PDA

View Full Version : Advanced dancers/dancing/workshops



Gadget
19th-January-2006, 01:29 AM
With the talk on blue cards and advanced dancing, I thought I would post on what exactly you would be expected to be able to do to attend an advanced workshop and what you would learn that would make it advanced.

Then I did some reserch....
So what do punters really want from an Advanced class ? (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4198)
In defence of Advanced Classes (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1289)
Advanced Moves / Advanced lead + follow (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3429)
Advanced Classes (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2982)
Teaching Advanced Modern Jive - HELP NEEDED (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3907)
Intermediate/Advanced Spinning (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1286)
Definition of "Advanced" couple (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2740)
Advanced lead/follow (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1945)
Advanced Class/Workshop Contents (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1290)
Advanced Dancing (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/showthread.php?t=412)

Any fresh ideas?

Andybroom
19th-January-2006, 05:30 PM
Ah well, now ....

There's advanced dancing and advanced dancing:)

If the truth is to be told, if you are a truly advanced dancer you will already have a good grasp of all dancing technique plus a wide repetoire of moves. What you will be looking for is a coach rather than a teacher who can watch you dancing and pick up on things that can be improved upon. But those things will be tiny - if they are not you aren't an advanced dancer in the first place!

Problem in Modern Jive is that most teachers aren't themselves knowledgeable/good enough to be able to do that coaching anyway!


However - what most modern jivers (applies to other forms of dance too, but we are talking modern jive here) really seem to mean by an "advanced class" is a class that teaches technique in much more detail than the normal intermediate classes does and, perhaps also, teaches some of the more difficult moves to apply that technique to.

Really that's a class designed to take someone who has a reasonable starting level from the level they are at and turn them into an advanced dancer - or get closer to it, anyway.

There still will only be a small number of Modern Jive teachers who are really capable of teaching that sort of thing - you really need to have had formal dance training to be able to do it properly and most haven't.

(I don't mean just the Ceroc or Le Roc federation training by "formal dance training" - nor do I mean someone who's got through the UKA social dance teaching exams by some other route).

Andy

David Bailey
19th-January-2006, 05:40 PM
However - what most modern jivers (applies to other forms of dance too, but we are talking modern jive here) really seem to mean by an "advanced class" is a class that teaches technique in much more detail than the normal intermediate classes does and, perhaps also, teaches some of the more difficult moves to apply that technique to.
Yes - I'm not completely sure that a "technique class" is equivalent to an "advanced class", but in the MJ context they're probably roughly the same, in terms of their target audience at least.


There still will only be a small number of Modern Jive teachers who are really capable of teaching that sort of thing
After last night's "advanced class" at the Jive Bar, I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that the "small number" = 1.

Good grief, am I really contemplating going... there? :eek:

Plus: Andybroom, you're making far too much sense in all your posts, please post some junk like the rest of us, you're making us look bad.

ChrisA
19th-January-2006, 05:58 PM
After last night's "advanced class" at the Jive Bar, I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that the "small number" = 1.

Good grief, am I really contemplating going... there? :eek:


My god, the time might actually come where I rep DavidJames...Good grief, am I really contemplating that...? :eek:

David Bailey
19th-January-2006, 08:17 PM
My god, the time might actually come where I rep DavidJames...Good grief, am I really contemplating that...? :eek:
What, there's rep in it? Well, if someone had only said that 6 months ago :rolleyes:

Actually, Howard was bigging up Amir last night at the Jive Bar - "Rambert-trained", etc.
I was almost persuaded...

Unfortunately, after last night, I'm completely convinced that what I want is not a CerocTM-advanced class, but a series of technique classes. Advanced or not, I don't care - in fact, I think I probably want to start with the basics.

That's one of the reasons I like Clive's AT classes, they're almost all technique.

Hmmm. Is it worth trying to organise a set of semi-private classes, for those of us interested and in the area, sharing out the cost between us? I think that's the only way we'll get that, short of us all emigrating to Scotland...

Just don't make me dance with Mr A, that's all I ask.

Gadget
20th-January-2006, 01:30 AM
~ you really need to have had formal dance training to be able to do it {teach someone to be an 'advanced dancer} properly and most haven't.
So what does formal dance training give you to impart that cannot be learned from experience, practice or other teachers?

And what would you consider separated the "advanced dancer" from a 'competent intermediate' dancer?

If "advanced" classes focus on technique, why are they for 'advanced' dancers? Shouldn't all levels of dancer gain from this?

Jeremy
20th-January-2006, 01:33 AM
CMJ Sydney runs an advanced course each year. This course is party for advanced dancers to refine what they know but also for those wanting to become more skilled/advanced in their dancing.

The course runs over 4/5 weeks, 2 hours each week and does have some homework too.

This thread (http://www.cerocforum.com/showthread.php?t=1903) on the ceroc forum shows that the follow topics will be covered this year:

* Musical Interpretation
* Floorcraft & Use of Space
* Body Rhythm & Movement
* Aerials & Lift Technique
* Styling
* Choreographical Skills
* Performance Skills & “Capturing” an Audience
* Couple Chemistry & the “X” Factor
* Body Lines & Extensions in eg, Dips & Drops

At the end they normally video tape you doing your mini-choreography (1 minute or so from a song) and going into freestyle over the next minute. They you get individual feedback on your dancing based on the videotape.


The Advanced classes that we have are typically hard moves, sometimes include new(ish) or rarely taught 'movelets', involve a lot of double spins and variations in timing on the routine being taught. Technique is rarely taught from scratch in these classes as the people there (blue and gold card holders) are expected to know the basics of the technique at very least. Styling options are commonly refered to including but not limited to hand shines, arm positions, head position/what to look at, and footwork.

David Bailey
20th-January-2006, 09:19 AM
So what does formal dance training give you to impart that cannot be learned from experience, practice or other teachers?
I'm guessing here, but there's presumably a whole body of academic dance theory that could be imparted - anatomy, weight transfer, positioning, muscle usage, that sort of thing - which requires real study (i.e. sit-down, reading, old-fashioned stuff), and can't be learnt on the fly.


And what would you consider separated the "advanced dancer" from a 'competent intermediate' dancer?
Don't ask me, I don't know. I'm not even sure I care anymore, as long as I enjoy the dance.


If "advanced" classes focus on technique, why are they for 'advanced' dancers? Shouldn't all levels of dancer gain from this?
I agree, this is why I'm not keen on the label "advanced" for this sort of thing.

Having said that, I believe that most beginners and even intermediates wouldn't be interested in the dry technical side of things. It takes a while before you realise how much you don't know about a subject. Maybe "Advanced basics" would be a better title? :innocent:

LMC
20th-January-2006, 10:28 AM
Having said that, I believe that most beginners and even intermediates wouldn't be interested in the dry technical side of things. It takes a while before you realise how much you don't know about a subject. Maybe "Advanced basics" would be a better title? :innocent:
I agree to a point... but there are a few beginners who do get into that side of things pretty early on - there are quite a lot of regular contributors to the dance bits of the forum who have less than a year's experience and were interested in the "dry stuff" quite early on (me for one - but then we all know I'm not normal).

However, I believe that if you explain techniques in terms of being a better dancer - e.g. tell a group of people "this exercise will improve your balance" and most of them will probably react "my balance is fine, I've never fallen over, I don't care/am offended". But tell them that the exact same exercise will help improve their spinning and I'd bet you get far more interest. And a lot of basic technique can be delivered at any level where people want to improve their dancing (as proved in Franck's workshops at the BFG).

I'm not sure that reading a lot helps. Actually doing the exercises is better, even if it might feel more like a yoga or an aerobics class rather than a dancing one!

El Salsero Gringo
20th-January-2006, 11:15 AM
However, I believe that if you explain techniques in terms of being a better dancer - e.g. tell a group of people "this exercise will improve your balance" and most of them will probably react "my balance is fine, I've never fallen over, I don't care/am offended"In which case, not to put too fine a point on it, f*ck them. (Yes, I'm in a harsh mood today.)

Let's see if we can get Ceroc to offer "technique" classes then.

LMC
20th-January-2006, 11:25 AM
Oooh, you're so cute when you get all macho :hug:

I'm all for being outspoken (no, really?) but selling a product sometimes needs a bit of tact (OK, manipulation) and smooths the path for better results all round - i.e. more lovely dance partners for everyone.

Franck is a Ceroc franchisee and already running technique classes - but as he doesn't actually call them that, they sound like they are enormously successful.

And I already challenged Adam to give 'em a go (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/showpost.php?p=193675&postcount=28) :D :devil:

Andybroom
20th-January-2006, 02:57 PM
After last night's "advanced class" at the Jive Bar, I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that the "small number" = 1.

Plus: Andybroom, you're making far too much sense in all your posts, please post some junk like the rest of us, you're making us look bad.

I dunno about only 1. But certainly not many.

Oh - I can manage my share of junk too ... :wink:

Andy

Andybroom
20th-January-2006, 03:52 PM
So what does formal dance training give you to impart that cannot be learned from experience, practice or other teachers?


Huge amounts of technique. Watch any professional dancer and compare how they look with how you look yourself (or how other people look at the classes & dances you go to - it's not that easy to look at yourself, of course).

Experience and practice are also very, very important for any dancer and I'm not denigrating the role of exisiting Modern Jive teachers in the scheme of things.

But you can't teach what you don't know and it takes ten to fifteen years (usually starting around age 5 or 6) to train someone to be a really good dancer including at least three years full time training at a dance school. Some start earlier than that.

Many modern jive teachers haven't even been dancers for that long - certainly when they start teaching.



And what would you consider separated the "advanced dancer" from a 'competent intermediate' dancer?


As well as I can put it into words, I would say that an advanced dancer is someone who does not actually need to be taught moves (or really choreography) because he or she will already have a large library of moves/choreography already learnt and will have developed the ability to do his/her own choreography by extension from that library.

(Spotting errors in the execution of the choreography and suggesting ways of correcting them is the sort of thing a dance coach does and is largely what one would expect to happen in a truly advanced lesson).

A competent intermediate dancer will be someone who can execute a wide variety of pre-learned moves including some of a complex nature but who has yet (at least) to develop the ability to create their own choreography.

There will, of course, be a fuzzy area between the two - there are no "fixed goalposts" when it comes to dancing and something like this.

And I've no doubt that you could (if you so wished) pick all sorts of holes in those definitions. For me, however, I think that is the essence of it.

As to teaching technique in classes, well I think (with respect) you are taking my comment slightly out of context. Yes, of course, technique should be taught from the beginning (though it rarely is). Of course there is a practical need for beginners to learn a repetoire of simple moves quickly in order to get them actually dancing on the floor, so that's only a partial criticism of Modern Jive beginners tuition.

But, even if technique was fully taught from the outset, you'd still see a big difference between (say) a spin executed by an advanced dancer and one executed by a beginner. In fact you'd probably still see a difference between my "competent intermediate" and an advanced dancer since developing choreographic ability tends to go hand in hand with developing technique - one tends to force the other.

Andy

tsh
20th-January-2006, 05:39 PM
An advanced class is probably defined by the people in the class rather than the what is taught. I get the impression that more advanced classes can focus on a very trivial part of a move, or something very general like musical interpretation.

So far as levels go, J&T have a range beginners/improvers/inter/inter-advanced/advanced/adv plus on their booking form for GNSH, which I've paraphrased below.

Improvers - know some moves, and want to learn more.
Intermediate - done some workshops, want learn variations.
Int/Adv - understand lead/follow, want to work on detail.
Adv - you do the same classes as the teachers
Adv plus - international teachers only!

Sean

Andy McGregor
20th-January-2006, 08:09 PM
So what does formal dance training give you to impart that cannot be learned from experience, practice or other teachers?I really, really can't believe Gadget wrote this - I can't even bring myself to write what's wrong with it.

So, what is advanced dancing? IMHO it's what's done by the dancers at the top of the dance tree. The qualifications for that place will change as the dance advances. Who judges what is advanced? This is a much harder question. How do you become advanced? Get trained by advanced dance teachers. How will you know an advanced class? In the same way as Village Clothes shops with "fashions" in their name will not be up to date, any workshop with Advanced in the title will not be advanced :wink:

David Bailey
20th-January-2006, 08:35 PM
In the same way as Village Clothes shops with "fashions" in their name will not be up to date, any workshop with Advanced in the title will not be advanced :wink:
:eek:
I really, really can't believe Andy McGregor wrote this - I think he's hit the nail on the head. Damnit, do I have to rep him for being insightful? :tears:

Gadget
20th-January-2006, 11:52 PM
I really, really can't believe Gadget wrote this - I can't even bring myself to write what's wrong with it.
I know I normally write questions to prompt the reader to think on an answer to it, but in this case it was a genuine question aimed at someone who seemed to know stuff(tm).


Huge amounts of technique...Where does "technique" end and "style" start? Isn't most 'technique' taught {at higher levels} the technique of that style.
OK, so we are talking about slightly{:rolleyes:} lower levels, but to me the shape and form of (eg) a ballet spin should remain in a ballet. Aren't most 'formal' dance styles taught solo with both partners having their own bit to do and being responsible for their own dancing above their partners? {I have no idea, but this is the impression I get.}

If you want to learn choreographed routines, how to perform the same moves identically time after time, perform perfect lines and create a dazzling spectacle for an audience, ... then some form of "formal" dance tutorage is the only way to go.
Knowledge of your self and control over your own body/balance can be taken from millions of sources, including (but not exclusive to) "formal" dance training.

What I am interested in learning is more about forming a 'connection' with your partner. 'Listening' to the music. Adjusting 'timing'. Finding a balance point between all the elements and a way to convey it to my partner while listening to them and moving with them. I want to be shown inspired ways that music an be transformed into movement. I have severe doubts that any "formal" dance instructor would entertain the idea of teaching these without the dancer having a formal dance background. {unless you have wads of cash}
However people who have had this experience(*) and people who can get taught/learn this stuff are adapting and translating it for us lowly mortals who just like to dance. These people I am interested in learning from.
(* or work it out themselves :worthy: )


As well as I can put it into words, I would say that an advanced dancer is someone who does not actually need to be taught moves
~
A competent intermediate dancer will be someone who has yet (at least) to develop the ability to create their own choreography{moves}.{big snips}
Testing my understanding: Both learn how to put the movements into place with regard to the music - the only difference really being the size of the elements used. Smaller elements allow for more subtle marrying of music and movement. Duplo Vs Lego.
To me, this is not the whole picture; connection - both in listening and being understood - is missing.

ChrisA
21st-January-2006, 02:05 AM
So what does formal dance training give you to impart that cannot be learned from experience, practice or other teachers?



I really, really can't believe Gadget wrote this - I can't even bring myself to write what's wrong with it.


Ok, well allow me...

It's the same sort of question as "what does doing a Maths degree give you that cannot be learned from experience, practice or other teachers?"

Well, nothing, of course, if you're happy to take a ridiculous amount of time reinventing the wheel, making loads of unnecessary mistakes, and consequently losing out on all the time you could have been using what you learned much more quickly because of the superior structure of what was being taught.

In the same way, a dancer of exceptional talent might be able to reinvent the whole of dancing, practice enough, watch enough, and get time with teachers (other than when presumably they would be teaching the formal courses) to learn the stuff they needed to know.

But it seems an incredibly wasteful way of learning to me. Far better to do the formal training, learn quicker, and then pick and choose from what you learned.

Andy McGregor
21st-January-2006, 07:55 AM
Ok, well allow me...

It's the same sort of question as "what does doing a Maths degree give you that cannot be learned from experience, practice or other teachers?"

Well, nothing, of course, if you're happy to take a ridiculous amount of time reinventing the wheel, making loads of unnecessary mistakes, and consequently losing out on all the time you could have been using what you learned much more quickly because of the superior structure of what was being taught.

In the same way, a dancer of exceptional talent might be able to reinvent the whole of dancing, practice enough, watch enough, and get time with teachers (other than when presumably they would be teaching the formal courses) to learn the stuff they needed to know.

But it seems an incredibly wasteful way of learning to me. Far better to do the formal training, learn quicker, and then pick and choose from what you learned.Oh Chris! You fell into his trap. Nobody, not even Gadget, could be dim witted enough to have asked that question for real. It must have been tongue in cheek or rhetorical.

Learning from doing something rather than being taught is rather like repeating the same mistakes over and over again until you're really good at getting it wrong because you've had so much practice at it. Maybe that's where the hand bounce comes from. People learn it by practicing it over and over again until they can keep it up in every single move no matter how complicated :whistle:

Minnie M
21st-January-2006, 09:55 AM
Learning from doing something rather than being taught is rather like repeating the same mistakes over and over again until you're really good at getting it wrong because you've had so much practice at it.........
tell that to Frankie Manning :whistle:

ChrisA
21st-January-2006, 12:38 PM
Oh Chris! You fell into his trap. Nobody, not even Gadget, could be dim witted enough to have asked that question for real. It must have been tongue in cheek or rhetorical.

Oops, silly me. Of course you're right...

... or he could be the "dancer of exceptional talent" I referred to...

Andybroom
21st-January-2006, 01:51 PM
Where does "technique" end and "style" start? Isn't most 'technique' taught {at higher levels} the technique of that style.
OK, so we are talking about slightly{:rolleyes:} lower levels, but to me the shape and form of (eg) a ballet spin should remain in a ballet.


In that context I would say that the "style" was imposed on top of the technique - the fundamental technique remains the same. It's unlikely that a modern jiver would do a spin "en pointe" I agree, but the basics of spinning are exactly the same. Ballet dancers usually learn how to spin first - then they learn how add the "en pointe" bit (and the various other generally ballet specific styling).



Aren't most 'formal' dance styles taught solo with both partners having their own bit to do and being responsible for their own dancing above their partners? {I have no idea, but this is the impression I get.}


No, you're not right (or not completely right) there. Obviously some forms of dance are solo by their very nature and some (actually quite a lot) forms of partner dance - even improvised partner dance - have solo work in them as well as truly partner stuff. Not something you see many people doing in Modern Jive, but I can name some who do. Clearly solo stuff is taught -er- solo.

But lead/follow is used even in classical ballet when couples dance as couples - the fact that it is (usually) pre-determined choreography rather than improvised is neither here nor there.

Many forms of modern dance are improvised in performance and, if couple work is involved, so is lead/follow.



If you want to learn choreographed routines, how to perform the same moves identically time after time, perform perfect lines and create a dazzling spectacle for an audience, ... then some form of "formal" dance tutorage is the only way to go.


Indeed.
But it's just as much the way to go if you want to create a dazzling spectacle with stunning improvised routines in modern jive .....



Knowledge of your self and control over your own body/balance can be taken from millions of sources, including (but not exclusive to) "formal" dance training.


As someone else has said, you can re-invent the wheel that way if you have the time/ability to do so. But there's little practical point if you don't have to.



What I am interested in learning is more about forming a 'connection' with your partner. 'Listening' to the music. Adjusting 'timing'. Finding a balance point between all the elements and a way to convey it to my partner while listening to them and moving with them. I want to be shown inspired ways that music an be transformed into movement.


Indeed. No diagreement. But to me these are all fundamental points of dance technique.



I have severe doubts that any "formal" dance instructor would entertain the idea of teaching these without the dancer having a formal dance background. {unless you have wads of cash}


Clearly a dance teacher wants whatever he/she can get by way of the old spondulos. And you can only go to lessons you can afford to go to.

But, with respect, the cost of lessons is not the subject of this thread.





However people who have had this experience(*) and people who can get taught/learn this stuff are adapting and translating it for us lowly mortals who just like to dance. These people I am interested in learning from.
(* or work it out themselves :worthy: )


Feel free. You are absolutely entitled to learn to whatever standard you wish from whoever you want to learn.

But I've had a lot of exposure to dance over the years. I work in the theatre industry (designer/technician, not as a dancer) and have worked alongside some of the world's top dancers. I've been a dancer myself for some 15 years.

I have yet to see (excluding one or two teachers who I think do have formal training) any modern jive dancer who looks really good on the floor. I don't really want to talk about individuals but I have seen most of the top modern jive competition dancers too. Mostly I sit there thinking "that line's ugly, they wobbled there, bodies are frozen stiff" etc. etc.

Now I'm comparing to absolutes, here, and (as I've just said) if that's the standard you want - fine by me.

Incidentally Salsa doesn't suffer (if that's the right word) this anything like as much, but that's because some of the leading teachers have formal training outside Salsa and all the better teachers were trained by them and hence also have formal training.

But you've drifted the thread quite a bit in getting into this. This wasn't (orginally) about the actual standard of Modern Jive or individual teachers/dancers including yourself.

My case was (and remains) that you need to have an advanced knowledge of dance to teach an advanced level class. For most practical purposes that means you need to have formal dance training. And there are very few teachers in Modern Jive with formal training and therefor likely to be very few capable in reality of teaching a truly advaned class.





Testing my understanding: Both learn how to put the movements into place with regard to the music - the only difference really being the size of the elements used. Smaller elements allow for more subtle marrying of music and movement. Duplo Vs Lego.
To me, this is not the whole picture; connection - both in listening and being understood - is missing.

But you are missing the fact that connection is part of technique.

Andy

Andy McGregor
21st-January-2006, 02:49 PM
tell that to Frankie Manning :whistle:It took him until he was 127 to start to dance properly - and that was 1961. Just think how good he'd be if he'd had lessons :wink:

Andy McGregor
21st-January-2006, 02:56 PM
Oops, silly me. Of course you're right...

... or he could be the "dancer of exceptional talent" I referred to...Who are we to say that Gadget isn't that person. I've never seen him dance. I hope we'll see him at Blackpool or somewhere soon so we can witness the results of Gadgets preferred learning process. I'm sure it will be a revelation.



Everything he said

Andy
:yeah:

And what a great name. Us Andy's aren't scared to use our real name as our Forum name either :worthy:

Gadget
23rd-January-2006, 02:49 AM
In that context I would say that the "style" was imposed on top of the technique - the fundamental technique remains the same.I'm sure that it has to: spinning is spinning is spinning - the mechanics and physics don't really change.

Does technical perfection not demand a physical perfection that 99.9% of modern jive dancers will never acheive? To get the 'perfect' lines requires your body to act and react with suppleness and strength. Is there any point of teaching advanced techniques if the dancers cannot put it into play?


But lead/follow is used even in classical ballet when couples dance as couples - the fact that it is (usually) pre-determined choreography rather than improvised is neither here nor there.Isn't it? Isn't 'lead/follow' in choriography more about conveying the timeing rather than the actual movements and styling? My understanding of lead/follow is more 'listening' for opportunities created by your partner and acting on them.

Personally, I hold anyone that can do a routine of more than four "moves" in high esteme - especially if they can do it more than once identically (or almost so). :worthy:


But, with respect, the cost of lessons is not the subject of this thread.No. It's not. But MJ is the dance that is accessable to all; anyone can pick it up and anyone can dance. Anyone can get to a competent level and most better than that.

What I am trying to do is see how what is taught by the "formal" instructors can be taken into MJ for an 'average' person to benifit. To do that, there needs to be a line drawn between 'style' and 'technique'. The concepts and ideas that have been played out a thousand times need not be re-invented if someone actually tells you what they are. Very, very few MJ dancers will ever have the opportunity, inclination, fitness or determination to discover "formal" dance education.


I have yet to see (excluding one or two teachers who I think do have formal training) any modern jive dancer who looks really good on the floor.Is MJ about looking good? Admitedly, there is a proportion of it, but predominantly it's about having Fun. Finding a connection with your partner. Moving with the music. I have yet to see (excluding one or two painfull moments) any modern jive dancer who looked unhappy on the floor.


Incidentally Salsa doesn't suffer (if that's the right word) this anything like as much, but that's because ...That's because there is a definitive "right" and "wrong".{Another barrier in the way of MJ dancers being taught anything 'advanced' :rolleyes:} ...And because most salseros are full of puffed up self-importance. {IMHO :whistle:}


My case was (and remains) that you need to have an advanced knowledge of dance to teach an advanced level class. For most practical purposes that means you need to have formal dance training. And there are very few teachers in Modern Jive with formal training and therefor likely to be very few capable in reality of teaching a truly advaned class.But are there any "formal" dance teachers who would teach a room full of MJ dancers? Know how to teach to this sort of dancer? Know what to teach? Without condesending?


But you are missing the fact that connection is part of technique.Perhaps. Perhaps this is all "advanced" technique is... "Technique" is spinning balanced, in time, controlled. "Connection" is leading/following a spin. "Connection as part of Technique" is spinning while maintaining the connection and not dissrupting the spin.

{How do you spell epiphany? :D}

Gadget
23rd-January-2006, 02:50 AM
Who are we to say that Gadget isn't that person.Don't know who you pair think you are, but I'm me - and I'll save you the bother: I'm not. :rolleyes:

David Bailey
23rd-January-2006, 09:31 AM
On the "salsa" thing:

That's because there is a definitive "right" and "wrong".{Another barrier in the way of MJ dancers being taught anything 'advanced' :rolleyes:}
There is? Damnit, no-one tells me these things.
Seriously, salsa's almost as unstructured as Ceroc, and frankly much worse-taught in general. But it's a global dance form, and it can draw on a lot of other dances (cha-cha, rumba, etc.) for inspiration and technique.


...And because most salseros are full of puffed up self-importance. {IMHO :whistle:}
Absolutely. Not me though :innocent:

Andybroom
23rd-January-2006, 12:49 PM
Does technical perfection not demand a physical perfection that 99.9% of modern jive dancers will never acheive? To get the 'perfect' lines requires your body to act and react with suppleness and strength.


Indeed it does. All the professional dancers I know/ have had contact with spend a lot of time doing general fitness stuff as well as dancing



Is there any point of teaching advanced techniques if the dancers cannot put it into play?


At the end of the day, a decision for the individual, I guess. Not that there is anything to stop you using the technique - you just won't get the perfection of end result if you aren't physically capable of doing it.




Isn't it? Isn't 'lead/follow' in choriography more about conveying the timeing rather than the actual movements and styling?


No. Or, rather, partly. Obviously the only things that the leader can change whilst leading pre-determined choreography is the timing and (to some extent) the positioning. However the follower still needs the correct lead for the next move otherwise it won't happen. Or won't happen gracefully, anyway. In a lead/follow situation the couple's body/arm/leg movements are intertwined in a complex way. If (in this circumstance) the leader doesn't position himself correctly for the next move the follower can only dance it by using physical force against the leader and that's going to be a mess.

In an improvisational situation the follower actually takes her cue as to where to move from how the leader positions himself as well and that's the only real difference. Lead properly (not the same as forced:) ) she can only really go in the direction the lead takes her.




My understanding of lead/follow is more 'listening' for opportunities created by your partner and acting on them.


Yes, certainly. Always in social modern jive and in any improvisational situation. But it is also part of the physical action of the dance IF you are dancing as a couple.



Personally, I hold anyone that can do a routine of more than four "moves" in high esteme - especially if they can do it more than once identically (or almost so). :worthy:


Agree that.



What I am trying to do is see how what is taught by the "formal" instructors can be taken into MJ for an 'average' person to benifit. To do that, there needs to be a line drawn between 'style' and 'technique'. The concepts and ideas that have been played out a thousand times need not be re-invented if someone actually tells you what they are. Very, very few MJ dancers will ever have the opportunity, inclination, fitness or determination to discover "formal" dance education.


But, in my view, very, very few MJ dancers really want to be truly advanced dancers. A greater proportion get to be/want to be what I've termed to be "very competent intermediates" as I recall - at which level you can have a good deal of fun socially, be regarded by a large proportion of your local dancers as being a very good dancer (which, indeed, you are) and maybe even get somewhere in modern jive competitions, if that's your thing.

Nothing wrong with that.



Is MJ about looking good? Admitedly, there is a proportion of it, but predominantly it's about having Fun. Finding a connection with your partner. Moving with the music. I have yet to see (excluding one or two painfull moments) any modern jive dancer who looked unhappy on the floor.


As I said nothing wrong with that. But it's not the subject of the thread, or the discussion. In fact I totally agree.



That's because there is a definitive "right" and "wrong".{Another barrier in the way of MJ dancers being taught anything 'advanced' :rolleyes:} ...And because most salseros are full of puffed up self-importance. {IMHO :whistle:}


Depends what you mean by "definitive right or wrong". An ugly line is an ugly line and probably wrong, by my take anyway. (I'm not going to rise to the dig about Salseros! :wink: )



But are there any "formal" dance teachers who would teach a room full of MJ dancers? Know how to teach to this sort of dancer? Know what to teach? Without condesending?


Oh, I'm sure there's plenty. Professional dance teachers/coaches will teach anyone who can pay them. Whether they come across as condescending will depend on how good they are at their job, I guess.




{How do you spell epiphany? :D}

dunno! :cheers:

Andy

Ghost
23rd-January-2006, 09:23 PM
So what does formal dance training give you to impart that cannot be learned from experience, practice or other teachers (my emphasis)?

Formal training by it's nature has to focus on a number of things to a certain depth - there's a limited amount of time and it has a structure. I would suggest that an advanced dancer needs to go beyond this in the ways suggested by Gadget above.

People have mentioned re-inventing the wheel, but Gadget does mention other teachers as a source - much like using this Forum to gain greater insight.

In my experience there are a number of ways to learn dance;
Instinctively, trial and error, informally from others, and formally all spring to mind.

Take someone who has for example, chosen to concentrate on the nuances of connection - who has studied the idea with teachers ranging from zen archery to childcare and then adapted them into their dance over say, a decade. But has not been 'formally' trained. I would be quite happy for them to teach me advanced concepts in connection. If I instead wanted to know about line, then I would find someone else.

But to each their own. :cheers:

Dance in beauty,
Christopher

Gadget
24th-January-2006, 02:34 AM
At the end of the day, a decision for the individual, I guess. Not that there is anything to stop you using the technique - ...But how are we to make a decision without knowing what we are deciding on? Some sort of ciriculum or even just a list of areas in dance that can be focused on. Some idea of how strenuous things are... etc.

Does there come a point where classes and workshops are not worth going on? The only way to improve is to get some one-on-one individual lessons and tuition? So the concept of "Advanced Workshops" is pointless because the people for whom it would be for need individual attention rather than concepts and ideas thrown at them. ?
Or are "Advanced Workshops" to get people to the 'advanced' level rather than for folk already at this stage?


Obviously the only things that the leader can change whilst leading pre-determined choreography is the timing and (to some extent) the positioning. However the follower still needs the correct lead for the next move otherwise it won't happen. Isn't position a part of the movement/choreography rather than the lead?
And if it's choreographed, who is to say which of the partners assumes the 'lead' role and which the 'follow' role? I would presume that it fluctuates depending on the drama of the piece.


But, in my view, very, very few MJ dancers really want to be truly advanced dancers. A greater proportion get to be/want to be what I've termed to be "very competent intermediates"In my view everyone would like to be better than they are - no matter what standard they are at.
Whether they would like to put the effort or resources in to realise this is a different matter.
However after you get to a certain mental level, there is no real guideline or bench mark to indicate how much effort/resources or in which direction you should be moving to make the next step up.

Andybroom
24th-January-2006, 12:04 PM
Formal training by it's nature has to focus on a number of things to a certain depth - there's a limited amount of time and it has a structure. I would suggest that an advanced dancer needs to go beyond this in the ways suggested by Gadget above.


I've no real idea what you mean by that. Surely the way to get to the highest standard in the shortest time is to learn from a master of dance, nothing else?



Take someone who has for example, chosen to concentrate on the nuances of connection - who has studied the idea with teachers ranging from zen archery to childcare and then adapted them into their dance over say, a decade. But has not been 'formally' trained. I would be quite happy for them to teach me advanced concepts in connection. If I instead wanted to know about line, then I would find someone else.


As has already been said, learning other disciplines with skills related to dance and then transferring them to dance is, theoretically at least, possible.

It just doesn't seem to be a very practicable suggestion for most and certainly is likely to take much longer (and cost much more money) than just learning dancing from a dance teacher in the first instance.

Whether any dance teachers exist that have taken that route (and succeeded) I know not. But I don't believe very many will have.

Andy

Andybroom
24th-January-2006, 12:27 PM
But how are we to make a decision without knowing what we are deciding on? Some sort of ciriculum or even just a list of areas in dance that can be focused on. Some idea of how strenuous things are... etc.


I think that's normally known isn't it? The content/subject matter is usually in the publicity material once it reaches more advanced levels. If a suitably qualified teacher was going to run a regular truly advanced class I would expect them to take into account the needs of the regular attendees. Obviously someobody turning up on spec for a class like that would have to take pot luck. Nothing to stop them contacting the teacher beforehand to avoid that though.



Does there come a point where classes and workshops are not worth going on? The only way to improve is to get some one-on-one individual lessons and tuition? So the concept of "Advanced Workshops" is pointless because the people for whom it would be for need individual attention rather than concepts and ideas thrown at them. ?


Um, well, going by what happens with professional dancers, most of them do a mixture of small group classes and individual private lessons. Clearly a gigantic advanced lesson isn't going to get very far in the scheme of things.



Or are "Advanced Workshops" to get people to the 'advanced' level rather than for folk already at this stage?


I don't really think I'd call such a workshop "advanced" but there is probably a need for workshops with that in mind for the ambitious. People already run "bridge the gap, beginner to intermediate" type workshops and I could certainly see the point in a similar "intermediate to advanced" idea.

I suppose I have to say I'm considering teaching needs here rather than costs.




Isn't position a part of the movement/choreography rather than the lead?


That's another yes and no. The leader has to lead the follower into the position that is required by the choreography.



And if it's choreographed, who is to say which of the partners assumes the 'lead' role and which the 'follow' role? I would presume that it fluctuates depending on the drama of the piece.


The trite answer to that is the choreographer decides. However, mostly, choreographed lead/follow dance in shows (whatever actual form of dance is involved) follows the conventional male/female couple with the male leading. But you are quite right in saying that it could fluctuate and the couples need not necessarily be male/female.



In my view everyone would like to be better than they are - no matter what standard they are at.
Whether they would like to put the effort or resources in to realise this is a different matter.
However after you get to a certain mental level, there is no real guideline or bench mark to indicate how much effort/resources or in which direction you should be moving to make the next step up.

No disagreement there.

Andy

robd
24th-January-2006, 01:50 PM
Is MJ about looking good? Admitedly, there is a proportion of it, but predominantly it's about having Fun. Finding a connection with your partner. Moving with the music. I have yet to see (excluding one or two painfull moments) any modern jive dancer who looked unhappy on the floor.




But, in my view, very, very few MJ dancers really want to be truly advanced dancers. A greater proportion get to be/want to be what I've termed to be "very competent intermediates" as I recall - at which level you can have a good deal of fun socially, be regarded by a large proportion of your local dancers as being a very good dancer (which, indeed, you are) and maybe even get somewhere in modern jive competitions, if that's your thing.

Nothing wrong with that.


Good points from both of you.

Robert

Ghost
24th-January-2006, 02:15 PM
Hi Andy,
I'm not sure I’ve understood what you mean by 'formal dance training'. To me, Amir has ‘formal dance training’ from Rambert.

I was saying that once a person graduates from dance school, they need to go beyond what they’ve learnt there. Formal training will only take you so far. Just as getting a degree in Maths does not mean that you know all there is to know about Maths. Sooner or later you have to go beyond what you've been taught.

Gadget said (and I quoted)

So what does formal dance training give you to impart that cannot be learned from experience, practice or other teachers (my emphasis)?
I don't think either of us are saying you shouldn't learn from dance teachers. Simply that you don't need to go to dance school to be an advanced dancer or to teach advanced dancing. I suspect we may be arguing different points. If you’re saying that a person can become an advanced dancer by learning directly from a ‘master’ I would say that counts as “learning from other teachers”

It seems like you’re saying that

Problem in Modern Jive is that most teachers aren't themselves knowledgeable/good enough to be able to do that coaching anyway!
MJ teachers learn to teach Ceroc, rather than learning the intricacies of dance and so are unable to teach advanced concepts?


As has already been said, learning other disciplines with skills related to dance and then transferring them to dance is, theoretically at least, possible. :whistle: Ever heard of Gabrielle Roth?


Whether any dance teachers exist that have taken that route (and succeeded) I know not. But I don't believe very many will have.

From what I've seen it tends to be a case of meeting in the middle. If you start off without formal training but are serious about dance, there comes a point where you seek it out. Look at David James' recent posts about being willing to sit through 'dry' lectures on dance so he can be a better dancer.

Likewise if you're formally trained there often comes a point where you go beyond your training. I'm guessing they don't teach Jango at Rambert, but that Amir has used aspects of his training there to help in it's creation.

(Apologies to David and Amir if i'm wrong about any of this)

Be Well,
Christopher

cerocmetro
24th-January-2006, 02:16 PM
Yes - I'm not completely sure that a "technique class" is equivalent to an "advanced class", but in the MJ context they're probably roughly the same, in terms of their target audience at least.


After last night's "advanced class" at the Jive Bar, I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that the "small number" = 1.

Good grief, am I really contemplating going... there? :eek:

Plus: Andybroom, you're making far too much sense in all your posts, please post some junk like the rest of us, you're making us look bad.

Thanks David but I am sure there are others :whistle:

David Bailey
24th-January-2006, 04:19 PM
Thanks David but I am sure there are others :whistle:
What, like Val & Dave? :innocent:

Andybroom
25th-January-2006, 01:18 PM
Hi Andy,
I'm not sure I’ve understood what you mean by 'formal dance training'. To me, Amir has ‘formal dance training’ from Rambert.


Yes, that's the sort of thing I mean. Not necessarily at Rambert, of course, but that sort of thing.



I was saying that once a person graduates from dance school, they need to go beyond what they’ve learnt there. Formal training will only take you so far. Just as getting a degree in Maths does not mean that you know all there is to know about Maths. Sooner or later you have to go beyond what you've been taught.


Ah right, I see what you mean, Yes, of course. But my case in this thread is that the formal training (ie the equivalent of the degree in maths) has to be present before you can go further. Obviously the easiest way of reaching "degree level" in Maths is to go to university and in dance is to go to a dance school.



If you’re saying that a person can become an advanced dancer by learning directly from a ‘master’ I would say that counts as “learning from other teachers”


Yes, I agree up to a point. It's just that (in my view, anyway, though most have not disagreed with this) most of the current MJ teachers wouldn't count as "masters". That is not denigrating their role in the overall scheme of things, but (as I think I've said before) you can't teach what you don't know.



MJ teachers learn to teach Ceroc, rather than learning the intricacies of dance and so are unable to teach advanced concepts?


Exactly



:whistle: Ever heard of Gabrielle Roth?


Yes, but I'm not sure what relevance she has. Whilst, since the defintion of dance is movement to music, the stuff she does is dance, it is not really dance as we do it. I don't know that there is any particular technique involved in what she does (other than attempting to produce trance like states).

Also, she may well have formal training somewhere in her background for all I know.



From what I've seen it tends to be a case of meeting in the middle. If you start off without formal training but are serious about dance, there comes a point where you seek it out. Look at David James' recent posts about being willing to sit through 'dry' lectures on dance so he can be a better dancer.


To true, for most of us. That's also (in my view) the point where you decide that you want to try to move from being my "competent intermediate" into being an advanced dancer. At the same sort of time (if you are older) you start wishing that you'd danced when you were a teeenager and had formal training from the start .....



Likewise if you're formally trained there often comes a point where you go beyond your training. I'm guessing they don't teach Jango at Rambert, but that Amir has used aspects of his training there to help in it's creation.


Which takes us back to my definition of an advanced dancer as being someone who can do just that sort of thing. Not necessarily going as far as inventing a complete new dance form (or variation of a dance form, anyway) but certainly in someone who isn't limited by the set choreography of the named modern jive moves.

I've never been in the right place at the right time to meet Amir or do any of his classes, but by reputation I would say he fits my definition of a "master" or a "person capable of teaching advanced dancers".

Andy

David Bailey
25th-January-2006, 04:02 PM
At the same sort of time (if you are older) you start wishing that you'd danced when you were a teeenager and had formal training from the start .....
:yeah: :tears:

Oh well, I'm younger than I'll be tomorrow.

WittyBird
25th-January-2006, 04:05 PM
:yeah: :tears:

Oh well, I'm younger than I'll be tomorrow.
:rofl: Is that still possible at your age? :rofl:

Ghost
25th-January-2006, 04:16 PM
< SNIP> interesting stuff


Before I reply, would I be right in assuming that by "advanced dancer" you don't mean

"Advanced - Ideal for people who have been dancing for 12 months" (from http://www.ceroclondon.com/jive_bar.htm )

and is instead more along the lines of

"Their dance is a thing of beauty to behold"? There's a nice quote somewhere (my searching ability is terrible) about someone needing to have a quiet sit down after dancing with Amir, it was that good.

Take care,
Christopher

David Bailey
25th-January-2006, 04:42 PM
"Their dance is a thing of beauty to behold"? There's a nice quote somewhere (my searching ability is terrible) about someone needing to have a quiet sit down after dancing with Amir, it was that good.
I first heard that when Mike Ellard was teaching at the Central Club in London - "A thing of beauty and a joy to behold" was (is?) one of his catchphrases - something like that anyway.

I can't remember where the quote was from originally though.

LMC
25th-January-2006, 04:51 PM
The original quote is actually "a thing of beauty and a joy forever" from Keats' Ode to a Grecian Urn.

:non-existent geeky smiley: 'cos I didn't even have to Google for that

Ghost
25th-January-2006, 04:59 PM
I first heard that when Mike Ellard was teaching at the Central Club in London - "A thing of beauty and a joy to behold" was (is?) one of his catchphrases - something like that anyway.

I can't remember where the quote was from originally though.

I was adapting from "'Tis a thing of beauty despite it's purpose" - from a discussion about a weapon if I remember rightly....

Be Well,
Christopher

ducasi
25th-January-2006, 05:31 PM
The original quote is actually "a thing of beauty and a joy forever" from Keats' Ode to a Grecian Urn.

:non-existent geeky smiley: 'cos I didn't even have to Google for that
A nice adaptation for dancing with a good dancer would be "A thing of beauty, and a joy to hold." (Or "be held"? Dunno which is better. Let's just stick with the <s>Geek</s> Greek.)