PDA

View Full Version : Should you dance to the style of the music?



Gadget
2nd-February-2006, 10:20 PM
Been thinking on this for a while and digging around in the archives came upon a thread that reminded me of it:*

When dancing to a track with a particular latin flavour, should you change your dancing to have a more 'latin' feel? Perhaps add a bit of Tango or Salsa styling?
Or should you contrast the music with some 'funky' moves and style?

If a blues track comes on, should you dance blusey to it? Or treat it as a double beat and put in some fast 'swing' style?

If the "flavour"/"styling" of the dance is done with timing and musical expression that matches the track, does it matter?

{* that thread is here: Does music define the dance? (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3059)}

LMC
2nd-February-2006, 10:30 PM
I try to follow the lead :innocent:

I have a nicer dance if leads take some notice of the music as a whole, rather than just charging through a series of perfectly executed moves, on the beat, but with no real consideration of lyrics/tune/"feel" of the track. I'm even getting to the point now where I occasionally want to "style" and it mildly annoys me when the leader doesn't let me :tears:

But I do try to follow the lead, rather than the music - although I don't think Mr Bouncy Hand man was very impressed at my finally deciding to try Missy D's following techniqe during Shania Twain's "You're Still the One..." (serves both him and Shania right)

Piglet
2nd-February-2006, 10:35 PM
although I don't think Mr Bouncy Hand man was very impressed at my finally deciding to try Missy D's following techniqe during Shania Twain's "You're Still the One..." (serves both him and Shania right)
which is? I'd be interested to learn it - especially if it upsets Mr Bouncy hand and Shania - 2 birds / one stone! :D

(from an ex Miss Bouncy Hand)

I can feel a new Mr Man and Little Miss Book coming on - when they meet Mr Delicious Hands hot off the Caribbean Cruise!

LMC
2nd-February-2006, 10:46 PM
Credit where it's due... (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/showpost.php?p=175198&postcount=38) :nice:

Yliander
2nd-February-2006, 11:51 PM
dance to the style of the music!!!!! – there is nothing more disturbing than watching a couple dance to a lovely latin style song doing all funky breaks and locks – well actually there is something more disturbing dancing with a lead that does this?!?!

I am amazed at the number of high level dancers – who dance the same styling to every song – if you are watching them on video, turned the sound off you would have no idea that the music has gone from a smooth latin song to something funkier - as they look the same which ever song is playing

and this all works the other way around - latin styling to funk music :sick:

Trish
3rd-February-2006, 11:18 AM
dance to the style of the music!!!!! – there is nothing more disturbing than watching a couple dance to a lovely latin style song doing all funky breaks and locks – well actually there is something more disturbing dancing with a lead that does this?!?!

I am amazed at the number of high level dancers – who dance the same styling to every song – if you are watching them on video, turned the sound off you would have no idea that the music has gone from a smooth latin song to something funkier - as they look the same which ever song is playing

and this all works the other way around - latin styling to funk music :sick:

:yeah:

Although I couldn't say my funky styling (leading or following) is all that great :sick: ! - I'm better at the smoother stuff I think. I do give it a go though!

TiggsTours
3rd-February-2006, 11:30 AM
Been thinking on this for a while and digging around in the archives came upon a thread that reminded me of it:*

When dancing to a track with a particular latin flavour, should you change your dancing to have a more 'latin' feel? Perhaps add a bit of Tango or Salsa styling?
Or should you contrast the music with some 'funky' moves and style?

If a blues track comes on, should you dance blusey to it? Or treat it as a double beat and put in some fast 'swing' style?

If the "flavour"/"styling" of the dance is done with timing and musical expression that matches the track, does it matter?

{* that thread is here: Does music define the dance? (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3059)}

Confused. :confused: Is it possible to not do that?

TheTramp
3rd-February-2006, 12:08 PM
Confused. :confused: Is it possible to not do that?

Ummm. Yes. Ask (conservative estimate?) 70% of the people who do modern jive.....

Dizzy
3rd-February-2006, 12:23 PM
I try to follow the lead :innocent:

I have a nicer dance if leads take some notice of the music as a whole, rather than just charging through a series of perfectly executed moves, on the beat, but with no real consideration of lyrics/tune/"feel" of the track. I'm even getting to the point now where I occasionally want to "style" and it mildly annoys me when the leader doesn't let me :tears:


:yeah:

I do find that I have a better dance when the leader adjusts the dance to the style of the music and add little things to keep it interesting :D. I have reached the stage now where I find it really annoying to dance through breaks in the music and will often let my partner know of the break if he decides he is ignoring it :whistle:

Sparkles
3rd-February-2006, 12:34 PM
No, absolutely not.
I think you should ignore the music completely and just move your body however and whenever you feel like it. If your partner can keep up with you so much the better.

foxylady
3rd-February-2006, 01:38 PM
No, absolutely not.
I think you should ignore the music completely and just move your body however and whenever you feel like it. If your partner can keep up with you so much the better.

Thats why you get so many dances !!! I'll have to give it a try :wink:

TheTramp
3rd-February-2006, 01:41 PM
Thats why you get so many dances !!! I'll have to give it a try :wink:

Nah. I think that she gets so many dances because she's so fab.

Of course, that goes for you too!! :hug: :flower:

Andreas
3rd-February-2006, 01:44 PM
Been thinking on this for a while and digging around in the archives came upon a thread that reminded me of it:*

When dancing to a track with a particular latin flavour, should you change your dancing to have a more 'latin' feel? Perhaps add a bit of Tango or Salsa styling?
Or should you contrast the music with some 'funky' moves and style?

If a blues track comes on, should you dance blusey to it? Or treat it as a double beat and put in some fast 'swing' style?

If the "flavour"/"styling" of the dance is done with timing and musical expression that matches the track, does it matter?

{* that thread is here: Does music define the dance? (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3059)}
Of course you should! That is part of musicality, grasping the mood of the music. Style is part of the 'mood' as far as I am concerned.

Finding pauses in all the right places alone does not a dancer good in musical interpretation. Just picture somebody skipping and jumping in Latin Jive style to a Salsa-ish tune. It'd look just completely out of place. You could argue the 'interpretation' part to be individual but you'd also have to draw a line somewhere. :flower:

Andreas
3rd-February-2006, 01:46 PM
Thats why you get so many dances !!! I'll have to give it a try :wink:
Just be careful who you choose as the victim of your excesses. :devil:

Gadget
3rd-February-2006, 02:11 PM
OK, so where does the "style" of your MJ dancing end and you actually start doing a version of the dance dictated by the song? (eg a Salsa track comes on - should you stop dancing MJ and start dancing Salsa? A Tango track comes on - do you attempt to dance Tango, or continue dancing MJ?)

In all tracks, there are highlights in the music. Isn't a highlight a highlight? Does it matter if you accent a stop with a shoulder pop or finish of a smooth leg sweep? Does it matter if a slide in the music becomes a smooth dip or a funky slide-appart?

How can you tell if a dancer is dancing the same way to every track if their musicality matches the song?

Geordieed
3rd-February-2006, 02:38 PM
The term used for this is Characterisation and is a logical step once you feel more comfortable with Musicality which is one of the fundamentals in dance.:cheers:

Sparkles
3rd-February-2006, 04:00 PM
Thats why you get so many dances !!! I'll have to give it a try :wink:
We could try it together and see how well we get on... :devil: :hug:

TiggsTours
3rd-February-2006, 04:05 PM
Ummm. Yes. Ask (conservative estimate?) 70% of the people who do modern jive.....
I was being sarcastic.

TiggsTours
3rd-February-2006, 04:07 PM
OK, so where does the "style" of your MJ dancing end and you actually start doing a version of the dance dictated by the song?
Erm, when you're not doing things like the correct footwork, dancing on the correct beat, including the correct moves, you can dance the "style" of a dance to the correct music, without actually dancing the dance.

Minnie M
3rd-February-2006, 04:38 PM
........When dancing to a track with a particular latin flavour, should you change your dancing to have a more 'latin' feel? Perhaps add a bit of Tango or Salsa styling?
:yeah: If I remember right, we had several dances at BFG doing just that, i.e. changing the look and style of our dance to match the music ............ and it was FAB :worthy: I loved every dance :hug:

I find it extremely difficult to dance MJ to a Rock 'n' Roll or a Swing type track, I have to block the music out and follow - which is such a shame because part of the enjoyment is the music :sad:

ChrisA
3rd-February-2006, 07:07 PM
I think you should ignore the music completely and just move your body however and whenever you feel like it. If your partner can keep up with you so much the better.

:D

Interestingly enough, there is a huge difference between feeling different music differently when you're dancing, and having it actually look different to someone that's watching you.

Having watched some of the best Modern Jivers in the country over quite a few years now, I'd say it's pretty rare for them to make their dancing look different, to different styles of music.

Mostly, even, say, the top competition winners tend to look much the same, regardless of the style of the music - even if they're doing a lot with the breaks, accents and phrases.

Not that I'd include myself in those upper echelons for a moment, but having seen myself dancing in videos on many occasions, I'm just as guilty.

Getting it to look different is very hard indeed I'd say.

Minnie M
3rd-February-2006, 07:14 PM
........Getting it to look different is very hard indeed I'd say.
Hmmm..... very interesting ..... I feel as if I look different, however never having seen myself dancing I wonder if I actually look different :what:

Yogi_Bear
3rd-February-2006, 10:17 PM
OK, so where does the "style" of your MJ dancing end and you actually start doing a version of the dance dictated by the song? (eg a Salsa track comes on - should you stop dancing MJ and start dancing Salsa? A Tango track comes on - do you attempt to dance Tango, or continue dancing MJ?)


If a tango track comes on at a MJ venue you should dance tango if you know how to, or (if a follower) you can follow a leader who can lead tango moves anyway. Otherwise you should sit it out. And if you see people dancing tango properly you will be wowed.
If a track comes on with some tango elements but adaptable to MJ then you should try to dance MJ with as many tango elements as you know and can put into practice.

In general if a song is played that is not really appropriate for MJ you should try to find another dance form that is appropriate.

RogerR
3rd-February-2006, 10:46 PM
There is no such thing as advanced MJ, Just simple satisfying moves done with style, partner awareness, and musicality. Not everyone gets all the way from moves to dancing,.

Gadget
3rd-February-2006, 11:09 PM
OK, so where does the "style" of your MJ dancing end and you actually start doing a version of the dance dictated by the song?Erm, when you're not doing things like the correct footwork, dancing on the correct beat, including the correct moves, you can dance the "style" of a dance to the correct music, without actually dancing the dance.
:what: That would be 90% of MJ dancers on a standard night then. And if that's MJ "style" then I am really worried :sick:

Personally, I don't think that there is much of line between them; I have found that most dance styles can be 'faked' by getting the right timeing and throwing in the odd 'styling' element.
To me, it's all simply dancing, the only thing seperating the styles seems to be the rhythm/beat you move with. Even the distinctive footwork becomes similar when you remove the timeing involved. Perhaps I need to expand my horizons a bit to prove this... (or ask someone else... Sparkles?)


Interestingly enough, there is a huge difference between feeling different music differently when you're dancing, and having it actually look different to someone that's watching you.That's sort of the point - I have been told (and read) many times by many different people that each style of music should transform the dance to incorporate that style.

However I have also been told (and read) many times that the best dancers don't do this - they simply have a generic style that they can bend to fit any music.

So which is it? Can it be both? Are the "best" dancers on the edge of true greatness, only to be reached when they can/do alter their style to match the music style?


In general if a song is played that is not really appropriate for MJ you should try to find another dance form that is appropriate.
Sorry, but I find this just wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.... There is no song that I have ever heard played (or can ever conceive of being played) on a dance night that is "inappropriate" to dance MJ to.
You can addapt your style and moves to anything.

Or perhaps with the wording "inappropriate" you are arguing that you should not rather than can not. If so, why on earth not? :confused:

ChrisA
3rd-February-2006, 11:26 PM
I have found that most dance styles can be 'faked' by getting the right timeing and throwing in the odd 'styling' element.

The whole forum bows to your greatness... :rolleyes:


To me, it's all simply dancing

Spot the operative word, here.

A clue: it's not the one in italics.


So which is it? Can it be both? Are the "best" dancers on the edge of true greatness, only to be reached when they can/do alter their style to match the music style?

If you watch the ten-dance champions, you'll see that their style changes quite a bit from one dance to the next, and in particular from ballroom to latin.

Of the guys in the MJ world, I think Nigel is one of the very few that makes his dancing look different from one style to another. And even that's largely, I think, due to his background in Lindy and Boogie Woogie. No implied criticism, but when he dances to something Latin, it looks much like the way he dances to blues. And the style in each of them is still clearly recognisable as his.

Of the girls? Nina, I think, is one of the most versatile.

I'm really struggling to think of any others.

Even Amir, for whom my admiration is well documented, tends to look very balletic just about whatever he's doing. Top bloke that he is, I can't quite visualise him down and dirty in a fast Lindy or rock'n'roll, really looking the part.

Though I suspect strongly that if he wanted to, he could probably learn to, and that's what marks greatness, or something close to it, in my book.

Feelingpink
4th-February-2006, 12:02 AM
.... There is no song that I have ever heard played (or can ever conceive of being played) on a dance night that is "inappropriate" to dance MJ to.
You can addapt your style and moves to anything.

Or perhaps with the wording "inappropriate" you are arguing that you should not rather than can not. If so, why on earth not? :confused:
I admire your tenacity and enthusiasm for MJ but cannot relate to what you are saying one little bit.

As I think many others have said (perhaps DavidB?), MJ is best danced to tracks within a certain BPM range. I would not want a "pure" MJer to lead me in a very fast track, nor in a slow blues one. In this case, one size does not fit all. Just because one "could" technically do these things does not mean that one should from an artistic standpoint (participating or observing). I would not want to "do" standard MJ moves to a blues track when the music might suggest very little movement and don't think that you can fake quasi-styles just to back up your theory that anything is MJable.

So in answer to the thread's title, my answer would be "Yes. Next question".

Andreas
4th-February-2006, 10:34 AM
OK, so where does the "style" of your MJ dancing end and you actually start doing a version of the dance dictated by the song? (eg a Salsa track comes on - should you stop dancing MJ and start dancing Salsa? A Tango track comes on - do you attempt to dance Tango, or continue dancing MJ?)

In all tracks, there are highlights in the music. Isn't a highlight a highlight? Does it matter if you accent a stop with a shoulder pop or finish of a smooth leg sweep? Does it matter if a slide in the music becomes a smooth dip or a funky slide-appart?
Don't know how other people do it but I try to enrich MJ with as many elements of the other dance style as possible w/o losing my partner :D If the music is Salsa-ish then it is going to be more turns and some footwork. If it is Tango it is going to be a lot of close moves and straight lines etc.. You can't quite generalise it because even within one style (type of music) it sometimes varies a lot.
Apart from the above on the move side, a major element that I use and that makes quite a difference is syncopation. I believe that is just as important because it is what allows to actually interpret the music's character. I probably should have put that first and then the moves, thinking about it.


How can you tell if a dancer is dancing the same way to every track if their musicality matches the song?
To tie into the above, firstly they dance the same speed, or more precisely the same 'weight of beat' as they'd dance to any piece. Secondly they don't vary moves to represent a certain style. When I say varying moves, this also includes individual style elements, lines etc..

David Bailey
4th-February-2006, 07:01 PM
Sorry, but I find this just wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.... There is no song that I have ever heard played (or can ever conceive of being played) on a dance night that is "inappropriate" to dance MJ to.
"Kiss Kiss", Holly Valance. :innocent:

Easy salsa - very tricky MJ, something like 150 BPM.

And that's not a fast salsa - you can get much faster salsa tracks than that, it'd be impossible to MJ to them without looking, well, silly.

ducasi
4th-February-2006, 07:20 PM
And that's not a fast salsa - you can get much faster salsa tracks than that, it'd be impossible to MJ to them without looking, well, silly. If your DJ is playing fast salsa tracks at a Ceroc/Leroc/MJ night, then you need a new DJ, or a different dance night to go to. You don't need to learn salsa.

Andreas
5th-February-2006, 01:50 PM
"Kiss Kiss", Holly Valance. :innocent:

Easy salsa - very tricky MJ, something like 150 BPM.

And that's not a fast salsa - you can get much faster salsa tracks than that, it'd be impossible to MJ to them without looking, well, silly.
You must have a slow version then :whistle: mine is 192 beats. I jived it once with my little protege in NZ, were we puffing by the end of it :rofl: A lot of room for breaks, though. The trouble is just that you have to go from 0-100 in no time all the time. But yes, it is a nice cruisy Salsa.



If your DJ is playing fast salsa tracks at a Ceroc/Leroc/MJ night, then you need a new DJ, or a different dance night to go to. You don't need to learn salsa.

That is 1.50 pounds per loaf, thanks. We have a special on today ;)

ducasi
5th-February-2006, 06:24 PM
That is 1.50 pounds per loaf, thanks. We have a special on today ;)Huh? :confused:

Caro
5th-February-2006, 08:24 PM
Sorry, but I find this just wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.... There is no song that I have ever heard played (or can ever conceive of being played) on a dance night that is "inappropriate" to dance MJ to.
You can addapt your style and moves to anything.



I have to say that if a true salsa or tango was being played at a MJ venue, I would really, really struggle to ceroc to it.
Naturally my feet will want to salsa if there's a salsa tune and I just couldn't imagine cerocing to it. Basically the beat will generate my footwork and I would probably not be able to follow any ceroc.
Even worst when it comes to tango, I would just never ever imagine trying to ceroc to it, that would just be spoiling the tune! I would prefer sit it out if there is no tango dancer rather than trying to ceroc it it! :eek: :eek:

Now I have to say also that I have never heard any 'real' salsa or tango in any MJ venue. Tunes that are salsa-ish and tango-ish, yes, plenty, and I guess that's when it is great to incorporate some of those other dances style into ceroc (although I am not good at that myself - yet :whistle: ).

Tazmanian Devil
5th-February-2006, 11:50 PM
Oh definately yes!!
Myself and Dirty D were having a simular discussion on the way back from ashtons today.
He was wondering how many guys on an average night actually dance to the beat of the music.
Fortunately I dance at venues during the week where it's about 50/50 ratio but much prefer the weekends when I go to the london venues and its more 70/30.
We had another lady with us today who only started dancing in August and found it a real challenge to dance with the guys at ashtons. She loved it but certainly felt like her eyes have been opened more to the whole dancing scene. :kiss: :hug:

Jurasell
6th-February-2006, 04:59 PM
He was wondering how many guys on an average night actually dance to the beat of the music.
Fortunately I dance at venues during the week where it's about 50/50 ratio but much prefer the weekends when I go to the london venues and its more 70/30. But isn't dancing to the style of the music a case of sometimes not dancing to the beat? (It helps if you can dance to it of course!) So you might stretch the timing here, or make a move snappier to reflect the style, rather than be metronomically on that beat.

J.

Tazmanian Devil
6th-February-2006, 05:55 PM
But isn't dancing to the style of the music a case of sometimes not dancing to the beat? (It helps if you can dance to it of course!) So you might stretch the timing here, or make a move snappier to reflect the style, rather than be metronomically on that beat.

J.
Yes I totally agree.
I did say in my last post that we were having a simular discussion yesterday. Which was about dancing to the beat.

Gadget
8th-February-2006, 01:57 AM
Of the guys in the MJ world, I think Nigel is one of the very few that makes his dancing look different from one style to another.
~
Though I suspect strongly that if {Amir} wanted to, he could probably learn to, and that's what marks greatness, or something close to it, in my book.
:confused: so are you saying that the "best" should look to change their style more to match the music? or that since they are the best, they don't need to? Are they the "best" because they have a style that can be adapted to any music?


I admire your tenacity and enthusiasm for MJ but cannot relate to what you are saying one little bit.

~ I would not want a "pure" MJer to lead me in a very fast track, nor in a slow blues one.~ I would not want to "do" standard MJ moves to a blues track when the music might suggest very little movement and don't think that you can fake quasi-styles just to back up your theory that anything is MJable.
That begs the question, where does MJ stop and another dance style take over?

I like slower 'blusey' tracks. I only know MJ. I slow it down, bring the moves in closer with minimal movement and a "magnetic" feel rather than an "elastic" one. I concentrate on weight transfer and include lots of holds and slow sweepy movements to accentuate the music. Am I dancing blues? Or am I dancing MJ with a 'blues' feel? Or am I just slowing down MJ?

Tracks with a salsa feel I can change the timing of moves to match a 'tap-two-three-four' rhythm and (try to) commit my weight late on each step to give a bit more 'hip wiggle'. All the "moves" are MJ. Am I dancing Salsa? Or am I dancing MJ with a 'salsa' twist?

I know I can dance to the style of the music{*}. The question is, if there are other ways of interpreting the music I like better, why should I? Why are people advocating it?

{*well, my interpretation of it anyway}

Apart from the above on the move side, a major element that I use and that makes quite a difference is syncopation. I believe that is just as important because it is what allows to actually interpret the music's character. I probably should have put that first and then the moves, thinking about it.
Can you expand on this please? What exactly do you mean by syncopation? And how would you apply it in this context?


And that's not a fast salsa - you can get much faster salsa tracks than that, it'd be impossible to MJ to them without looking, well, silly.:tears: there goes my MJ then :( How do I tell standard looking silly from this looking silly??


If your DJ is playing fast salsa tracks at a Ceroc/Leroc/MJ night, then you need a new DJ, or a different dance night to go to. You don't need to learn salsa.:yeah:
(well, almost) I like the occasional challenge. If the DJ plays it, then I trust that it must be danceable.

The whole point to MJ is that it's such a convergence of styles and moves that it can be adapted to any music - what's the difference between someone that adds a bit of WCS, then a bit of AT, then a bit of Salsa, then a bit of Lindy, then a bit of Mongolian folk dancing... and someone who does the same stuff, but has no idea where the moves/movements originated?


I have to say that if a true salsa or tango was being played at a MJ venue, I would really, really struggle to ceroc to it.Would that not depend on the lead?

Naturally my feet will want to salsa if there's a salsa tune and I just couldn't imagine cerocing to it. Basically the beat will generate my footwork and I would probably not be able to follow any ceroc.[/uote]Is this a "problem" of any form of pior dance experience? does it restrict your ability to follow? Or should the lead be sympathetic to the music's 'natural rhythm' that the related dance form (should) follow?
[quote]Even worst when it comes to tango, I would just never ever imagine trying to ceroc to it, that would just be spoiling the tune! I would prefer sit it out if there is no tango dancer rather than trying to ceroc it!Now that would be a shame :wink:

Geordieed
8th-February-2006, 01:25 PM
Has anyone had the same problem. I have found it alot more difficult to worry about musicality as I have been trying to learn a new dance. Over the last couple of years I have been working hard to take out alot of bad habits gained over the years in MJ and was told was messing up my technique in the new dance. These days most of my MJ freestyle looks like one thing but because I love my new dance so much I don't mind so much anymore.

I takes so long to learn something new especially if you are trying to learn it properly. Alot of other dances takes years to learn the basics. I was told 2 years for my dance and that can be counted as 4 or 5 basic moves together with the technique.

ChrisA
8th-February-2006, 02:35 PM
Has anyone had the same problem. I have found it alot more difficult to worry about musicality as I have been trying to learn a new dance.
Definitely.

These last two or three years in MJ, stringing together moves and fragments of moves has become easy enough to still have head-space left over just to listen to the music and work on doing stuff with that.

Whereas in WCS, as a beginner, I can't do all the move-varying stuff at all yet (other than just lead a stop on a break and start up again at the beginning of the next phrase - which is a bit dull after the first few times).

It's frustrating as hell, and more so since I want to, and can recognise it being done by people that know what they're doing.

Donna
8th-February-2006, 02:48 PM
These last two or three years in MJ, stringing together moves and fragments of moves has become easy enough to still have head-space left over just to listen to the music and work on doing stuff with that.

That is true. When you become experienced you find it's so easy to learn new moves. The hardest part is timing. Once you get the timing right, it's a case of actually making it look as though you are DANCING with attitude rather than just stepping through the moves to a count. It's a lot harder for the male I understand as he has more to think about in terms of leading, concentrating on where the lady is, the timing, thinking ahead of what moves to do next, listening to the music and interpreting it correctly. I don't think non competitors have to worry about this so much but for those who do it's very stressful.

It's always a good idea to have a list of latin, blues, dance and jive records to practice to as in a competition, you don't know what they are going to play. This is where ballroom comes in handy too. Once you hear the intro, you have to act fast and just get on with it basically.

You see some dancers who look the same to every style of music. They may be good, but you can get bored of watching them after a while.

Ghost
8th-February-2006, 03:51 PM
Isn't a highlight a highlight? Does it matter if you accent a stop with a shoulder pop or finish of a smooth leg sweep? Does it matter if a slide in the music becomes a smooth dip or a funky slide-appart?
If you want to bang in nails, use a hammer. If you want to screw in screws, use a screwdriver.

Tango moves are designed to be danceable to tango. They're been honed and polished over years and they're very good at it. So if you know them and a tango dance or style dance comes on, then they'll do the job nicely.

Ceroc moves are designed to be danced to Modern Jive.

But they're not the only tool for the job. You can use a screwdriver as quite an effective hammer. Yes, it might be better to go and get a hammer if you're banging in nails, but a screwdriver will do quite nicely too :whistle:

So I agree with Gadget, there's nothing wrong with dancing non-tango moves to tango, it's just that you might have to adapt them, or have a more limited choice of what will work 'straight from the box'.

Ultimately dance is about the interplay of energy. How you express, compress, manipulate it etc. Kinetic energy of movement, sound energy of the music, emotional energy etc. At the beginning of a class when the music's playing, but no-one's dancing, I'll be ever so slightly rocking. In fact what I'm doing is dancing Ceroc, but only the essence of the moves. I can feel the weight shifts, my balance adjusting, muscles flexing and relaxing, energy moving around me and each Ceroc move has a different combinatinon. I can dance Ceroc without moving at all, just concentrating on feeling the flow of energy associated with specific moves. Another example of dancing without actually dancing is at http://www.fusiondance.freeservers.com/photo.html - they express emotions and energies but technically they are just stationary colours.

I do feel there's an obligation if you go to a Ceroc Venue to dance Ceroc, or at least in the style of Ceroc. There's quite a lot of freedom inherent within it. But I wouldn't feel comfortable say, Trance Dancing all night - there's other places to go for that and likewise I wouldn't dance Ceroc at a 5 Rhythms Venue.

As for the moves themselves, again I agree with Gadget. Rockin Robin is a fast track, but the lyrics are quite bluesy to my mind "Go rocking robin, cos we're really gonna rock tonight" cries out for sway rocks into freeze to me :hug: . Dance to every 2nd, 4th or even 8th beat and follow the lyrics or instruments, should let you dance Ceroc to pretty much anything (haven't tried Holly Valance though).

Take care,
Christopher

Caro
8th-February-2006, 07:51 PM
:That begs the question, where does MJ stop and another dance style take over?

Tracks with a salsa feel I can change the timing of moves to match a 'tap-two-three-four' rhythm and (try to) commit my weight late on each step to give a bit more 'hip wiggle'. All the "moves" are MJ. Am I dancing Salsa? Or am I dancing MJ with a 'salsa' twist? :


:confused: If you do the 'tap two three four' footwork and lead the moves accordingy that I believe you dance salsa :wink:


:Would that not depend on the lead?
Is this a "problem" of any form of pior dance experience? does it restrict your ability to follow?
:

Don't think so, the salsa footwork is dictated to me by the music. Now if you lead me when I (i.e. my feet) am not ready (to spin for example), you disturb my footwork, so my body will probably follow the lead but then I'll loose the rythm and look a bit like :what: until I get the bit again and until the lead disturbs me again :what: ... well you see the pattern.

It's a bit like dancing regular ceroc to the beat with a guy that doesn't follow (or have) the beat... depending on the strenght of the lead, I may try to correct it to do the move on the beat, or I my body will follow and again I'll look a bit like :what: until the leader allows me the get the beat again...

Andreas
8th-February-2006, 09:22 PM
Can you expand on this please? What exactly do you mean by syncopation? And how would you apply it in this context?
If you are interested in details about stressed and unstressed beats then Wikipedia has something to say about it.

A (hopefully) simple description would be

- stressing = emphasising
- unstressing = semi neglecting

What I mean is that you work with different beats in your bar of music. But not only do you change the emphasis on a particular beat, you also decide 'when you start' this beat. You are essentially moving between front, centre and back of the beat to achieve an emphasis of varying result.

We all know what it looks like when people dance at the centre of a beat because that is what is generally done. If you want to 'slow down' music you will move to the back of a beat. If you intend to 'speed it up' you will move to the front of the beat.

Front of the beat:
If you do that for any length of time your entire dance will look rushed. You are essentially anticipating the beats. Quite frankly, most people actually move to the front of the beat when music becomes faster. This is an absurdum, which requires a bit of practice to shed off.

Back of beat:
You move in the 'dying phase' of a beat. This is what you see a lot in advanced WCS and RnB. Most people will have trouble doing this because one has the feeling as though the music is slipping away. However, it is a great means to cope with very fast music.

How to use:
To be honest, there is relatively little application ton use the front of the beat effectively. Its main application is in combination with 'back of beat'. It allows you to really stretch certain parts of a track, insert poses in fast music, when there is actually no room for them. Dark and light to its extremes. Because it is not all that easy to shift from one extreme to the other (front to back) you'll only see that in a few cases.
The back of the beat is more widely used in combination with 'centre of beat'. It is only a small shift that allows you to extend your arm smoothly while your body has already started the motion in the other direction. One of the best dances to see and practice this is the Rumba. WCS does also make heavy use of it.

Tango music:
If you intend to use syncopation to Tango music you'll be more likely to dance at the centre and occasionally the front of the beat, due to the temperament of the music. It asks for more fast-ish movements than slow ones. So you will look at speeding up the odd part of the track/dance for emphasis, usually before a break/pose.

ChaCha/Rumba music:
I list those together because I noticed that quite often slow ChaChas are being played at MJ venues. These dances endulge in slow moments. As a general rule it is probably safe to say that you move to the back of the beat on 4 and 1. However, you frequency of doing this is possibly more like every four bars, sometimes every two bars.

Samba music:
Not often played but the odd one makes an appearance. Back of beat 1. This is usually the only way to slow it down and you do that every two bars.

Swing/Blues music:
Back of beats 1 and 3. Swing music somehow presents itself for very frequent syncopation, I guess that is where that 'swing' comes in. Swing is possibly also THE music when movements from the back to the front of a beat and vice versa can be fully exploited due to its somewhat cheeky character.

RnB music:
Now we don't get all that much of it because it is just so slow. Makes a great base for Salsa, though :D Back of beat 1 is what you are looking at. However, due to its very slow speed it also does invite to make back -> front and front -> back shifts. FIRE is possibly one of the very few tracks of this sort of speed that is being played. It just asks for spins at the front of a beat before the FIRE breaks. ;)

---------

Can't quite think of any other style that is being played at MJ venues. WCS just uses general pop, country and western (and swing), and RnB music. So I won't try to make something up for it :D

Hope that helps.

ChrisA
8th-February-2006, 09:59 PM
Hmm.

All this "front, centre, back" of the beat stuff. It sounds like a big over-complication of "before, on, and after" to me. I understand perfectly the concept of doing things before, on, or after the beat, to achieve some effect or other, but I'm not sure this "front, centre, back" thing actually helps.

Consider a metronome. It clicks once per beat. The click takes place in an instant of time. There is then a gap before the next one.

What part of your beats does the metronome click on?

timbp
8th-February-2006, 10:09 PM
Hmm.

All this "front, centre, back" of the beat stuff. It sounds like a big over-complication of "before, on, and after" to me. I understand perfectly the concept of doing things before, on, or after the beat, to achieve some effect or other, but I'm not sure this "front, centre, back" thing actually helps.

Consider a metronome. It clicks once per beat. The click takes place in an instant of time. There is then a gap before the next one.

What part of your beats does the metronome click on?
An explanation I found helpful, quoted from this site (http://home.att.net/~kellens/aug04.html):


There are two ways to dance to the music: as a drummer or as a piano player. Most men, in the beginning, equate a beat of music to a completed weight change. He tries to have his step completed on the beat. This means he must start his movement before the beat in order to have it completed on the beat. This is dancing like a drummer. When you play the drums, the beat is an instant in time (when the drum stick strikes the drum). In reality we want the man to dance like a piano player. The piano player striking a key, this is equivalent to a dancer starting his step. The duration of the key being held down (making a tone) is how long the dancer has to complete his step (finish his weight change). The step starts at the beginning of the note (beat) and is completed when the note ends.

Andreas
8th-February-2006, 10:32 PM
What part of your beats does the metronome click on?
centre

ChrisA
8th-February-2006, 10:33 PM
drum/piano stuff
I'd still like to get a consensus of when the beat is, before we get to this other stuff.

Personally, I'd rather define the beat as occurring in a point in time, and then start discussing whether you should do stuff before it, on it, or after it, than get caught up in Andreas' analogy, which I didn't find particularly helpful.

The article you quote from seems to be implying that movement should start on the beat, and be completed before the next beat.

I'm far from convinced that dancing consistently like that would be any more "with the music" than dancing consistently so as to arrive with the weight on the beat.

Certainly, if you watch the professional ballroom dancers, you'll see them arrive with their weight at different points in time relative to where the beat is, but it's far from constant as the article implies - it varies according to what they're trying to achieve in their dancing, and it's in achieving the appropriate variations that the difficult stuff lies.

As an aside, I didn't like the drum/piano analogy at all. A drum beat, just like a piano note, starts and then decays. In a room with lots of echo, it can take a long time to die down, just like a piano note with the sustain pedal held down.

No disrespect, but I do think these clever-sounding analogies obscure, rather than make things clearer.

ChrisA
8th-February-2006, 10:35 PM
centre
Thanks. I kinda suspected as much.

As I said, I think it's a more helpful to think of it as "before, on, or after".

Andreas
8th-February-2006, 10:41 PM
Thanks. I kinda suspected as much.

As I said, I think it's a more helpful to think of it as "before, on, or after".
That is certainly a matter of how you define it. If I was to explain to somebody using before and after I'd fear that this person actually perceives me saying 'the beat after THAT beat' or before for that matter rather than noting that I am still talking about only one beat. You are correct if you do NOT add the 'silence' between the beats to the beats, thus talking about syncopation happening 'between' beats (before and after). If you give each beat half of the 'silence' before and after it you will need to talk about front and back, which is what I prefer. But as I just said, it is a matter of definition rather than right and wrong. :cheers:

ChrisA
8th-February-2006, 10:48 PM
But as I just said, it is a matter of definition rather than right and wrong. :cheers:
Agreed. And I think we're broadly in agreement about the rest of the stuff... I'd probably substitute things like "if you're consistently before the beat it will look rushed", but it amounts to the same thing.

For a beginner, where even arriving with their weight on the beat consistently is difficult, thinking of doing things before it or after it, is virtually impossible, and would result in something like this:

ChrisA
8th-February-2006, 10:49 PM
(with grateful thanks to Dave F)

Gadget
8th-February-2006, 11:57 PM
That is certainly a matter of how you define it. If I was to explain to somebody using before and after I'd fear that this person actually perceives me saying 'the beat after THAT beat' or before for that matter rather than noting that I am still talking about only one beat. You are correct if you do NOT add the 'silence' between the beats to the beats, thus talking about syncopation happening 'between' beats (before and after). If you give each beat half of the 'silence' before and after it you will need to talk about front and back, which is what I prefer. But as I just said, it is a matter of definition rather than right and wrong. :cheers:
Now I'm confused...
in 'tangoesques' styling, I hold off some movements (like pivots) in a 'gathering' type stillness before releasing it to land with a contrasting sharpness on the next beat.

See if this makes any sense...
normal:
|beat|------|beat|------|beat|------|beat|
normal with a 1 beat 'pause':
|beat|-----_|beat|______|beat|_-----|beat|
dramatic hesitation:
|beat|-----^|beat|___-^^|beat|------|beat|

So am I infront of beat3, or behind beat2?? :confused:

Andreas
9th-February-2006, 12:16 AM
Now I'm confused...
in 'tangoesques' styling, I hold off some movements (like pivots) in a 'gathering' type stillness before releasing it to land with a contrasting sharpness on the next beat.

See if this makes any sense...
normal:
|beat|------|beat|------|beat|------|beat|
normal with a 1 beat 'pause':
|beat|-----_|beat|______|beat|_-----|beat|
dramatic hesitation:
|beat|-----^|beat|___-^^|beat|------|beat|

So am I infront of beat3, or behind beat2?? :confused:
there is no 'sharp back'. All sharp moves are either bang on or at the front of the beat. The back of the beat provides softness in motion.

Though, the end of a pivot in Tango does actually take you to the back of the beat if you 'drag it out'. But then it does not have a sharp finish. The sharp finish could be a head flick etc. at the front of the following beat if you decide to do that.

Andybroom
9th-February-2006, 07:49 PM
I'd still like to get a consensus of when the beat is, before we get to this other stuff.

Personally, I'd rather define the beat as occurring in a point in time, and then start discussing whether you should do stuff before it, on it, or after it, than get caught up in Andreas' analogy, which I didn't find particularly helpful.



Unfortunately I don't think you can really do that. At least, if I was teaching a beginner I'd teach them to change weight at the point where the drummer hits the drum. But really the beat is the time interval between the last time the drummer hit the drum and the next time the drummer hits the drum.

What you actually do when dancing during that time interval is down to you and your interpretation of the particular track concerned. You might, for example, land your foot early, do some bit of styling centred in time around the point where the drummer hits the drum and then move off to whatever happens next.



The article you quote from seems to be implying that movement should start on the beat, and be completed before the next beat.


That's not necessarily true.



I'm far from convinced that dancing consistently like that would be any more "with the music" than dancing consistently so as to arrive with the weight on the beat.


Yes, I'd agree with that as far as it goes. Dancing "with the music" means varying what you are doing timing wise to fit what the music is doing. It can also mean doing "syncopations" - something extra beween the two points where the drummer hits the drum.




Certainly, if you watch the professional ballroom dancers, you'll see them arrive with their weight at different points in time relative to where the beat is, but it's far from constant as the article implies - it varies according to what they're trying to achieve in their dancing, and it's in achieving the appropriate variations that the difficult stuff lies.


Yep.


Andy

ChrisA
10th-February-2006, 12:55 AM
But really the beat is the time interval between the last time the drummer hit the drum and the next time the drummer hits the drum.

I don't particularly want to get to hung up on semantics, but this makes no sense to me.

Consider a metronome, clicking once per beat. The click is when the beat is. In 4/4 time, there are four clicks to a bar, and conventionally, the click is at the beginning of each count within the bar.

Whether you have four crotchets in the bar with no rests, or four semiquavers, each followed by a dotted quaver rest, makes no difference to where the beat is - it's at the beginning of the note in each case.

ChrisA
10th-February-2006, 01:13 AM
where the beat is
Just as an afterthought... I think the confusion arises between the point at which the drum is struck, the piano key is pressed, or the metronome clicks, and the time periods into which a bar is divided.

You "beat" a drum - that's a moment in time. Then there's a period during which other stuff happens, and then you beat the drum again.

Well-known expressions, like "dancing on the beat" have no meaning if the foot isn't placed at the point the drum is struck. That's why I prefer a different term (count, or measure, for example, if you don't want to resort to the precision of musical notation) to describe the period between the beats.

My feeling about Andreas' "front, centre, back" terminology has hardened since yesterday. Although I know what he means by it, I do think it's actually wrong, since the "front of the beat" concept is actually before the metronome click, and is therefore in the previous measure within the bar. So to refer to it as part of the following one is just wrong, and consequently misleading.

Geordieed
10th-February-2006, 11:05 AM
Back of beat:
You move in the 'dying phase' of a beat. This is what you see a lot in advanced WCS and RnB. Most people will have trouble doing this because one has the feeling as though the music is slipping away. However, it is a great means to cope with very fast music.

How to use:
To be honest, there is relatively little application ton use the front of the beat effectively. Its main application is in combination with 'back of beat'. It allows you to really stretch certain parts of a track, insert poses in fast music, when there is actually no room for them. Dark and light to its extremes. Because it is not all that easy to shift from one extreme to the other (front to back) you'll only see that in a few cases.
The back of the beat is more widely used in combination with 'centre of beat'. It is only a small shift that allows you to extend your arm smoothly while your body has already started the motion in the other direction. One of the best dances to see and practice this is the Rumba. WCS does also make heavy use of it.


Swing/Blues music:
Back of beats 1 and 3. Swing music somehow presents itself for very frequent syncopation, I guess that is where that 'swing' comes in. Swing is possibly also THE music when movements from the back to the front of a beat and vice versa can be fully exploited due to its somewhat cheeky character.


Can't quite think of any other style that is being played at MJ venues. WCS just uses general pop, country and western (and swing), and RnB music. So I won't try to make something up for it :D

Hope that helps.





:sick: :sick: :sick: :sick: :sick: :sick:

LMC
10th-February-2006, 01:05 PM
Oh good, I'm not the only one who is thinking that.

Has anyone else bookmarked this thread and run off back to Beginner's Corner with the intention to revisit all this advanced musicality stuff in, oooh, about seven years or so?

Andreas
10th-February-2006, 01:11 PM
Sorry guys. Didn't mean to scare anybody. Gadget just asked for some elaboration. :blush:

Geordieed
10th-February-2006, 01:43 PM
Oh good, I'm not the only one who is thinking that.

Has anyone else bookmarked this thread and run off back to Beginner's Corner with the intention to revisit all this advanced musicality stuff in, oooh, about seven years or so?


What scares me the most is some people out there have learnt some bad information.

ChrisA
10th-February-2006, 02:06 PM
What scares me the most is some people out there have learnt some bad information.
Ever read "The Emperor's new clothes"?

Gadget
10th-February-2006, 02:11 PM
What scares me the most is some people out there have learnt some bad information.
So instead of just saying "It's wrong/bad/pile of poo", why not attempt to correct it or put forward your views on why?

{and exactly what information is miss-information? - you give no reference of what you are referring to.}

Tessalicious
10th-February-2006, 02:21 PM
I haven't read all of this thread, but I've had a look at the mini-debate on what a beat is with some interest.

Firstly I just have to say, seriously, we're dancers, not musicians. Even those of us who are musicians shouldn't have to think that hard about where in the beat things happen - cos it will either work or it won't, depending on the type of musician - and those that aren't, are never going to understand the (particularly Andreas') argument about parts of the beat.

I'm also not convinced that it is correct to define the beats in the way that Andreas has, it doesn't quite make sense to me. So, for any of you that really are suckers for punishment, I shall put it my way, which is the way I have always been taught it (including at Music College) as both classical and jazz terminology.

The beat, as defined by the metronome, the drummer, or the conductor, begins at the point of impact. That is, the sound of the metronome or drum, or the 'snap' of the conductor's baton to indicate a beat (probably harder to understand if you're not an orchestral musician). Most people bothering with this discussion will be able to hear this quite clearly, if you can't, go and watch the drummer in a live jazz band for an hour and you might learn something.

The back of the beat is heard when a sound which feels like it should come at this beginning is held back, or played slightly late. There is no definition which says that the back of a beat is a certain percentage into the beat - it's just what happens in the music. If you can hear it, you can dance with it - and if you can't, trying is just going to look silly.

Similarly, the 'front' of the beat is what would more normally in jazz be called an anticipation - where a sound is, funnily enough, played to anticipate the beat that is about to happen, usually as close to the beat as possible to make it snappier. It is still part of the previous beat, but alters the rhythm so that you know what is coming next, and merges into the next beat allowing it to feel like the rhythm has sped up. As above, you can only effectively use this in your dancing if you can hear it.

Very few songs that aren't club dance tracks that we dance to have absolutely no aspect of these rhythmic effects, but whether you want to use them or not does not necessarily determine your skill at dancing to the style of the music - just your ability to use interesting rhythms when they are there.

There are so many aspects of fitting a style that are much more accesible, such as different ways of shaping spare arms, different footwork movements, leading styles, types of spin - none of these are to do with beats, but with attitude, which is IMHO much more important for most dancers.

Sorry for the essay btw, I had no idea how long this was til I previewed it :blush: .

ChrisA
10th-February-2006, 02:26 PM
So instead of just saying "It's wrong/bad/pile of poo", why not attempt to correct it or put forward your views on why?

Because sometimes there's just no point.

Sometimes, sifting through all the crap on some of these threads, and posting a carefully thought-out and expressed counter-argument is just more effort than it's worth, and there are other, more important things going on in life.



{and exactly what information is miss-information? - you give no reference of what you are referring to.}
Yes he did. He didn't comment on it, other than with a bunch of smilies, but it's pretty clear what he's referring to. I agree that as a reaction it's not all that helpful, but I can understand the frustration, and the "Oh god where do I start" feeling.

Andreas
10th-February-2006, 02:31 PM
He did indeed (smilies) and I have no problem with people being of different opinion. I too would have preferred his version. Not to pull it apart but to see where his opinion differs from mine.

Tess' post, on the other hand, signalled different opinion, though, when I read it I actually came to the conclusion that both of us are talking about the same thing, only she found a much more transparent way of explaining it. :cheers:

Geordieed
10th-February-2006, 02:42 PM
Ever read "The Emperor's new clothes"?


You will have to explain that one Chris please...

Geordieed
10th-February-2006, 02:52 PM
Because sometimes there's just no point.

Sometimes, sifting through all the crap on some of these threads, and posting a carefully thought-out and expressed counter-argument is just more effort than it's worth, and there are other, more important things going on in life.


Yes he did. He didn't comment on it, other than with a bunch of smilies, but it's pretty clear what he's referring to. I agree that as a reaction it's not all that helpful, but I can understand the frustration, and the "Oh god where do I start" feeling.


BTW. Thank you for that.

Sometimes I almost feel like putting in a comment first to the effect that any comments are not personal. Points of view for most of the time a felt personal to us and so get involved in the debate.

There were so many aspects of a very long reply that the response itself could easily be alot longer. What makes a Swing dance a Swing dance. How music is classified to a dance form. How we perceive a beat and the role it plays not only in what we dance to individually or within the parameters of lead/follow. Also how Tango is danced without the beat.

Thank you for what you said as I couldn't have responded better myself.

ChrisA
10th-February-2006, 02:58 PM
You will have to explain that one Chris please...
It's a fairy tale, a version of which is here (http://deoxy.org/emperors.htm).

I think sometimes, and I'm not referring to anyone in particular here, we can get a bit carried away with how clever something sounds, without either actually understanding it, or noticing that because of how clever it sounds, it's actually wrong.

I've been guilty of this myself in my time, and it can be very easy to do. Sometimes it's hard to see the wood for the trees.

But stuff that is wrong but sounds clever can take on a life of its own, and end up getting repeated as fact by people that have been fooled by all the long, educated-sounding words.

LMC
10th-February-2006, 03:03 PM
Sorry guys. Didn't mean to scare anybody. Gadget just asked for some elaboration. :blush:
Don't apologise! I know I was being flippant, but seriously, this thread has been a real eyeopener to someone like me who is only really just now beginning to appreciate musicality. Thanks, and carry on... :flower:

ducasi
10th-February-2006, 04:55 PM
Very few songs that aren't club dance tracks that we dance to have absolutely no aspect of these rhythmic effects, but whether you want to use them or not does not necessarily determine your skill at dancing to the style of the music - just your ability to use interesting rhythms when they are there.
:confused: Too many negative in the start of that sentence... :confused:

I think I have a natural understand of music, but a lot of this talk means nothing to me without being able to actually hear what you mean.

What's be good would be a DVD or some other interactive media which could give me the language to understand the stuff I believe I know instinctively, but can't put into words.

Tessalicious
10th-February-2006, 05:02 PM
:confused: Too many negative in the start of that sentence... :confused:Too true, sorry. Let me rephrase then - Most of the songs we dance to in Ceroc, except some of the club dance ones, have some aspect of rhythmic alteration by delayed or anticipated beats. Is that better?
I think I have a natural understand of music, but a lot of this talk means nothing to me without being able to actually hear what you mean.

What's be good would be a DVD or some other interactive media which could give me the language to understand the stuff I believe I know instinctively, but can't put into words.Not today, I think my boss would notice if I tried to make you one at work...

Seriously, I understand your point, and that's part of the reason why I thought the argument was too complex in the first place. But, having said that, I will have a think over the next few weeks and see if I can put together some examples on a CD for you, with some kind of commentary, so you can hear what I mean and make parallels to what you already know.

If you want it that much, that is :flower: .

ducasi
10th-February-2006, 05:47 PM
Thanks Tessa, I was just really looking for pointers to some "teach yourself musicality" DVDs on Amazon, or web sites which do the same, but anything you can do would be very much appreciated. :nice:

Tessalicious
10th-February-2006, 06:21 PM
To be honest I have very little awareness of musicality self-help literature (if there even is such a thing) - it's something I have grown up being immersed into, do naturally to whatever extent I do, and teach in a way specific to the individual*.

However, from the brief search I just did, you won't find anything vaguely useful to you - either in terms of language, if you thought what I said was badly worded, or specific to the range of musical genres you are interested in - on the web. I'm not going to promise that I will be able to put together anything particularly ground-breaking for you, but I shall do my best - but it might take a few weeks (or more) to put together.

*I hasten to add that I teach it (in a very amateur kind of way) in the context of the piano, not of dancing - I know I still have a long way to go in my dancing before I reach that level, if I ever do.

ducasi
10th-February-2006, 06:53 PM
... if you thought what I said was badly worded, or specific to the range of musical genres you are interested in - on the web. I'm not going to promise that I will be able to put together anything particularly ground-breaking for you, but I shall do my best - but it might take a few weeks (or more) to put together.
I didn't think what you said was badly worded, it's just I don't have the connections in my head to put those words with the appropriate sounds.

Someone once tried to explain to me the different parts of the beat that triple-steps should be done on for different style of dance. I think I would just get it (mostly) right simply by listening to what the music is telling me, but his explanation was mostly "whoosh"! :what:

I'd be very grateful for anything you can do, and I guess many other people would also. (I can't be the only one? :eek:) No big rush! :flower:

Tessalicious
10th-February-2006, 07:01 PM
Someone once tried to explain to me the different parts of the beat that triple-steps should be done on for different style of dance. I think I would just get it (mostly) right simply by listening to what the music is telling me, but his explanation was mostly "whoosh"! :what:

I'd be very grateful for anything you can do, and I guess many other people would also. (I can't be the only one? :eek:) No big rush! :flower:Ok, I'll see what I can do, and anyone else that is interested in what I might have to offer - and can specify questions they'd like answered - is welcome to ask. I'll try to bring whatever I can do up to the BFG too.

Gadget
10th-February-2006, 09:45 PM
So, does which beat you dance on (or where you dance on each beat) determine what style of dance you are doing then?

If so, {and getting back on topic} then I can draw the following conclusion:
MJ combined with specific footwork/timing of another style may as well be that style. So by adopting this, you are actually dancing "to the style of the music".

If you emphasise musical structures in your dance without adhering to the specific music style's beat/footwork pattern, you are still dancing to the music, just not in that musical style.

Personally, I am of the opinion that the second one of these produces a much more interesting dance. I think that this is one of the biggest strong points in MJ: style without structure. Freedom to express the music without getting hung up on what conforms and what doesn't.
If you combine the latter "Musical Interpretation" with the style elements etc of the former "Dance Style", then what's the point in dancing MJ? You may as well go and learn that style.

To answer my own question - I disagree with most folk here and say no: you should dance to the music; the style of the dance normally associated with it is immaterial.

Andreas
10th-February-2006, 10:45 PM
To answer my own question - I disagree with most folk here and say no: you should dance to the music; the style of the dance normally associated with it is immaterial.
I agree with you that MJ is THE dance that allows you to use various styles of music to create a very interesting dance. No other style that I can do has the potential for this. When music is either very slow or very fast, however, I would not resort to dancing MJ, other styles, such as Salsa, are more 'appropriate' for that.

What I have to say, though. Usually, when I hear a piece of music and I can do the 'proper' dance style to it, then I also literally year for doing that style. I have danced a lot of MJ to ChaCha and Rumba but it never satisfies me as much as if I dance ChaCha or Rumba. My Lindy is pretty poor, so I only use elements of it and other swing dances when I hear Swing music, but essentially do MJ. Similar with my AT, which needs work before I would feel confident to have anywhere near as much fun doing it as opposed to MJ. Not sure if that applies to you, too. But confidence appears to be a large factor for me to have fun in a dance because with confidence comes creativity. Otherwise I get bored with myself ... and feel sorry for the girl that has to dance with me. :cheers:

Ghost
11th-February-2006, 01:16 AM
To answer my own question - I disagree with most folk here and say no: you should dance to the music; the style of the dance normally associated with it is immaterial.
Something to consider. If you took someone who'd never heard of Amir and sat them down in front of him doing a demo / show / freestyle, could you convince them he was dancing Jango? Or would they think you were winding them up (ie 'There's no thing as Jango, you're making that up'?). If you're dancing freestyle to a tango track and I tried to convince somone that you were in fact dancing the little known Scottish tango which had come across with the spanish sailors and the moves had evolved over the last several hundred yearrs - would I be believeable? Because the above could have happened. There's more than one version of tango, yes? Someone said that when they watch Torvil and Dean dance, it's like the music is played to interpret their moves not the other way round. If you're acheiving that, or even just heading in that direction :worthy:

Dance in beauty,
Christopher

ChrisA
11th-February-2006, 01:20 AM
If you combine the latter "Musical Interpretation" with the style elements etc of the former "Dance Style", then what's the point in dancing MJ? You may as well go and learn that style.

To answer my own question - I disagree with most folk here and say no: you should dance to the music; the style of the dance normally associated with it is immaterial.
Have you ever stopped to wonder why the different styles of dance evolved as they have?

:rolleyes:

spindr
11th-February-2006, 03:15 AM
For dancers I think the important thing is how your weight is moving and where it is relative to a given beat.

If you are upright, and step forwards on the beat, then your centre of gravity will arrive "as" you step, e.g. on the beat -- yes it will make a difference if you step toe, heel-flat, ball flat, etc. but that's a reasonable simplification.

If you are leaning forwards, and step forwards on the beat, then your centre of gravity will arive earlier than your feet -- making it feel like you have arrived earlier -- "driving" the beat.

If you are leaning backwards, and step forwards on the beat, then your centre of gravity will arive later than your feet -- making it feel like you have arrived later -- literally "laid-back".

Some other thoughts, re: triple steps, etc. http://www.afterfive.co.uk/guide/latest/html/music_and_musical_interpretation.html#swinging_the _beat

SpinDr

Andybroom
11th-February-2006, 11:34 PM
I don't particularly want to get to hung up on semantics, but this makes no sense to me.

Consider a metronome, clicking once per beat. The click is when the beat is. In 4/4 time, there are four clicks to a bar, and conventionally, the click is at the beginning of each count within the bar.

Whether you have four crotchets in the bar with no rests, or four semiquavers, each followed by a dotted quaver rest, makes no difference to where the beat is - it's at the beginning of the note in each case.

Yes, but (and with respect) that's not the whole story.

Obviously you can define the word "beat" anyway you wish. If you choose to define it as the moment the metronome clicks (or the drum is hit, in my post) then that, in itself, is ok though I doubt many musicians or dancers would agree with you.

But it doesn't alter the fact that there is a time interval between clicks during which (if you are a dancer) you can make a movement, even take a step or, if you are a musician you can play a note.

So, if you are going to define a "beat" in your way, you are left with a nameless amount if time in which a lot can happen!

Andy

Andybroom
11th-February-2006, 11:55 PM
J
My feeling about Andreas' "front, centre, back" terminology has hardened since yesterday. Although I know what he means by it, I do think it's actually wrong, since the "front of the beat" concept is actually before the metronome click, and is therefore in the previous measure within the bar. So to refer to it as part of the following one is just wrong, and consequently misleading.

Well it's nomal in dance to talk about being "early" if ahead of the beat and "late" if after.

There is a difference. If, instead of landing your foot (or whatever) on the first beat of the bar you land it after the first beat, you are said to be "late". Your foot will have been in the air for the period from the fourth beat of the previous bar - ie a period and a bit.

If, however, you land the foot before the first beat it has only been in the air for less than one period between beats.

Using the word "beat" here in terms of your definition - when the metronome clicks.

To do this and stay in time with music you have to "rob Peter to pay Paul". So the long "period and a bit" must be matched by a short "bit of a period". Most commonly the two are put together so the matching is obvious. Arguably it doesn't actually need to be and matching it up anywhere withim the 8 count phrase is OK.

I say arguably because, as I recall, this was a big bone of contention a few years ago over foxtrot timing in top level competition - I won't bore you with the details of that though ;)

Andy

MartinHarper
10th-May-2007, 10:04 PM
Found this old thread, thought of a way to express a similar thought to Andreas:


Consider a metronome. It clicks once per beat. The click takes place in an instant of time. There is then a gap before the next one.

The click doesn't take place in an instant of time. If you look at a graph of sound over time, you'll see that the amplitude starts at zero, builds up to a maximum quickly, and then fades over time. The start of the sound is the "front of the beat". The point of maximum amplitude is the "centre of the beat". The tail after that point, where the click is quieter but still audible, is the "back of the beat"

The sound of a metronome dies off quickly, so the time between the front and back of the beat is quite short. This also means that dancing to a metronome sucks. I've heard this size referred to as a "pocket", so a metronome has a small pocket. I don't know if that's the right use of terminology. By contrast, the way a cymbal resonates makes for a bigger pocket. Also, in a band with drums, base, and maybe other instruments marking the beat won't all play at precisely the same instant in time, so that gives a bigger pocket too.

Actually using that consciously when dancing is something else.

spindr
10th-May-2007, 10:58 PM
The sound of a metronome dies off quickly, so the time between the front and back of the beat is quite short. This also means that dancing to a metronome sucks. I've heard this size referred to as a "pocket", so a metronome has a small pocket. I don't know if that's the right use of terminology. By contrast, the way a cymbal resonates makes for a bigger pocket. Also, in a band with drums, base, and maybe other instruments marking the beat won't all play at precisely the same instant in time, so that gives a bigger pocket too.
:yeah: Plus, of course, a step isn't always instaneous -- especially if a heel (or toe) hits the floor first and then the foot rolls as the leg takes weight.

You can chose to have the heel hit the floor when a metronome ticks -- or have the weight change occur when the metronome ticks. You could be up to 12 inches out -- well nearly one foot anyway :)

SpinDr

Mr Cool
11th-May-2007, 01:06 AM
Some of us have to dance to the style of the music it is the only way we can dance.:yeah:


Sadly the vast majority of dancers of whatever Genre are convinced moves are king :rofl:
Or they need to understand the technical make up of music before they can dance with musicality.::whistle:
If your still counting you havent danced enough:wink:

There is so much twaddle spoken about this subject.
Guys its simple stuff get up practice moving your feet to the music.
Dance to music YOU LOVE. :flower: :flower:

:waycool: :waycool: :waycool: