What is Freestyle in Dance Competitions?

[Roger C]

Just wondering what Competition organisers, Judges and the General Public think of when they see competitors in either the Advance or Open sections.

Are they dancing and interpreting the music or just going through a prepared routine - in which case maybe they should be dancing in the Showcase section.

[under par]

Just wondering what Competition organisers, Judges and the General Public think of when they see competitors in either the Advance or Open sections.

Are they dancing and interpreting the music or just going through a prepared routine - in which case maybe they should be dancing in the Showcase section.


I haven't been to many competitions but it appears that many couples are repeating well rehearsed sequences or segments of dance routines within freestyle competition.

I have only entered one non DWAS competition.
My partner and I practised several flashy moves which I tried to put in whenever the music suited. what went around them was totally unscripted but hopefully in time to the music.

[Yliander]

Just wondering what Competition organisers, Judges and the General Public think of when they see competitors in either the Advance or Open sections.

Are they dancing and interpreting the music or just going through a prepared routine - in which case maybe they should be dancing in the Showcase section. if they are just dancing a prepared routine then they should be in the Showcase section.

In a freestyle category then freestyle should be what it is about -at all levels - but especially Advanced and above as these dancers are supposed to be at the top of their games in all areas of their dance and that means freestyling as well. Personally if a couple is using more than 3 moves in a sequence then they aren't really freestyling.

[drathzel]

My partner and I practised several flashy moves which I tried to put in whenever the music suited. what went around them was totally unscripted but hopefully in time to the music.


I think this is the best way, as your partner knows whats coming but its not always* we do this move then that move then that move then this move, pose, start again!*

[Minnie M]

....... practised several flashy moves which I tried to put in whenever the music suited. what went around them was totally unscripted but hopefully in time to the music.
I reckon the judges are looking for a wow factor as well as dancing chemistry and musicality as well as being technically good. The standard in the advance just gets better and better :clap:

Problem is in the lower end ...... we keep seeing the same dancers in the advance comp over and over again ..... where is the new blood, or are they just shy :blush:

[Andreas]

I haven't been to many competitions but it appears that many couples are repeating well rehearsed sequences or segments of dance routines within freestyle competition.

I would extend that statement to MOST.

Last year I couched (incidentally) my girlfriend and her dance partner and made them focus on practicing a great variety of moves and musical interpretation. It was clear that I made their life harder than if I had given them set sequences of 3-5 moves to rehearse and combine. However, this is an approach that I deplore as the word sequence alone already implies lack of true freestyling. Well, it all paid off and they came second in Adv. Open w/o doing proper aerials. And to be honest, I'd always choose my approach again because I enjoyed their dance more than that of the winners (I know I am biased) because of the variety. There was no combination of three moves that was repeated all through the comp. :flower:

[Andreas]

I couched (incidentally) my girlfriend and her dance partner

Well, actually, I only couched my girlfriend but coached the two of them
:blush: :rofl:

can't believe that happened

[David Bailey]

we keep seeing the same dancers in the advance comp over and over again ..... where is the new blood, or are they just shy :blush:
Possibly competing at an advanced level is just such a different (and separate) discipline, that most club dancers don't have the time or inclination to do so?

I'm a real competition-sceptic, of course; I think competitions are mainly used (at least at the advanced level) as business promotion tools. "Come and do X and Y's workshop, they won the Lower Sidcup World Championships three years in a row"... :whistle:

Mind you, I'm also warped by the world of salsa "competitions", it wouldn't surprise me if there was a Lower Sidcup salsa world championship...

[Andreas]

Possibly competing at an advanced level is just such a different (and separate) discipline, that most club dancers don't have the time or inclination to do so?

I actually think it is a mentality thing. Most dancers in the UK that I have met enjoy the dancing for dancing's sake. In NZ and OZ this is completely different. People are incredible competitive. the result is that you have very well attended competitions and a lot of new competitors coming through.

When I noticed how the ball is rolling down-under it always reminded me of the times of the cold war: USSR and USA were fighting it out with sports. Competitions were used to display ones superiority. The same kinda thing is what happens down-under. Positive side effect is that people spend a lot of time exercising. :flower:

[Lynn]

I have only entered one non DWAS competition.
My partner and I practised several flashy moves which I tried to put in whenever the music suited. what went around them was totally unscripted but hopefully in time to the music. Having seen a bit of your preparation I think you had a great balance of practicing some neat moves, then freestyling them with the music. Which worked really well - and clearly the judges thought so too! :clap:

[Mr Cool]

I actually think it is a mentality thing. Most dancers in the UK that I have met enjoy the dancing for dancing's sake. In NZ and OZ this is completely different. People are incredible competitive. the result is that you have very well attended competitions and a lot of new competitors coming through.

When I noticed how the ball is rolling down-under it always reminded me of the times of the cold war: USSR and USA were fighting it out with sports. Competitions were used to display ones superiority. The same kinda thing is what happens down-under. Positive side effect is that people spend a lot of time exercising. :flower:

I think competitions should encourage freestyle in competition by scoring style and musicality higher.
I for one am not impressed by routines that are based almost completely on lifts and airsteps, a trend i think we have picked up from OZ.
Typically the man moves from one big move to another often ignoring the music leaving the lady to do all the musicality. The big moves wow the crowd but is it dancing? Personally i want to see the man dance with style and finesse not just as the foil for his partner :waycool: :waycool: :waycool: :waycool:

[alex]

I think competitions should encourage freestyle in competition by scoring style and musicality higher.
I for one am not impressed by routines that are based almost completely on lifts and airsteps, a trend i think we have picked up from OZ.
Typically the man moves from one big move to another often ignoring the music leaving the lady to do all the musicality. The big moves wow the crowd but is it dancing? Personally i want to see the man dance with style and finesse not just as the foil for his partner
im attracting negative rep at the moment :clap: . ive still got 31 points left, so may as well continue speaking my mind until its all used up.

its all very well saying musicality should be scored higher, but there is a big problem. people arent that good at it. it takes more than hitting a couple of breaks to be 'musical'. what about the rest of the song? 'feeling the music' is ok for you and your partner, but has little visible effect on most dancers. if you cant see it then how do you expect the judges to mark it?

people are a lot better at doing flashy moves. they can fill a whole dance with them, so when they get the judges attention for their 10 seconds they get their flashy moves seen.

the few dancers that are visibly good at 'musicality' are usually just good at one type of music, or the dancing becomes too individual and not a partner dance any more. funky solo dancing does not interpret smooth blues.

musicality means different things to different people. i thought viktor and carol were superb at jive masters last year, but other people had a completely different opinion.

you are not alone in your vocal dislike of airsteps (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/showthread.php?p=129160) , and one airsteps couple in particular. so mr cool, a question for you. who, aside from this couple, does more than one decent airstep in freestyle comps? how many dont do any?

imho the australian influence has been on presentation. this was almost nonexistent a few years ago, and is far better now.

i would like to see musicality rewarded, but only if it is done well enough. while im waiting for that to happen id like the rest of the dancing to be interesting.

alex

[bigdjiver]

I believe that it is possible for an advanced dancer who knows a particular track to be able to choreograph it on the fly, including long sequences of moves. This is outside of my personal zone, and I am extrapolating such extraordinary abilities from my experiences in other fields.

I also believe that there are quite a number that know a track and can remember sequences of moves that fit in perfectly. I do not see this as "cheating", or to be discounted, but rather as an extrapolation of the ability to remember one move that fits. We all learned language starting with one word at a time, and moving through phrases to sentences. I think the language of dance is the same.

There is usually a difference between exhibition dance and partner dance. The only real way to assess partner dancing is for the partners to do the judging. Otherwise we we have to assess what we see, and the feelings that that arouses, rather than experience first-hand the "connection". It is usually beyond our ability to see the nuances, so we have to settle for competitors "dancing big".

[jockey]

I reckon the judges are looking for a wow factor as well as dancing chemistry and musicality as well as being technically good. The standard in the advance just gets better and better :clap:

Problem is in the lower end ...... we keep seeing the same dancers in the advance comp over and over again ..... where is the new blood, or are they just shy :blush:
The last time I did Blackpool (2004) the advanced dancers were to be seen in the intermediate section pothunting - 5 advanced couples filled 5 of the six final places in the intermediate final; we made the semis and with insider help worked out we were about 9th or 10th. Therefore if they had stayed where they belonged Amaia and I would have made the final. That"s a 600 mile round trip from Brighton and how far is it from Spain? :cheers: (ironic)
(Was that whinging or criticism? Answers on discarded competition entry forms only)

[jockey]

Possibly competing at an advanced level is just such a different (and separate) discipline, that most club dancers don't have the time or inclination to do so?

I'm a real competition-sceptic, of course; I think competitions are mainly used (at least at the advanced level) as business promotion tools. "Come and do X and Y's workshop, they won the Lower Sidcup World Championships three years in a row"... :whistle:

Mind you, I'm also warped by the world of salsa "competitions", it wouldn't surprise me if there was a Lower Sidcup salsa world championship...
The most successfull comp couple in recent years, Clayton and Janine, dont teach and are not allied, especially to any dance co. in this country which could be promoted by their winning as they are Australian.
So one big counterexample; and there are others; a link between judging criteria and the aims and values of the organisers is not something I would entirely rule out of court (it helps to be young and slim, alledgedly) though...

[David Bailey]

im attracting negative rep at the moment :clap: . ive still got 31 points left, so may as well continue speaking my mind until its all used up.

?? Nahhh, you've gotta do something really dumb to reach that level...


its all very well saying musicality should be scored higher, but there is a big problem. people arent that good at it.
{ snip lots of good points }

Well, my response to that is that, assuming you're a believer in the value of competitions, people will only get good at musicality if this factor becomes more important in the judging criteria. If judges only judged on musicality, you can bet that competitors would work on that aspect.


I believe that it is possible for an advanced dancer who knows a particular track to be able to choreograph it on the fly, including long sequences of moves.
Certainly sounds plausible to a large degree - for much of a familiar track I'd imagine you'd remember particular musical sequences and move sequences you could do to those musical sequences.


The only real way to assess partner dancing is for the partners to do the judging.
That's very interesting. Are you suggesting "Dance with a judge" (DWAJ :) ) competitions?

Hmmm....I can't see any reason why this would be an inherently dumb idea. Possibly a bit too radical, but I like it. And for me, that's good. :)


(it helps to be young and slim, alledgedly)
:eek: Next you'll be telling me that winners are chosen because they'll look good on the publicity shots.

[bigdjiver]

...That's very interesting. Are you suggesting "Dance with a judge" (DWAJ :) ) competitions?

Hmmm....I can't see any reason why this would be an inherently dumb idea. Possibly a bit too radical, but I like it. And for me, that's good. :) ...I read something on the Internet that seemed to suggest that they had dance competitions in the USA where they swapped partners, and the ladies judged the men, and vice versa. I failed to to get any clear info on if, or how, it happened. I have tried to think of ways such a competition could be organised, but am not yet convinced by any of them.

[Paul F]

Im very tired after just driving home from Surrey but I am going to give my humble opinions for what they are worth, starting with a bit of a sweeping statement. :sick:

I dont consider those that win the advanced section of a competition as the best dancers. (may as well start with a bit of controversy) :)

....at least, not the best outside of the showcase dancers.

Whether you can dance well with a regular partner or with a stranger is completely different. I have seen some cases where dancing with a regular partner has decreased the ability of the guy/girl to freestyle.
To me, the best dancers are the ones who can consistently dance to a high degree with numerous different partners. I dare say a lot of the competition winners cant!

Unfortunately though this current way is how competitions are judged in most styles. The category may well call for freestyle but what is delivered is anything but IMO.

I think most guys would have a few mini-routines that they like to do but it boils down to whether their partner is familiar with them. If they are not familiar with it the guy then has to work hard to lead it and the lady to follow it. Perfect! Thats something I would like to watch. :clap:

I wish there was some way of developing the 'Dance With A Stranger' idea as this really does show the leading/following ability of the couple. Alas, I guess its unfair to potentially pair up a seasoned dancer with a beginner ....or is it?
:devil:

Its this ability to 'grab' someone and dance with them that makes Ceroc so enjoyable to a lot of people. This should be reflected in the competitions. If we want to see choreographed sequences we can watch those categories.

[David Bailey]

{ everything he said }
A very big :yeah: to all those points.

I'm still intrigued by the DWAJ idea though...

And obviously I've patented, copyrighted and trademarked that term, so I'll sue if anyone ever uses it again. Ever.

[Andreas]

A very big :yeah: to all those points.


Totally agree with your agreement. :D

Excellent post Paul and I'd give you rep if I could. :whistle:

[Yliander]

I wish there was some way of developing the 'Dance With A Stranger' idea as this really does show the leading/following ability of the couple. Alas, I guess its unfair to potentially pair up a seasoned dancer with a beginner ....or is it?
:devil:

Its this ability to 'grab' someone and dance with them that makes Ceroc so enjoyable to a lot of people. This should be reflected in the competitions. If we want to see choreographed sequences we can watch those categories.There is potential for DWAS to be developed to a higher level in the UK.

DWAS in Australia is done in levels - there is a category for Beginners, Intermediate & Advanced. in the last couple of years they have gone a step further and rather than partnering people with one person for the heats, semis & finals - now they rotate partners through out each stage - execpt for finals - but partners aren't assigned until dancers on the floor so no time to practise :nice: Males & Females are judged seperately not as a couple

[Mr Cool]

There is potential for DWAS to be developed to a higher level in the UK.

DWAS in Australia is done in levels - there is a category for Beginners, Intermediate & Advanced. in the last couple of years they have gone a step further and rather than partnering people with one person for the heats, semis & finals - now they rotate partners through out each stage - execpt for finals - but partners aren't assigned until dancers on the floor so no time to practise :nice: Males & Females are judged seperately not as a couple

The idea of swapping partners for DWAS is spot on. Real dancing for me is the ability to dance with a wide range of partners and to a variety of good music. This is what dancing is about who wants to learn routines? I am a bit worried about catergorising though who would make the decison to a dancers level.
I think one competition where everybody is mixed is best let the best shine through ? :cheers: :waycool: :waycool: :waycool:

[Yliander]

The idea of swapping partners for DWAS is spot on. Real dancing for me is the ability to dance with a wide range of partners and to a variety of good music. This is what dancing is about who wants to learn routines? I am a bit worried about catergorising though who would make the decison to a dancers level. the levels for DWAS are the same as for the freestyle levels

I think one competition where everybody is mixed is best let the best shine through ? :cheers: :waycool: :waycool: :waycool:is hard for an advanced follow to do her best with a beginner lead

by splitting into levels - you can also vary the judging requirements - my understanding is that at beginner level the main thing being judged are dancing on the beat at intermediate & advanced level musicality, style etc are more important

[Andreas]

is hard for an advanced follow to do her best with a beginner lead

You could just as much turn that around: How good an advanced dancer REALLY is shows in HER/HIS ability to dance to the level of their respective partner. This is much more of an art and challenge than doing difficult moves with a person who knows perfectly what he/she is doing.



by splitting into levels - you can also vary the judging requirements - my understanding is that at beginner level the main thing being judged are dancing on the beat at intermediate & advanced level musicality, style etc are more important

That is exactly what it comes down to: judging criteria! Currently it is all about technical difficulty showing in moves, almost all anyway.

Essentially you'd have to do two DWAS, one mixed levels, one separated levels.

Though it is not as exciting to watch and/or (for the advanced person) participate in the mixed levels category. In my opinion this is the only category that actually represents the spirit of Ceroc/MJ correctly and also shows the ability to freestyle best. It obviously is also more of a gamble. But that again comes down to what you want to get out of the comp.

:flower:

[Yliander]

You could just as much turn that around: How good an advanced dancer REALLY is shows in HER/HIS ability to dance to the level of their respective partner. This is much more of an art and challenge than doing difficult moves with a person who knows perfectly what he/she is doing. dancing to the level of your partner is a skill

That is exactly what it comes down to: judging criteria! Currently it is all about technical difficulty showing in moves, almost all anyway. having never seen a mixed level DWAS comp - I'm guessing that most of those that make it to finals and placing are higher level leaders then

Essentially you'd have to do two DWAS, one mixed levels, one separated levels. what would having both achieve?

Though it is not as exciting to watch and/or (for the advanced person) participate in the mixed levels category. In my opinion this is the only category that actually represents the spirit of Ceroc/MJ correctly and also shows the ability to freestyle best. It obviously is also more of a gamble. But that again comes down to what you want to get out of the comp. :flower:I think it is safe to say that what most people want from a competition is the chance to dance the best they can.

given that level DWAS pairs leaders & follows of the same level this gives both that opportunity - plus it allows the judges to compare apples with apples rather than apples with oranges

[Gus]

Real dancing for me is the ability to dance with a wide range of partners and to a variety of good music. Would it also be valid to suggest for many of the better dancers is that 'real' dancing is about improving their style, moves and enjoyment with a more limited group of partners? Look at the best dancers. They may well dance with all and sundry but they will have their 'favourite' dancers with whom they shine and come alive. THAT is what I love to see, what inspires me and something I wish to emulate.

Would people prefer to pay to see one mass DWAS, or see the best dance with people they think they can perform better?

[Yliander]

Would people prefer to pay to see one mass DWAS, or see the best dance with people they think they can perform better?shouldn't the real question be

what would people rather compete in?

[Dreadful Scathe]

The last time I did Blackpool (2004) the advanced dancers were to be seen in the intermediate section pothunting - 5 advanced couples filled 5 of the six final places in the intermediate final; we made the semis and with insider help worked out we were about 9th or 10th.

Which couple of the 6 were not advanced then, and how exactly are you judging this? All finalists were eligible for the catagory or they would have been disqualified! Certainly, James and Melanie are an intermediate dance partnership - James may well have been dancing jive the shortest time out of all the finalists. That just goes to show how good he is, but did that mean he should have entered advanced ?



Therefore if they had stayed where they belonged Amaia and I would have made the final.

This suggests all 5 of them previously entered the advanced section. I'd be suitable outraged too if this is true - can anyone confirm?


if they are just dancing a prepared routine then they should be in the Showcase section.


I give the judges the benefit of the doubt here, Im sure they can tell the difference between a routine and freestyle dancing. A routine is not likely to fit all types of music, and you never know what music you will get. Anyway Ive seen a few showcases where it looked as thought the couple were freestyling ;) so I say do what you like, the judges should spot it. :)

[Andreas]

having never seen a mixed level DWAS comp - I'm guessing that most of those that make it to finals and placing are higher level leaders then

Goes to show that my argument with focus on difficulty of moves was well substantiated ... as far as OZ goes anyway. Quite surprisingly (for you) the answer is NO. It was always relatively even with a slight advantage to the higher level girls.

This also makes perfect sense:
- A good lead can only do so much with a beginner follower. In most cases body tension etc. is just not or only rudimentary developed. So the majority of all drops will be like holding a sack of potatoes (no offense, but we all know not to do drops with beginners for good reasons). Very complex moves can only be done if the emphasis is on the leader because the follower is certainly not quick and precise enough to do the moves.
- A good follower can easily spot holes in the flow of the lead and make use of those through style elements etc.. Should the lead know a dip/drop or two then the follower can actually (although I hate saying this) place herself into the move and make it look great.



what would having both achieve?

I think it is safe to say that what most people want from a competition is the chance to dance the best they can.

It'd show who is capable of not only dancing with people of their level but also make a great dance of what is available when the partner is not up there. Or the other way around, it shows if people who are great social dancers can also mix and mingle in a category when they have to pull some tricks to impress. If you run the mixed level category in the same format as it is being applied in OZ to DWAS then you'd even eliminate a large chunk of the 'luck' factor.


given that level DWAS pairs leaders & follows of the same level this gives both that opportunity - plus it allows the judges to compare apples with apples rather than apples with oranges

I agree as far as current rules go. But who says that the current judging criteria are great? They work because people have been told 'this is what counts'. You give people different objectives and suddenly your oranges become apples ... this did work with water and wine.

DWAS is a category distinct to the others. You can't expect to win because you have just won the Adv. 'freestyle'. You are submitted to a portion of luck in regards to your partner. A regular change of partners sort of reduces this but still, you will not be able to scratch your full potential. But that is also not the aim of such an event.

[Minnie M]

Saturday week ago Twyford had a DWAS comp, which was very entertaining, mainly because most of the entrants had 'opposite' partners (experience + beginner) It was interesting to see how they coped, however the couple who won (and they were very good) were both experienced dancers and had danced with each other before - luck of the draw :D In fact all the placed couples were experenced dancers, not a beginner in sight, even though there were some really top class dancers coupled with beginners

At the end of the day (a saying taken from Big Brother :whistle: ) the judges were looking for the best dancing couple, not necessarily "how you can get the best out of mixed levels"

[Roger C]

I think competitions should encourage freestyle in competition by scoring style and musicality higher.
I for one am not impressed by routines that are based almost completely on lifts and airsteps, a trend i think we have picked up from OZ.
Typically the man moves from one big move to another often ignoring the music leaving the lady to do all the musicality. The big moves wow the crowd but is it dancing? Personally i want to see the man dance with style and finesse not just as the foil for his partner :waycool: :waycool: :waycool: :waycool:


I am pleased to see that there are a number of people that want to see freestyle encouraged and that they think that routines have no place in Freestyle Competition.

Roger C

[Roger C]

I believe that it is possible for an advanced dancer who knows a particular track to be able to choreograph it on the fly, including long sequences of moves. This is outside of my personal zone, and I am extrapolating such extraordinary abilities from my experiences in other fields.

I also believe that there are quite a number that know a track and can remember sequences of moves that fit in perfectly. I do not see this as "cheating", or to be discounted, but rather as an extrapolation of the ability to remember one move that fits. We all learned language starting with one word at a time, and moving through phrases to sentences. I think the language of dance is the same.

There is usually a difference between exhibition dance and partner dance. The only real way to assess partner dancing is for the partners to do the judging. Otherwise we we have to assess what we see, and the feelings that that arouses, rather than experience first-hand the "connection". It is usually beyond our ability to see the nuances, so we have to settle for competitors "dancing big".


Wow! I didn't realise that advance dancers were so good!

To be able to choreograph on the fly long sequences of moves into the near future and to be able to dance in the present. Where are these supermen? You clearly have lost the plot. It is far easier to pre-prepare a routine in advance and to polish it, rather than to stress about interpreting the actual music they are hearing.

Roger C

[David Franklin]

To be able to choreograph on the fly long sequences of moves into the near future and to be able to dance in the present. Where are these supermen? You clearly have lost the plot. It is far easier to pre-prepare a routine in advance and to polish it, rather than to stress about interpreting the actual music they are hearing.I know quite a lot of competitors, and I have to say I've never noticed any of them use long pre-planned sequences. A lot of couples do use "set pieces" - 2 or 3 flash moves linked together. No, it's not strictly freestyle, and worse, it's very noticable if repeated. But it's a long way from the your implication of a complete choreographed routine.

As for easier to pre-prepare a routine and polish it - well, I guess it depends what you mean by "polish". We are some way from the top cabaret couples, and although we spend some time getting the moves "slick", most of the time we spend "polishing" is very specific work on lines, shapes etc., or extending/truncating a move to work with the music. That work is very specific to the track we are using and would be completely pointless for a freestyle competition. All this is even more true for the top couples.

I must also say we find choreographing a complete routine a lot of work compared with freestyle; on at least one routine we had insufficient time to finish choreography and so had sections that were "OK, I'll put you down from lift #1 on this beat, and then we'll freestyle, and then at this count I'll put you into a walky move so we can prepare and then on this beat we'll do the next lift". The performance seemed to go down well (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/showpost.php?p=56956&postcount=3). Very few people realised we were freestyling.

[Chef]

A while ago I was at a national MJ competition and I saw a couple that I knew very well dancing in the advanced competion. They had taken three moves from Graham LeClerc and Sarah Johnson "simply irrestiable" showcase routine and danced those three moves in the same order for the whole track. They continued to do exactly the same thing for all the subsequent tracks that they enountered up to and including the final. They didn't get placed in the final because when there are only 5 couples left on the floor the judges can see what is happening while in the earlier packed heats the judges have only about 6 seconds per couple to make an assesment.

They may have danced these three moves with superb accomplishment but there was no lead and follow because they both knew what moves were coming next and there was no musicality because the moves were not crafted to fit the peice of music being played at the time. Still it was good enough to get them to the final. I cannot see how it would fit into a definition of freestyle though.

At another competition I watched extrememly good couples progress though to the final. On the way to the final the couples ended up having to dance to 5 tracks. One was classic thump thump pop, one was slow and latiny, one was lindy/swing style, one bluesy in feel and speed, and one show tune.

One couple danced superbly utilising about 15 moves from their dance videos but the only thing that seemed to change in their dancing from track to track was the speed at which these same moves was executed. If a break or an accent point in the music occured part way through they didn't let it interupt the flow of the move. In short, to my eye, it seemed like an execution of moves where the music was only there to provide a cadence. They won.

Another couple also danced superbly but they changed their selection of moves to fit in with the style of each track they were given. Their hands, feet, heads arms and legs were all used to illustrate that they were dancing TO the music. They used stops, hesitations and accent points. Not a single nuance of the music was left unexplored. They did not win.

We all have our own individual ideas about what dancing is. Competition freestyle dancing is not my idea of dancing. When the music and dance become uncoupled from each other then it falls way outside of my idea of dance. Competition dancing appears to me to be a series of pre prepared dance sequences and flash moves pretending to be "freestyle".

I still like watching showcase routines though. At least they are not pretending to be freestyle.

I do still harbour hopes that dancing TO music will come back into fashion one day. In the meantime it is what I am aiming for in my dancing.

[bigdjiver]

...To be able to choreograph on the fly long sequences of moves into the near future and to be able to dance in the present. Where are these supermen? You clearly have lost the plot...I do not know of any dancers that can choreograph a track on the fly. I do know of human beings who have "superhuman" gifts at the same level, and believe that it is within the range of human ability. I have a few flashes of similar feats myself when much younger, and it is scary. These are not tricks of the concious mind, you cannot hear yourself thinking "I will do this, then I will ..." It just flows.
Music is repetitious, and patterned, so is dance. Prediciting and matching up the patterns is not that difficult a task.
I have seen enough of your dancing to believe that, for you, sometimes it just flows, just works beautifully. You did not know how you did it, how to explain it to someone else, and were not sure that you could reach that level again. Am I right?

[Sheepman]

...made them focus on practicing a great variety of moves and musical interpretation. It was clear that I made their life harder than if I had given them set sequences of 3-5 moves to rehearse and combine. However, this is an approach that I deplore as the word sequence alone already implies lack of true freestyling.
So when does a move become so long that it is as long as a "mini sequence" and hence is no longer freestyle?

Anyone who has attended Nigel & Nina's competition workshops may recall that they include a section on mini sequences. The main idea is that you have a move that doesn't have a specific lead, so in order to fit that particular wow move in, you have to put it in a sequence. (Unless you want to shout "TRIPLE KAKHANDED INVERTED TEAPOT SLIDE" and then shout it again when your partner says "What?")

But does doing a sequence mean you're not freestyling?

Firstly, you would choose the sequence to fit the style of music, if it's a long sequence (say eg it takes 12 bars) you will fit it into the track where the music isn't going to go off in a different direction, or where any accents will fit the moves you are doing. Most importantly, if you've timed it wrong, and the music does do something you hadn't planned for, you break the sequence, and take it into something more suitable for the music. What you never do, is just blindly carry on through the sequence disregarding the music. (Why bother having music if that's what you're going to do?)

So why would this not be freestyling, as opposed to (for example) breaking down a first move part way through, due to a break, or repeating steps within it due to some repetition in the music?

Greg

[Andy McGregor]

As an advanced competitor I suppose I should chip in on this, even though I find everything I've got to say a bit dull :yawn:

I enter competitions for fun. I would find learning a routine for the competition very boring and believe it would be a complete waste of time too. IMHO advanced dancing is very much about fitting the dance to the music, it's about making the dance you do look like a choreographed routine that fits the music. The job of the DJ is to make sure you don't have a routine that fits the music he/she's chosen.

I believe anyone dancing a routine in the freestyle competition would not make it to the final - because the dance would fit so badly with the music. Also, I've seen some people dancing routines in the freestyle completition and I recognise the routine. Both of these factors mean that, if I were the judge, I would mark the routine doing couple down.

Do I do routines when I compete? I don't know any well enough! Of course I have sequences of moves that fit together well but I find that can be a drawback as my partner is sometimes tempted to anticipate them - and then I anticipate their anticipation and can't do the sequence if I'm likely to change any part of it :confused: Consider the Astaire which starts like a first move walk, has a dramatic smooth slide going into a c-shaped pose which is held for affect at the end - preferably on a break: sometimes I've timed it wrongly and the c-shaped thing isn't going to hit the break - but often my partner will try to do it even though I haven't led it. So I now have to use a verbal signal for not doing something :tears: So, mini-routines have as much for them as against IMHO.

[MartinHarper]

For a while, I thought "freestyle" was a complete misnomer. In a freestyle dance competition, you would be able to do any style of dancing you like - MJ, Tango, Line, Outer Hebridean Three Step - whatever.

However, I am informed by folks cooler than me that there is also such a thing as "freestyle" in rap (http://www.rapdict.org/Freestyle), where the rapper makes up the lyrics as she goes along. This must be where freestyles in "Modern" Jive come from.


Does doing a sequence mean you're not freestyling?

It's about as much freestyle dancing as shouting out random verses from Shania Twain songs is freestyle rapping. However, if the rules and judges in a "freestyle" dance competition don't require freestyling, that's the fault of the organisers, not the competitors.

[Roger C]

However, if the rules and judges in a "freestyle" dance competition don't require freestyling, that's the fault of the organisers, not the competitors.

Are you saying that it is up to the organisers to police that their "freestyle" policies are being carried out!

Roger C.

[MartinHarper]

Are you saying that it is up to the organisers to police that their "freestyle" policies are being carried out!

Is that a question?
Competitors should obey the rules.
Judges should disqualify competitors who do not obey the rules.
A true freestyle competition should have rules that require freestyle dancing.

In a false "freestyle" competition, where the rules do not require or even promote freestyle, I don't see a problem with competitors choosing not to freestyle.

[bigdjiver]

IMO There is no need to disqualify competitors for dancing a different way, just mark them down. Disqualification should should be reserved for "we have to stop this, now." situations.

[Yliander]

Is that a question?
Competitors should obey the rules.
Judges should disqualify competitors who do not obey the rules.
A true freestyle competition should have rules that require freestyle dancing. :yeah:



IMO There is no need to disqualify competitors for dancing a different way, just mark them down. Disqualification should should be reserved for "we have to stop this, now." situations. Sorry but i have to disagree here - if you break the rules you are out doesn't matter which one - marking is only for those competing within the parameters of the competition.

In gymnastics and the like if you break the rules either by accident or deliberately you are disqualified.

[alex]

A true freestyle competition should have rules that require freestyle dancing.the new definition of freestyle

1 everything must be lead and follow on the spur of the moment.

2 any set sequence of moves must have been planned in advance and will therefore be banned.

3 any move taught in a class is by definition planned in advance, and therefore will be banned

4 any sequence of random movements that is accidentally repeated is indistinguishable from a set sequence and will therefore be banned.

5 as it has to be lead and follow in the judges eyes, you can only lead & follow moves that they have taught. this will of course lead to disqualification anyway by rule 3.


the judges will now have to videotape each routine and analyse them with a computer. the results will be made available at the completion of this process (so about the same time as the event video is finally produced) however as everyone will be disqualified anyway it doesnt matter.



alternatively people can try winning competitions by dancing better than everyone else.

alex

[DavidB]

In gymnastics and the like if you break the rules either by accident or deliberately you are disqualified.If you step outside of the floor, or fall off the beam or bars, you get marked down, not disqualified.

[Yliander]

If you step outside of the floor, or fall off the beam or bars, you get marked down, not disqualified. those are errors in performace akin to falling or stumbling in a dance competition.

however if in gymnastic if you use moves that are not permitted at a certain level or at a particulary competition then you would be disqualified

[LilyB]

the new definition of freestyle

- snip -

alternatively people can try winning competitions by dancing better than everyone else.

alex
:yeah:

Following on from that:

6. All aerials (any lifting of the partner off the floor, not just big aerials) will be banned too as I am not aware of any aerial move which can be accurately described as "leadable" ie. without signals, verbals or an agreed sequence entry. [ Personally I would have no problems with that - one of the reasons I enjoyed competing in the Advance Freestyle at Blackpool :devil: . But I think quite a few competitors would not be too pleased with such a rule and also the audience would be deprived of a highly entertaining aspect of the competition ]

I could add more to Alex's list but I think we've all (well, almost all) got the picture by now :wink: .

LilyB

[MartinHarper]

All aerials (any lifting of the partner off the floor, not just big aerials) will be banned too as I am not aware of any aerial move which can be accurately described as "leadable" ie. without signals, verbals or an agreed sequence entry.

First Move Jump? Drop Kick? Obviously I can't lead 'em, but they look leadable.

[bigdjiver]

:yeah:


Sorry but i have to disagree here - if you break the rules you are out doesn't matter which one - marking is only for those competing within the parameters of the competition.

In gymnastics and the like if you break the rules either by accident or deliberately you are disqualified.The dance is modern jive ... so, what is modern "Modern jive". Dance develops on the edge. The last thing I want to see is competitors playing "safe" in that sense.

[LilyB]

First Move Jump? Drop Kick? Obviously I can't lead 'em, but they look leadable.

I have had many men try to "lead" me to do the First Move Jump and - if memory serves me right - every one of them have "led" it by 1) tapping one shoulder 2 seconds beforehand, or 2) physically lifting me off my feet without any warning whatsoever, or 3) shouting at me "First Move Jump!" :what: . So yes, some aerials can be "led" by signals, verbals, agreed sequence of moves etc. (which was how David & I 'freestyled' our aerials at the 2004 Ceroc Open). But in the true sense of the word 'leadable', the answer IMHO is still no.

As far as I am aware, the Drop Kick is not an aerial. Unless you are referring to a different move by the same name? If so, please enlighten.

LilyB

[David Franklin]

So yes, some aerials can be "led" by signals, verbals, agreed sequence of moves etc. (which was how David & I 'freestyled' our aerials at the 2004 Ceroc Open). But in the true sense of the word 'leadable', the answer IMHO is still no.This is getting very silly, but I think there are a huge family of aerials that are 'leadable', even if the follower doesn't know the move. For example:

http://judoinfo.com/images/animations/hipthrow.gif

I'm not totally convinced this is the future for dance competitions, though...

[Ballroom queen]

:

.......snip.....as I am not aware of any aerial move which can be accurately described as "leadable" ie. without signals, verbals or an agreed sequence entry...snip....


Prior to Sunday evening I would have agreed with you, however, at a wedding reception I was led into an aerial move - the "signal" made me think "oh b****y hell, is this the first move jump???" before I knew what was going on I was doing the (???) lap sit jump thingy (not sure of its real name), ie I was sitting across my partner's lap, so I tried to make it look better - lines etc, before leaping off and carrying on dancing. I have to say it was rather well led, I had no idea my partner could do that or that that was what he meant to do, but it worked, and people seemed impressed. (As to whether he should have done it, that's another topic, but we are good friends, dance well together, and I wasn't entirely sober, so who cares. (Had it been a total stranger at a "normal" dance night I may have been less impressed however!!!!))

So, does that make it a leadable move???? Who knows!

[MartinHarper]

(apologies for topic drift)
Re: first move jump. I was taught that it's leadable, hence my surprise at hearing that there are no leadable moves where the woman is lifted off the floor by any amount.


physically lifting me off my feet without any warning whatsoever

I'd call that a lead. A bad lead, to be sure, but still a lead. Add some preparation, some smoothness, and lo - a leadable educated move.


As far as I am aware, the Drop Kick is not an aerial. Unless you are referring to a different move by the same name?

I'm referring to the Drop Kick that is a small jump/lift from tandem position. Your Names May Vary.

[LilyB]

(apologies for topic drift)
..... I'd call that a lead. A bad lead, to be sure, but still a lead. Add some preparation, some smoothness, and lo - a leadable educated move. ....


Hmmm .... you do have a point. That would amount to a lead in the same way as a man shoving me onto the floor causing me to fall would be, or pushing me in the back causing me to stumble, or slapping me in the face causing me to flinch, etc.... Action followed by (expected) reaction, eh? :devil: Particularly where the hapless partner has no choice but to "follow" the "lead" :sick: . Well, if that's your definition of lead & follow, then you're absolutely right, loads of moves including aerials can be lead! :rofl: Don't let the fact that your partner may not appreciate the action/move prevent you from leading it! :wink:


... I'm referring to the Drop Kick that is a small jump/lift from tandem position. Your Names May Vary ...

Not sure I know what you're referring to so can't comment, sorry :sad: .

LilyB

[MartinHarper]

What is the difference between:
a) applying (light, smooth, etc) horizontal force to my partner, and that force leading her to move sideways
b) applying (light, smooth, etc) vertical force to my partner, and that force leading her to squat down or jump up.

What makes one a valid way to lead/be led, and the other the equivalent of a slap or a shove?


Don't let the fact that your partner may not appreciate the action/move prevent you from leading it! :wink:

*shrug* I don't lead aerials or drops. I'm just interested when I hear experienced dancers/teachers contradict each other.

[El Salsero Gringo]

But in the true sense of the word 'leadable'...I can't make head nor tail of this part of the thread without knowing what you mean by that. So, please: what do you understand to be the true sense of the word 'leadable'?

Edited: ok, I found your definition ... panic over. I can't see a distinction between a first move jump and, say, a step-across. If the follower knows a little of both moves then they can be lead. If he or she doesn't then they're both likely not to work right.

[DavidB]

It all depends on your definition of a lead.

My definition of a lead is an indication or invitation to do something, that is not pre-arranged, and requires no prior knowledge of the move on the part of the lady. It might however require prior knowledge of some technique. It is not a compulsion do do something. At all times in any led move the lady can say 'No'.

You can't lead an aerial by this definition.

If you simply lift someone off their feet you are not leading a move. You are practicing judo.

You can use signals or an audible for aerials with a regular partner. But these are not leads.

I think the same applies to drops & seducers as well. Signals and audibles are fine, but not leads. With some people it is not quite judo, but definitely the 'Microsoft Office School Of Dancing' (ie everything is 'Drag and Drop')

Some dips on the other hand can be led. I think it is possible to lead a change in height, but only down by a few inches and back up again.



This does pose an interesting question for competitions. There is usually a rule saying that the 'Lead and Follow nature of Modern Jive should be demonstrated'. But if you assume that this has to apply all the time, and use my definition of a lead, then you would disqualify:
- anybody who does a drop
- anybody who does a lift
- anybody who does any improvisation
- anybody who does a standard neck-break

I doubt this is the intention. I'm never really sure what the intention is.

DavidB

[David Franklin]

What is the difference between:
a) applying (light, smooth, etc) horizontal force to my partner, and that force leading her to move sideways
b) applying (light, smooth, etc) vertical force to my partner, and that force leading her to squat down or jump up.

What makes one a valid way to lead/be led, and the other the equivalent of a slap or a shove?Well, further up the thread, Lily said:

physically lifting me off my feet without any warning whatsoeverAnd you said
I'd call that a lead.I'm inclined to agree with Lily here, that's no more of a lead than a shove is.

[El Salsero Gringo]

It all depends on your definition of a lead.

My definition of a lead is an indication or invitation to do something, that is not pre-arranged, and requires no prior knowledge of the move on the part of the lady. It might however require prior knowledge of some technique.I think that distinction disappears the more carefully you examine it. You could argue that the jump in a first move jump was just a technique just like the barrier in a first-move barrier is. Or any number of other examples.

It is not a compulsion do do something. At all times in any led move the lady can say 'No'.Again - not always. How does a lady say no to a step-across without getting her armed uncomfortably pulled?

[David Franklin]

My definition of a lead is an indication or invitation to do something, that is not pre-arranged, and requires no prior knowledge of the move on the part of the lady. It might however require prior knowledge of some technique.

I think that distinction disappears the more carefully you examine it. You could argue that the jump in a first move jump was just a technique just like the barrier in a first-move barrier is. Or any number of other examples.I'll agree it's not black and white. But why does the lady jump in that particular way? Only because she knows a specific action to take when the guy holds her in a particular way. There's no real logic to it. Whereas a first-move barrier really only relies on techniques like following your hand, avoiding trapping your spare arm etc.

What might be a better example to illustrate "no logic" is the lead for the "Lindy Jump". You know, the move where you stand behind the woman, your hands just above her hips, her hands on yours, ready to do an assisted jump and back down.

Except that could also be the lead for "toss to chair" (well, if you're David/Lily it might be, at any rate!). Or for an assisted back somersault (aka rewind). Or for a reverse angel. Etc...

Having said that, I think you could defend certain very low carry lifts as leadable (e.g. lady into a lunge, man's hand under lunging knee and lift). And I do think a fair few drops and seducers are leadable as well - it depends on trust as much as anything else. Of course knowledge does makes it easier to trust.

[ChrisA]

You can use signals or an audible for aerials with a regular partner. But these are not leads.

I hesitate somewhat, contributing to this thread, but one or two thoughts do come to mind.

Before Blackpool last year, I knew no drops.

It was clear that Jayne and I needed to inject more interest into our competition dancing, so we started to work on it.

I know some now, and we progressed gradually from being able to do them at all, to being able to synchronise the entry into a drop with an upcoming break. I can lead all the ones I know with Jayne now, without signals either visual or audible, and since the details of the entry need to be fitted to the music, they are never the same twice running.

Now, Gadget, among others, would probably say at this point, "aha, that's not lead and follow, that's choreography", despite my point that the stuff going on before the actual drop is different every time.

But he'd have a point if I was completely unable to lead them with anyone else, which is not the case. In practising with Jayne, I became better (not fantastic, just better) at leading the sometimes complicated rearrangement of arms, legs, and weight, needed to get into the drop, with other people.

So I conclude that a large part of getting into what I'll call the "drop position" (after which it's the guy mostly doing the lowering and raising, even if the girl is taking some of her own weight), is very much leadable.

Although it's (relatively speaking) much more difficult, requires far more in the way of awareness and prediction of where the girl's limbs and weight are going to be from one instant to the next, is very easily ruinable by any trace of a tendency to anticipate, and of course is much riskier in terms of yanking if it doesn't go right.

Jumps and aerials are outside my sphere of competence, so I can't comment on them.

[Andreas]

So I conclude that a large part of getting into what I'll call the "drop position" (after which it's the guy mostly doing the lowering and raising, even if the girl is taking some of her own weight), is very much leadable.

Totally agree. To be honest, at this very moment I could not think of any drop that is NOT leadable. There may be a big gap in my knowledge of drops (probably is) but I think that people who need to signal a drop need to do some more homework. There are a few that I know that are difficult to lead but leadable nonetheless. This is obviously very different for air steps. :flower:

[LilyB]

I can't make head nor tail of this part of the thread without knowing what you mean by that. So, please: what do you understand to be the true sense of the word 'leadable'?

Edited: ok, I found your definition ... panic over. I can't see a distinction between a first move jump and, say, a step-across. If the follower knows a little of both moves then they can be lead. If he or she doesn't then they're both likely not to work right.

Actually when I refer to 'leadable', I am in fact referring to moves that can be lead by the man and followed by the woman. In non-technical speak, I would expect that if a move is led well, the woman will be able to execute it because she will feel that that is what her partner wants her to do. It should not feel like she is being forced to do it whether she wants to or not, by the sheer superior strength of her partner! A good example is the previously-described First Move Jump where the man gives no prior warning but simply lifts the woman up off the floor. [Of course the woman can foil that with a well-aimed kick in the b***s whilst being thus lifted, but I believe most of us ladies are too well-mannered for such spoiler tactics :devil: ] So the man can be described as "leading" the move because he causes the woman to be lifted off the floor, but I cannot see how the woman can be said to have "followed" his lead - she had no choice!

For those who still insist that "following" a lead merely involves executing the move intended by the man/leader, and that knowledge and choice has nothing to do with it, then the concept of being a 'good follower' becomes meaningless. If "following" means just doing what the man is forcing you to do, that requires no ability whatsoever. Does that mean all the years I spent learning and practising the techniques of lead-&-follow were pointless? :what: I don't think so :rolleyes: .

Following (no pun intended :blush: ) on from my definition of 'leadable' then, I cannot think of any aerials that can be led-and-followed without signals, verbals or pre-arranged entry. That aside, I cannot imagine why any man would want to force an aerial move on an unsuspecting woman - it is b****y hard work! I know that if David tried to do an aerial move with me and I failed to follow properly, I would feel (and look) like a sack of potatoes! :sick:

LilyB

[Andreas]

... I would expect that if a move is led well, the woman will be able to execute it because she will feel that that is what her partner wants her to do ...

agreed


It should not feel like she is being forced to do it whether she wants to or not, by the sheer superior strength of her partner! A good example is the previously-described First Move Jump where the man gives no prior warning but simply lifts the woman up off the floor. [Of course the woman can foil that with a well-aimed kick in the b***s whilst being thus lifted, but I believe most of us ladies are too well-mannered for such spoiler tactics :devil: ] So the man can be described as "leading" the move because he causes the woman to be lifted off the floor, but I cannot see how the woman can be said to have "followed" his lead - she had no choice!

She actually has a choice in as much as she can lose tension and even hook a leg to prevent being lifted :rofl: But I agree with you, she is being made to do the move by brute force, which is not really the idea.


For those who still insist that "following" a lead merely involves executing the move intended by the man/leader, and that knowledge and choice has nothing to do with it, then the concept of being a 'good follower' becomes meaningless. If "following" means just doing what the man is forcing you to do, that requires no ability whatsoever. Does that mean all the years I spent learning and practising the techniques of lead-&-follow were pointless? :what: I don't think so :rolleyes: .

I don't think this is as easy as you put it. I am relatively sure I can totally deprive you of choice yet not physically force you to do a move. Leading the follower can easily result in that sort of situation, except you'd not see it that way because you feel doing what I want you to is the natural choice. So separating a good lead from removing a choice does only work sometimes.

A good lead can also make a bad follower do a move, in the worst case scenario through deprivation of choice. A good follower can often 'double-guess' a bad lead and do the move because they feel that this is what is wanted, despite the fact that the lead did not actually substaniate it. So practicing to become a good follower is by no means in vain. And while it is incredibly highly appreciated by all leads, it is not a necessity.


Following (no pun intended :blush: ) on from my definition of 'leadable' then, I cannot think of any aerials that can be led-and-followed without signals, verbals or pre-arranged entry. That aside, I cannot imagine why any man would want to force an aerial move on an unsuspecting woman - it is b****y hard work! I know that if David tried to do an aerial move with me and I failed to follow properly, I would feel (and look) like a sack of potatoes! :sick:

LilyB

Couldn't agree more with anything but that. It is possible to throw somebody onto one's shoulder but ... :yeah:

[David Franklin]

I don't think this is as easy as you put it. I am relatively sure I can totally deprive you of choice yet not physically force you to do a move. Leading the follower can easily result in that sort of situation, except you'd not see it that way because you feel doing what I want you to is the natural choice.I disagree. You can make it feel like there is only one reasonable choice, but that's not the same as totally depriving someone of choice. A key point is that everyone's definition of "reasonable" will be different. A really good follower will find "well, the only reasonable thing to do was X, because he was pulling me forwards with two ounces of tension and then moved his hand fractionally to the side". A really bad follower will say "well, he had me in a hammerlock and and I thought it was reasonable to go the other way until he dislocated my shoulder". It's just a question whether you're dancing or playing judo...

[El Salsero Gringo]

Actually when I refer to 'leadable', I am in fact referring to moves that can be lead by the man and followed by the woman. In non-technical speak, I would expect that if a move is led well, the woman will be able to execute it because she will feel that that is what her partner wants her to do. It should not feel like she is being forced to do it whether she wants to or not, by the sheer superior strength of her partner! A good example is the previously-described First Move Jump where the man gives no prior warning but simply lifts the woman up off the floor.

{snip of lots of stuff}

Following (no pun intended ) on from my definition of 'leadable' then, I cannot think of any aerials that can be led-and-followed without signals, verbals or pre-arranged entry.

Lead for the First Move Jump: bring the lady in to the side, crouch a little and make a small lift. Perhaps I'm not describing that very well, but you get the idea. What I mean is *NOT* pick her up and throw her bodily across the room. If she recognises the lead and deweights or makes her jump - or however you describe what the lady does next, you can carry on - turn her 180 degrees and translate her backwards. If she doesnt recognise the move (and at that point it's going to be bleedin' obvious whether she does or not) then abort and do something else. Just like you would if you tried to lead a first move with someone who didn't know it and it all went disastrously wrong.

So there - an aerial - lead, and followed (hopefully) without a signal, without a verbal and without prewarning. OF COURSE you both have to know and recognise the lead, but that goes for every MJ move.