't honestly say).

Because of our local history, I can't imagine that Ceroc™ HQ would like us to refer to the dance as ceroc, and, really, it just wouldn't be accurate .

[Will]

Because of our local history, I can't imagine that Ceroc™ HQ would like us to refer to the dance as ceroc, and, really, it just wouldn't be accurate .
Well that's the rub isn't it. If Ceroc the company didn't object and hadn't trademarked the name, then you'd be calling the dance ceroc yourselves - just like you did in the 80's before the copyright came into effect.

[Andy McGregor]

There is some ancient politics here. Most of it is before the time we discovered MJ. As much as it pains me to calm a fight I would like to point out that it was other people's fight and doesn't really need to be part of our present debate.

This old politics about who invented the dance is what stops me joining the LeRoc Fed. What stops me joining Ceroc is the price - and the fact they wouldn't have me due to my lack of youth and beauty* :tears:

*Adam Nathanson got into Ceroc before the beauty clause was written - obviously :devil:

[Lou]

Well that's the rub isn't it. If Ceroc the company didn't object and hadn't trademarked the name, then you'd be calling the dance ceroc yourselves - just like you did in the 80's before the copyright came into effect.
Ah.. but it was never called ceroc here. And history is not clear on if it should've been. Whether or not we would've called it ceroc if Mr Cronin hadn't taken out his copyright, who can tell?! :whistle: It could easily be argued that his shrewd business decision to trademark and create the Ceroc™ company is what has given it a market leading status today.

Anyway, despite the copyright issue, Bristolian LeRoc is has enough significant differences to ceroc to be a dance in its own right. (There's the footwork, which is its main differentiator, but there's also a few smaller changes - different basic moves, signals, and some slight variations in the ways moves are danced.) There's a huge amount of similarity, though, which is why they can both be classed as forms of Modern Jive - subsets of MJ, if you will. (Or for we OO geeks, the MJ class).

But because LeRoc exists and has parts that it does not share with ceroc - I cannot agree that Modern Jive and ceroc are interchangeable terms. LeRoc & ceroc are both just purely subsets of MJ.

[Lou]

As much as it pains me to calm a fight I would like to point out that it was other people's fight and doesn't really need to be part of our present debate.
Meh. It wasn't supposed to be part of this debate. But we've already answered Adam's question and I hate to see threads die. :tears:

Anyway - this isn't a fight. It's a discussion on semantics. Get thee back to the DJ wars.

Or start up a thread about shoes. :whistle:

[Will]

Ah.. but it was never called ceroc here. And history is not clear on if it should've been.
I'm wondering if we are talking at cross purposes? By "Here" I was thinking of Bristol. As far as Bristol is concerned, there are many people who will be able to tell you that it used to be called Ceroc there in the 80's until the copyright came in, and then clubs were forced to change their names. However, if you are talking about somewhere else then maybe that's the discrepancy. (My knowledge of the dance history of Chipping Sodbury for example is somewhat lacking!)


It could easily be argued that his shrewd business decision to trademark and create the Ceroc™ company is what has given it a market leading status today.Whilst I don't think this is the only reason, I don't doubt that this has been a significant factor.

What I'd also say is what a fantastic job the Leroc clubs in Bristol and the West Country have done in propergating the dance form in that area of the country, and getting so many people into dancing. I wish I'd known about it when I was growing up there!

[Lou]

I'm wondering if we are talking at cross purposes? By "Here" I was thinking of Bristol. As far as Bristol is concerned, there are many people who will be able to tell you that it used to be called Ceroc there in the 80's until the copyright came in, and then clubs were forced to change their names. However, if you are talking about somewhere else then maybe that's the discrepancy. (My knowledge of the dance history of Chipping Sodbury is somewhat lacking!)
There hasn't been a class in Chipping Sodbury for too many years.... (where's a wistful smiley when you want one?) The "Sodbury Comb" still remains one of my favourite moves...

I'm thinking of Bristol too. And Michel's organisation named Bristol LeRoc. And that every current Bristol teacher (for whatever organisation), has either been taught by Michel, or taught by someone who was taught by Michel.

Andy makes a fair point in that we've ventured into old politics. And I don't intend for this to become a fight! We all know that the history is shrouded in confusion at best. Even the people who were there at the time argue as to who did what, or what they called it, or where the split occured, or whatever. It's difficult, if not impossible, for those of us who weren't there to know what actually happened and when.

This shouldn't detract from the fact that there are at least 2 different forms of Modern Jive today. And that, for the vast majority of Bristolians, their dance today is called LeRoc. Ceroc remains a relatively unfamiliar term. As an aside - Bristolian LeRoc is even different to its cousin in Brighton, as Andy & I have discovered to our surprise.

[clevedonboy]

As an aside - Bristolian LeRoc is even different to its cousin in Brighton, as Andy & I have discovered to our surprise.

And me an' 'er

[spindr]

I'm thinking of Bristol too. And Michel's organisation named Bristol LeRoc. And that every current Bristol teacher (for whatever organisation), has either been taught by Michel, or taught by someone who was taught by Michel.

I know 'cause I was there :) Michel Gay used to teach as a "Ceroc" class before it became Ceroc (tm). In fact I remember a BBC Bristol programme where Michel's class was in close proximity to James Cronin dancing.

Also Jess Newton used to teach RocJive (?) -- which didn't seem to have much heritage with Michel's classes. Unlike Elmgrove Leroc, and the Leroc classes at the Berkeley centre -- which involved teachers who'd gone/taught at Michel's classes.

Then Michel's class became Bristol LeRoc.

Then someone else tried to start Ceroc (tm) in Bristol -- which folded fairly quickly.

Fast forward to the present day...
...alright my luvver!!

SpinDr.

[Lou]

I know 'cause I was there :) Michel Gay used to teach as a "Ceroc" class before it became Ceroc (tm).
{snip}
Then Michel's class became Bristol LeRoc.
Ahhh... :) Thanks for the history, Neil!
I can see what Will's getting at, but the c-word has long been forgotten & dropped from general use.... ;)



Then someone else tried to start Ceroc (tm) in Bristol -- which folded fairly quickly.
I do vaguely remember that one....


Fast forward to the present day...
And they've come back to Thornbury. :whistle:

[David Bailey]

As much as it pains me to calm a fight
Can I nominate this for BFG "Quote Of The Year" award?

(there must be an award like that...?)