PDA

View Full Version : Is it Time We had formal Structure in MJ



Dancing Teeth
15th-February-2006, 11:06 AM
We've heard it all.

"MJ is not a real dance because it has no structure"
"I prefare Tango or salsa because they have structure"

Structure this, structure that. :tears:

Was teaching salsa last night and this lady said she stopped doing MJ because of the lack of structure..:eek:

Maybe we could get a few MJ elders to brainstorm over a few months.

What do people think... ??

I for one, I've started saying to people in my MJ classes exactly what to do with their feet, seems to work so far.. oh,, and arms too.:whistle:

robd
15th-February-2006, 11:19 AM
Depends what is meant by structure I guess. I suspect it's just a phrase for set footwork patterns and I am not sure why MJ should be derided for it (it is after all the major selling point of MJ for many beginners that they can learn to 'dance' without having to know 'complicated footwork'). As for people leaving MJ I suspect it's less to do with structure (most classes I have attended had a lot more structure to the lessons than the (few) classes I have attended for other dance styles) and more to do with reaching a plateau of competence and not having the will to go further.

Robert

Swinging bee
15th-February-2006, 11:34 AM
We've heard it all.

"MJ is not a real dance because it has no structure"
"I prefare Tango or salsa because they have structure"

Structure this, structure that. :tears:

Was teaching salsa last night and this lady said she stopped doing MJ because of the lack of structure..:eek:

Maybe we could get a few MJ elders to brainstorm over a few months.

What do people think... ??

I for one, I've started saying to people in my MJ classes exactly what to do with their feet, seems to work so far.. oh,, and arms too.:whistle:

May I be so bold as to suggest taking a look at Michel Lau's book on " Le Roc " ( a founder of modern jive) there, one will find all the footwork one can handle!

Lynn
15th-February-2006, 11:34 AM
I was just thinking this morning about the 'rules' for different dance styles - what is appropriate or not appropriate (eg hip wiggles are part of salsa but not appropriate for tango). This was following on from a conversation with another dancer on Mon night, about how some dancers who do other styles can't seem to adapt to MJ because of the lack of structured footwork. And my personal conclusion is that I like the fact that there isn't the same structure and 'rules' that apply to MJ. I can wiggle my hips, play with height and footwork - whatever suits the music, mood and partner.

But I know that some people like to be told exactly what to do and want boundaries to be set for them. Others prefer guidelines rather than rules and the flexibility for interpretation and self expression. I still think there is room for both in MJ - but perhaps a shift towards giving more structure to people, but making it clear that its not compulsory for all? I think this is already happening.

Little Em
15th-February-2006, 11:44 AM
Depends what is meant by structure I guess. I suspect it's just a phrase for set footwork patterns and I am not sure why MJ should be derided for it (it is after all the major selling point of MJ for many beginners that they can learn to 'dance' without having to know 'complicated footwork'). As for people leaving MJ I suspect it's less to do with structure (most classes I have attended had a lot more structure to the lessons than the (few) classes I have attended for other dance styles) and more to do with reaching a plateau of competence and not having the will to go further.

Robert


yep.... pretty much agree with this..:rolleyes:

David Bailey
15th-February-2006, 11:58 AM
Sounds like a bit of confusion as to what is meant by "structure":

Overall dance organisation?
Structure of dance progression?
Formal definitions for technique of dancing?


So, one-by-one:


I think is kind of covered by Ceroc, although obviously they're not too helpful to other MJ venues, but at least there is one body covering many / most MJ venues.
This is what we're debating on the "Dance levels" (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7450) thread at the moment...
I agree MJ doesn't have this, and this is IMO a real problem.

ChrisA
15th-February-2006, 12:01 PM
...more structure... I think this is already happening.
I agree, and a good thing too.

There is a view expressed by a number of people here, namely that a whole host of things such as footwork, structure, assessments, etc, will inevitably lead to making MJ more difficult for beginners and less accessible to the primarily social dancer.

In my view, this is just a nonsense, and is a smokescreen for the rather British tendency to be jealous and suspicious of anything that's good (and in particular better then the person being jealous and suspicious).

The funny thing is, beginners have none of this jealousy and suspicion. They love seeing the good dancers, and want to be like them, even if they feel as if they'll never get there.

Anything that cultivates a true development path for Modern Jivers at any level, from beginner to god/goddess, so that if they choose, they can improve in a structured way, will be a good thing - for the dancers and the dance.

My view is that providing such a path will make it easier for people to get beyond the "plateau of competence" that RobD mentions, and progress further - to the next plateau and beyond if they wish. And the consequence of this will be greater retention, not less.

Lynn
15th-February-2006, 12:05 PM
Sounds like a bit of confusion as to what is meant by "structure":

Overall dance organisation?
Structure of dance progression?
Formal definitions for technique of dancing?
So, one-by-one:

I think is kind of covered by Ceroc, although obviously they're not too helpful to other MJ venues, but at least there is one body covering many / most MJ venues.
This is what we're debating on the "Dance levels" (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7450) thread at the moment...
I agree MJ doesn't have this, and this is IMO a real problem.I took the initial question to mean point 3.

Donna
15th-February-2006, 12:24 PM
We've heard it all.

"MJ is not a real dance because it has no structure"
"I prefare Tango or salsa because they have structure"

Structure this, structure that. :tears:

Was teaching salsa last night and this lady said she stopped doing MJ because of the lack of structure..:eek:

Maybe we could get a few MJ elders to brainstorm over a few months.

What do people think... ??

I for one, I've started saying to people in my MJ classes exactly what to do with their feet, seems to work so far.. oh,, and arms too.:whistle:

:yeah: I totally agree with you here. I've been discussing this with my partner recently and did once think about giving MJ up because of it's lack of structure. I'd like something that is more challenging such as Ballroom/Latin as it has a set structure and there is much more to learn, and even then you're focusing on technique. With MJ, there is only so much you can learn until there is nothing else to do with it after.

I don't know where modern Jive is going...but my guess is it will just end up being a mixture of WCS (as it's now becoming very popular and makes MJ look good) and latin.

Mary
15th-February-2006, 12:25 PM
I believe the principle selling point of Ceroc is its accessibility to all - which it is very good at and has a 'structure' tailored to do just that. At the moment there does not seem to be much in the way of options to progress one's MJ further than that, apart from hitting classes with more complex moves - some of which are just plain ugly and uncomfortable!!:angry:

Perhaps there could be a continuation and development of a MJ 'structure' in teaching more specific lead and follow techniques, syncopated footwork, more emphasis on compression and leverage to enable more freedom of improvisation and expression to match the music like in Lindy and WCS, simple patterns to start off the journey into improv. etc. Although we have touched on this before on the Forum in discussions about what is an advanced class?

So maybe the idea of 'progression' classes (instead of 'advanced' classes) would perhaps start to give MJ some kind of structure - or would that be taking MJ down a Lindy or WCS route? And would that be such a bad thing?

My first MJ classes taught basic footwork, so I learnt to be on the correct foot to step off again for the lead into the next move. Wasn't difficult (being a beginner), wasn't laboured, but I found it really useful and helped my progression in the first few weeks no end.

Good thread Mr. Teeth. Hopefully, it will give you some useful feedback.:wink:

M

Mary
15th-February-2006, 12:29 PM
My view is that providing such a path will make it easier for people to get beyond the "plateau of competence" that RobD mentions, and progress further - to the next plateau and beyond if they wish. And the consequence of this will be greater retention, not less.


Totally agree Chris (dammit)! And expressed far better than I could. :flower:

M

Donna
15th-February-2006, 12:30 PM
So maybe the idea of 'progression' classes (instead of 'advanced' classes) would perhaps start to give MJ some kind of structure - or would that be taking MJ down a Lindy or WCS route? And would that be such a bad thing?

I reckon the ideal person to teach in progression classes is one who has knowledge of WCS, Swing, Rock&Roll, Hussle and Ballroom Jive. At least it will liven it up with some proper jive steps, and make it look more like Jive.

We met Andrew and Hanna from SCD, and he told us that Mike Ellard is after him to teach. It's people like that that could really make a big difference to MJ. It's just a case of starting from scratch and possibly changing all the moves.

tsh
15th-February-2006, 12:33 PM
If the people who are leaving are the ones who have passed the beginner stage, then formal structure in terms of the dance style might not be what they need - as people get better, they seem to bend the rules more and more (unless we're talking ballroom). What I feel MJ lacks is the motivation to teach beyond the improver level (in general - obviously there are a few teachers who care), and people leave to learn things that they simply arn't taught by MJ, or because they're fed up of dancing all the time with improver level partners.

I did a tango taster class at the weekend, and it was all about frame and weight transfer, it seems that without these concepts it would be impossible to progress very far. The difference with modern jive seems to be that it's very easy to do in a way which makes progressing past the basics much harder.

There are no core moves which require any technique to work - maybe this is an area which might be worth pursuing, try and find a move which it's possible to spend 5 hours working on in detail with someone who belives they can already dance the move - not adding variations or styling but just making the move easier to lead or follow, in a way that permits variations and styling to be added later.

Sean

Donna
15th-February-2006, 12:43 PM
[QUOTE=tsh]If the people who are leaving are the ones who have passed the beginner stage, then formal structure in terms of the dance style might not be what they need

Mmmm yeah I see what you mean. MJ started out for those who wanted to be able to dance something easy. Suppose something like that would have to exist otherwise not many people would be dancing would they? and MJ just happens to be it. I think for all those MJ'ers looking for something more challenging would be to actually leave MJ and do something else that actually has more of a structure to it like ballroom jive or WCS.

Look at most couples who compete. You don't see much jivey moves going on there. It's starting to look more latin!

El Salsero Gringo
15th-February-2006, 12:45 PM
IIt's just a case of starting from scratch and possibly changing all the moves.Yup.


The funny thing is, beginners have none of this jealousy and suspicion. They love seeing the good dancers, and want to be like them, even if they feel as if they'll never get there.It's not just the beginners who love seeing good dancers. But all the "stop-to-watch" dancers do it differently. So which, exactly, of all these different styles, is the structured future of MJ?

And who is it exactly that's stopping anyone from defining this structure? Ceroc is a commercial organisation and seems to have a fairly clear idea of how the dance is structured. You can't exert "moral" pressure (should, ought, would be better for MJ if) on a profit-making organisation. Better for the franchisees is the driver there. But if anyone wants to write a rule-book of how to do it better - there's nothing at all stopping them.

David Bailey
15th-February-2006, 12:48 PM
There are no core moves which require any technique to work - maybe this is an area which might be worth pursuing, try and find a move which it's possible to spend 5 hours working on in detail with someone who belives they can already dance the move - not adding variations or styling but just making the move easier to lead or follow, in a way that permits variations and styling to be added later.
I was discussing this with a friend a couple of days ago, and we wondered what a Tango technique class would look like in MJ.

It would probably involve several classes for each single move - in fact, you could spend a 10-week session on the First Move, focussing on posture, transference, lead-and-follow, hand-hold, balance, connection, spinning and turning technique, and so on.

It'd be great - I'd be a total sucker for that kind of course. But I suspect it'd bankrupt Ceroc if they implemented it as a standard teaching mechanism, because 95% of beginners wouldn't have the patience, commitment or enthusiasm for it.

Donna
15th-February-2006, 12:53 PM
So which, exactly, of all these different styles, is the structured future of MJ?

Ahem...nobody.


And who is it exactly that's stopping anyone from defining this structure?

James Cronin started it! It's Irreversible now! :tears:

Mary
15th-February-2006, 12:57 PM
There are no core moves which require any technique to work - maybe this is an area which might be worth pursuing, try and find a move which it's possible to spend 5 hours working on in detail with someone who belives they can already dance the move - not adding variations or styling but just making the move easier to lead or follow, in a way that permits variations and styling to be added later.

Sean

And I think that is exactly what Ceroc is trying to avoid - in that it would empty a class in no time. Although a nice idea, it would drive away 99% of your regular Ceroc punters - as any franchisee would tell you, not good for business.

Maybe it should be done in small steps (couldn't resist the pun :blush: ) :D :D

M

El Salsero Gringo
15th-February-2006, 12:57 PM
Ahem...nobody.



James Cronin started it! It's Irreversible now! :tears:I've a short video clip of James Cronin teaching and dancing, and his style is almost unrecognisable compared to today's heros. Very bouncy, huge steps in and out - certainly wouldn't go down well at Jango...

Magic Hans
15th-February-2006, 12:59 PM
I agree, and a good thing too.

There is a view expressed by a number of people here, namely that a whole host of things such as footwork, structure, assessments, etc, will inevitably lead to making MJ more difficult for beginners and less accessible to the primarily social dancer.

....



Quite agree. As Mary's said, I see MJs key (or unique) selling point as its accessibility. I would always encourage dance newcomers to start off MJing before moving on to (usually salsa).

MJ has the most loose structure in terms of dance moves, this gives me the opportunity to express (myself) to the music rather than having to concentrate on where my left foot has to go next.

Sadly, we're not a wonderfully, physically expressive race here in the UK (IMO) especially us blokes, and so I can totally sympathise with any desire for more structure (or strait jacketting, as I might subjectively and provocatively say!).

Send everyone on a music appreciate workshop!!!

!an

Donna
15th-February-2006, 01:00 PM
I've a short video clip of James Cronin teaching and dancing, and his style is almost unrecognisable compared to today's heros. Very bouncy, huge steps in and out - certainly wouldn't go down well at Jango...

And still is bouncy with big steps today! Imagine...if everybody did ceroc at the same time, this island would sink! :rofl:

El Salsero Gringo
15th-February-2006, 01:01 PM
And still is bouncy with big steps today! Imagine...if everybody did ceroc at the same time, this island would sink! :rofl:Is that like the way the world would stand still if everyone suddenly decided to drive on the opposite side of the road?!

Allez-Cat
15th-February-2006, 01:25 PM
MJ has the most loose structure in terms of dance moves, this gives me the opportunity to express (myself) to the music rather than having to concentrate on where my left foot has to go next.

I'd go along with that!

I have a spinal weakness (old injury) which makes me less nimble. Add to this the fact that I was brought up on a “disco diet” and never had the benefit of any formal dance training, then MJ came as revelation. I’ll never win a Championship, but I’m delighted that I can get onto the dance floor and do justice by my partner without inviting ridicule from purse-lipped purists. And I’m told I have a “neat wiggle”. Hmmmm. I enjoy the classes and workshops, and I'm content to take from them what complements me and my capabilities whilst discarding what doesn’t suit. If I needed - or wanted - strict structures or a formalised framework, there’s a host of other dance codes out there. But with MJ I can readily develop my dance style by introducing elements from other disciplines whilst knowing that I’m free to personalise. As it stands, MJ’s good by me.

Evgeni
15th-February-2006, 01:29 PM
I was discussing this with a friend a couple of days ago, and we wondered what a Tango technique class would look like in MJ.

It would probably involve several classes for each single move - in fact, you could spend a 10-week session on the First Move, focussing on posture, transference, lead-and-follow, hand-hold, balance, connection, spinning and turning technique, and so on.

It'd be great - I'd be a total sucker for that kind of course. But I suspect it'd bankrupt Ceroc if they implemented it as a standard teaching mechanism, because 95% of beginners wouldn't have the patience, commitment or enthusiasm for it.

It would be comparable to learning technique in latin. Sure you have your basic steps for the dances, but most teachers will break things down to the basic unit of movement - walking. This might sound out there, but it takes years to develop a rumba, cha cha or cruzada walk. I'm sure that there have been many that have grabbed a latin video and wondered why they do not look the same as the people on the video, even when they have copied the move step by step.
You learn to apply the technique to what ever move you want to do. I'm sure that much latin choreography resembles ceroc moves, but there is the attention to the detail of movement that is not taught in ceroc for various reasons.

Lynn
15th-February-2006, 01:54 PM
I was discussing this with a friend a couple of days ago, and we wondered what a Tango technique class would look like in MJ.

It would probably involve several classes for each single move - in fact, you could spend a 10-week session on the First Move, focussing on posture, transference, lead-and-follow, hand-hold, balance, connection, spinning and turning technique, and so on.

It'd be great - I'd be a total sucker for that kind of course. But I suspect it'd bankrupt Ceroc if they implemented it as a standard teaching mechanism, because 95% of beginners wouldn't have the patience, commitment or enthusiasm for it. Not just beginners - interesting to see the recent reaction of some MJers to their first experience of a tango class - one comment I heard was 'like watching paint dry'. :tears: The impact on beginners is probably a key issue for Ceroc - but there is a whole area of middle ground between taking 10-15 mins to teach a basic first move and taking 3 hours to teach more detailed technique for a first move.

So if more structure is to be introduced, it needs to be carefully thought out and roadtested out how much at each level - where to stand on that middle ground.

And to be honest, I'll have to admit that I might have become disillusioned with MJ after about a month if I hadn't found this forum. I was feeling that I was learning moves, when I wanted to learn how to dance. (Of course I didn't understand what I wanted and needed to learn, but I knew it was more than moves.)

tsh
15th-February-2006, 01:57 PM
It would probably involve several classes for each single move - in fact, you could spend a 10-week session on the First Move, focussing on posture, transference, lead-and-follow, hand-hold, balance, connection, spinning and turning technique, and so on.

It'd be great - I'd be a total sucker for that kind of course. But I suspect it'd bankrupt Ceroc if they implemented it as a standard teaching mechanism, because 95% of beginners wouldn't have the patience, commitment or enthusiasm for it.

My point was that the first move is not a move which requires any of those points which you've listed. Yes, if you have learnt the technique, you can dance a better first move, but it's a move which can be used by beginners.

I'm not saying that all of the points you have mentioned are not applicible to a first move, and it's perfectly possible to drip feed them in whilst teaching the beginner moves to beginners (and I can't understand why this is believed to be a bad thing). Yes, teach some technique to beginners, but keep the dance such that beginners don't NEED technique.

What is missing in order to allow the dance to move forward is some basic paterns which are not designed for beginners, but are not in themselves just 'extras' like simply adding footwork or dips (which is neither a threshold to more moves nor useful in general social dancing - who can lead 1st move charleston with 50% of the ladies in an average venue?).

Part of the reason that the only difficult moves taught in an intermediate class are awkward and uncomfortable is that there are not many teachers who understand how to create moves which rely on balance and connection. It's much simpler to teach nasty moves, and give the impression that learning these will make you a better dancer, than to teach a move where better technique really makes a difference to how well the move flows.

At the moment, the hardest reasonably common lead/follow move I can come up with is a left handed sway. I wouldn't expect 2 beginners to be very successfull using a move like this in freestyle, even if they'd been taught it well.

Sean

Donna
15th-February-2006, 02:02 PM
This might sound out there, but it takes years to develop a rumba, cha cha or cruzada walk.


Not years. I've heard of people who have picked it up very rapidly and do well in competitions. It's possible but I suppose the majority would take years to master it.



I'm sure that there have been many that have grabbed a latin video and wondered why they do not look the same as the people on the video, even when they have copied the move step by step.

I hold my hand up to that one. It's a well known fact that you can't really learn by watching videos. It gets you nowhere. Ok, you can learn the MOVE but what makes them look different is the timing, dynamics and of course technique. You'd never get that unless you had private tuition of course.

cerocmetro
15th-February-2006, 02:38 PM
Ceroc has a structure, we get new dancers through the doors and give them a good time.

Ceroc is NOT about making dancers out of people. It never has been, it is about helping people enjoy themselves and forget about their day.

That is why Ceroc is so successful.

If people want to really learn, they will do workshops and have private lessons, but the majority don't care. If they learn new moves great, but so what.

I have been teaching Ceroc ooo a long time. I have seen many many many many people come along and learn. BUT the ones who have become great dancers, the ones I approached on their very first evenings and said "hey give it a short time learn some moves and I want you as a teacher" were always going to be great dancers, whether they had ever danced or not.

Why do some of competitors do so well. When I say competitors I am referring to the member of the class who decide to go it alone. They set up a Cr** night in a cr** venue with cr** music using cr** equipment and have a huge following. Answer, because the majority of the customers just want to have a social night out.

As soon as we give Ceroc a really solid structure, we have signed its death certificate.

WE have all the structure we need. A SIMPLE class for beginners, a relatively easy class for intermediates and a good length freestyle with good music for the more advanced, with plenty of freestyle nights.

Try and cater to the top end and forget about the people who just want to have fun and look what happens, RIP Hipsters.

James Cronin never wanted competitions in Ceroc. I disagreed with him but realise he was right. It takes away from Ceroc the whole idea that it is non competitive and just good innocent fun.

You wonderful beautiful forumites are what %age of the numbers that go to Ceroc during a week? in round numbers probably very near 0.

forum total members, 1839, Total number of Ceroc members, probably nearer 300,000. Forumites as a %age = 0.01 in other words we do not exist:rofl:

We stand for nothing our posts are pointless, what are we doing here:tears:

This is all getting a bit too Douglas Adamsish:cool:

Nope, let it carry on as it is. I love it and would not want to see it changed, (much).

We can teach better, yes but that is different from having a structure.

Maybe people who need a tight structure need, :whistle: na, save that for another thread:flower:

Adam

TheTramp
15th-February-2006, 02:40 PM
~snip~

:yeah:

I agree with what Adam said. Was going to write it, but I couldn't be bothered typing it all out.

clevedonboy
15th-February-2006, 03:00 PM
Since there are already marvellous structured dance forms for MJ dancers to attend (Lindy in one direction of interest, Tango in another), why introduce such structure to MJ?

I'm really hooked on Lindy but I would not have gone near it if I hadn't begun with MJ and enjoyed it for what it is. I can also see that it's structure which is so fundamental to doing the dance well, would leave most questioning why they should bother - after all it's hard work. Of course it has it's pay offs - there's nothing in MJ that can touch nailing a Lindy Turn or just messing about with Charleston steps, but when it comes down to it, it's a different dance than the one most people going to MJ (well the men anyway :devil: ) would ever want to do

Gadget
15th-February-2006, 03:02 PM
What do people think... ??
Ceroc has structured moves. They are called beginner moves. Each one "teaches" some core principle that the majority of the rest of the moves are based on.

I can do a "man spin" in twelve different ways; Each one can vary in style, position, lead and timing from moment to moment. It teaches the principle of maintaining contact with your partner while letting go with your hands. It teaches how/where to catch a free hand. Etc.

The beginner workshops that Ceroc run cover about half the moves in detail enough for the beginner dancer to grasp the basics of it. I think that having a "masterclass" on each of the beginner moves would be a great idea. You already get ones concentrating on spins and turns; why not ones focusing on x move?

What is apparently* missing is teaching of techniques of lead/follow/balance/movement/musicality/footwork/... But I don't think that these should be 'formalised'.
As with the rest of the dance, they should be introduced as options. Gateways to other avenues that your dancing has not yet taken you. To write down rules of "this is the correct way to do it" seems to also imply that "this is the only way to do it" and this is at opposition to what I think the whole MJ dance is about.

*I've never seen it: I'm only going by the comments here rather than personal experience - I've been taught these things without really seeking them.

David Bailey
15th-February-2006, 03:07 PM
Ceroc has a structure, we get new dancers through the doors and give them a good time.
Technically, the question is "Is it Time We had formal Structure in MJ" not "Is it Time We had formal Structure in Ceroc" - slightly different.

I've snipped the rest of the ra- err, post.

But the end point, for Ceroc at least, is that in 10, 20 years' time when most of the UK population has rediscovered partner dancing, when everyone's raving about Argentine Tango, and when Ceroc is as popular as the Mashed Potato, then whoever's still doing Ceroc then will think "Hmmm, if only we'd developed the dance to compete with those others, back when we had the opportunity... :tears: "

Mary
15th-February-2006, 03:09 PM
Adam


I agree with about 99% of what Adam says. Most people who try Ceroc are just wanting to have a fun night out and learn some moves they can use. And this should continue to be encouraged.

But there are some who come along and after a while (and I am talking about people who have never heard of the Ceroc Scotland Forum :worthy: Franck) who would like to do something more with their new-found skills in MJ, but don't want to step outside their comfort zone and go try a more disciplined dance style.

Ceroc has already started to address this with some of it's workshops. I don't know how the numbers stack up (to quote a friends expression), but maybe this could be extended further. The market and infrastructure is already there, and the more specialist knowledge is already there in the shape of Ceroc affiliate teachers or whatever the term is.

The beginners workshops are already plugged by the taxi dancers in the consolidation class, but I never really hear of the availability of more specialist workshops being plugged in the intermediate classes.

Now I HAVE to get on with something useful. This forum is evil :angry:

M

Donna
15th-February-2006, 03:14 PM
Ceroc has a structure, we get new dancers through the doors and give them a good time.

Because it's easy.


Ceroc is NOT about making dancers out of people. It never has been, it is about helping people enjoy themselves and forget about their day.


yep.



That is why Ceroc is so successful.

and i suppose that's where the money really is.


If people want to really learn, they will do workshops and have private lessons, but the majority don't care. If they learn new moves great, but so what.

Once experienced enough, they go looking for something else. Then more beginners come through the door and so on and so on.

Andybroom
15th-February-2006, 03:16 PM
Ceroc has a structure, we get new dancers through the doors and give them a good time.

Ceroc is NOT about making dancers out of people. It never has been, it is about helping people enjoy themselves and forget about their day.

That is why Ceroc is so successful.


As soon as we give Ceroc a really solid structure, we have signed its death certificate.

WE have all the structure we need. A SIMPLE class for beginners, a relatively easy class for intermediates and a good length freestyle with good music for the more advanced, with plenty of freestyle nights.

Try and cater to the top end and forget about the people who just want to have fun and look what happens, RIP Hipsters.

We can teach better, yes but that is different from having a structure.

Maybe people who need a tight structure need, :whistle: na, save that for another thread:flower:

Adam

(Apologies for snips from your post for brevity)

I think you are, in part, confusing Ceroc, the commercial dance organisation with Modern Jive, the dance.

Clearly anyone wanting to maximise their profits (or maybe even make a profit at all) is going to cater for the mass - which, certainly for the forseeable future is going to be beginners and "intermediates" who just, as you say, want a simple evening out and some fun.

Now I don't think that there's anything wrong with that, at all. That's what the Ceroc organisation say's it does and, by and large it does it and does it well. As do a collection of MJ groups not affiliated to the Ceroc organisation.

BUT it's not the whole story. There is a group of people who are quite experienced dancers (either through MJ only or because they've done other dance forms also) who are looking for something more. It may well not be commercially viable for you to provide much/anything for them (since I'm probably one of them I should say us) but that's a rather different matter.

There is no reason why we shouldn't take modern jive onto another plane without effecting your beginners/"intermediates" "fun" operation. And I rather doubt us doing so would detract for your operation in any case. A lot of people start dancing because they want too be able to do what they've seen skilled dancers do.

Actually I'm not sure that a formal structure is the answer anyhow, for myself I rather prefer the improvisational stuff which a formal structure would not allow for. Formal structuring is all very well but (as has happened with ballroom, which does have such a structure) it does tend to inhibit the long term evolution of the dance.

Andy

Lynn
15th-February-2006, 03:22 PM
I agree with about 99% of what Adam says. Most people who try Ceroc are just wanting to have a fun night out and learn some moves they can use. And this should continue to be encouraged.

But there are some who come along and after a while (and I am talking about people who have never heard of the Ceroc Scotland Forum :worthy: Franck) who would like to do something more with their new-found skills in MJ, but don't want to step outside their comfort zone and go try a more disciplined dance style. The point of this thread though wasn't to knock the 'easy to learn, fun night out' approach of Ceroc - I don't think that was the issue being addressed, as I understood it anyway. It was to open a discussion about people who want a bit more structure in the dancing theyare being taught - not just more experienced dancers who need extra challenge but also the personality type who prefer more structure when learning. Regardless of whether they have natural talent or not - its about how people like to learn. I think saying basically 'there is no point in discussing this' which was how I read Adams post, to be rather unhelpful. :(

And I think he has missed the point somewhat - it wasn't about the structure of teaching or how a night is run, I'm sure people would find the majority of salsa classes a lot less structured in that respect, but in terms of the structure of the dance itself. As I understood it anyway - and I have heard similar comments from other people regarding MJ.

El Salsero Gringo
15th-February-2006, 03:28 PM
...when Ceroc is as popular as the Mashed Potato, then whoever's still doing Ceroc then will think "Hmmm, if only we'd developed the dance to compete with those others, back when we had the opportunity... :tears: "I really like mashed potato.

ChrisA
15th-February-2006, 03:35 PM
Nice post Adam. Great that we have someone like you that will post incisive, provocative stuff like this... allow me to respond in kind :devil:

:innocent: :love:


Ceroc has a structure, we get new dancers through the doors and give them a good time.

Ceroc is NOT about making dancers out of people. It never has been, it is about helping people enjoy themselves and forget about their day.

That is why Ceroc is so successful.

Of course it is. No one's disputing this. And no one's disputing that it's just as important as it ever was to ensure that the majority are catered for. With, as you say,


A SIMPLE class for beginners, a relatively easy class for intermediates and a good length freestyle with good music for the more advanced, with plenty of freestyle nights.


Moving on...



If people want to really learn, they will do workshops and have private lessons, but the majority don't care.
This is also true, but typically superficial. The whole point of this debate and others like it is to find a way of keeping all the great things about the appeal of MJ, as exemplified by Ceroc's approach to it, while not designing out the opportunity for it to become more than a second rate dance that's only good enough to give a load of non-dancers a good social night out.


BUT the ones who have become great dancers, the ones I approached on their very first evenings and said "hey give it a short time learn some moves and I want you as a teacher" were always going to be great dancers, whether they had ever danced or not.
Bless. Although I'm sure this is true, it's elitist crap.

If you're in the position of being a fantastic natural dancer, or indeed in the position of being able to talent-spot the fantastic natural dancers and bathe in the reflected glory arising from their nurture, everything's rosy, isn't it?

But if you have the misfortune to fall between the "not interested in improving, just want a fun night out" and "potential professional dancer" ends of the spectrum, then you're buggered, in the absence of a development path. :sad:


As soon as we give Ceroc a really solid structure, we have signed its death certificate.
If you do it by losing its accessibility, then I agree. But no one here is suggesting anything of the sort, and indeed everyone that's been commenting seems to be very much aware of the need to keep that USP.


Try and cater to the top end and forget about the people who just want to have fun and look what happens, RIP Hipsters.
The idea that Hipsters died because it only catered for a tiny subsection of modern jivers is far too simplistic. I would argue that it fizzled out for many reasons, one of which being that it ultimately failed to cater for the very people you are saying are insignificant, quite the reverse of what you're saying. This just sounds like gloating to me.


James Cronin never wanted competitions in Ceroc. I disagreed with him but realise he was right. It takes away from Ceroc the whole idea that it is non competitive and just good innocent fun.
Oh yeah? So why did you bother making the Jivemasters into such a fantastic event?

The point is, Modern Jive has the potential to be all these things. It can be good innocent fun if that's your bag, but competitive if that is. Neither one detracts from the other, and I would argue that each is the richer for it.



Nope, let it carry on as it is. I love it and would not want to see it changed, (much).

We can teach better, yes but that is different from having a structure.

Well maybe if you did (not just you, obviously), people that wanted to get better (without already being god's gift to dance :rolleyes: ), wouldn't be wondering if introducing more structure in some areas might improve things a bit. :devil:

Lynn
15th-February-2006, 03:35 PM
I really like mashed potato.Mmm, but champ is even better!:drool:

Mary
15th-February-2006, 03:37 PM
The point of this thread though wasn't to knock the 'easy to learn, fun night out' approach of Ceroc - I don't think that was the issue being addressed, as I understood it anyway. It was to open a discussion about people who want a bit more structure in the dancing theyare being taught - not just more experienced dancers who need extra challenge but also the personality type who prefer more structure when learning. Regardless of whether they have natural talent or not - its about how people like to learn. I think saying basically 'there is no point in discussing this' which was how I read Adams post, to be rather unhelpful. :(

And I think he has missed the point somewhat - it wasn't about the structure of teaching or how a night is run, I'm sure people would find the majority of salsa classes a lot less structured in that respect, but in terms of the structure of the dance itself. As I understood it anyway - and I have heard similar comments from other people regarding MJ.

Good post Lynn. I'm sure I'm not the only one who enjoys learning something with stucture. That's why I think that there is so much more that can be explored in MJ AND stay within the majority's learning comfort zone.

Oh dear, am I doing a DJ wibble (help).

M

stewart38
15th-February-2006, 03:43 PM
Ceroc has a structure, we get new dancers through the doors and give them a good time.

Ceroc is NOT about making dancers out of people. It never has been, it is about helping people enjoy themselves and forget about their day.

That is why Ceroc is so successful.

If people want to really learn, they will do workshops and have private lessons, but the majority don't care. If they learn new moves great, but so what.

I have been teaching Ceroc ooo a long time. I have seen many many many many people come along and learn. BUT the ones who have become great dancers, the ones I approached on their very first evenings and said "hey give it a short time learn some moves and I want you as a teacher" were always going to be great dancers, whether they had ever danced or not.

Why do some of competitors do so well. When I say competitors I am referring to the member of the class who decide to go it alone. They set up a Cr** night in a cr** venue with cr** music using cr** equipment and have a huge following. Answer, because the majority of the customers just want to have a social night out.

As soon as we give Ceroc a really solid structure, we have signed its death certificate.

WE have all the structure we need. A SIMPLE class for beginners, a relatively easy class for intermediates and a good length freestyle with good music for the more advanced, with plenty of freestyle nights.

Try and cater to the top end and forget about the people who just want to have fun and look what happens, RIP Hipsters.

James Cronin never wanted competitions in Ceroc. I disagreed with him but realise he was right. It takes away from Ceroc the whole idea that it is non competitive and just good innocent fun.

You wonderful beautiful forumites are what %age of the numbers that go to Ceroc during a week? in round numbers probably very near 0.

forum total members, 1839, Total number of Ceroc members, probably nearer 300,000. Forumites as a %age = 0.01 in other words we do not exist:rofl:

We stand for nothing our posts are pointless, what are we doing here:tears:

This is all getting a bit too Douglas Adamsish:cool:

Nope, let it carry on as it is. I love it and would not want to see it changed, (much).

We can teach better, yes but that is different from having a structure.

Maybe people who need a tight structure need, :whistle: na, save that for another thread:flower:

Adam


What a brilliant post and im repeating in full because i agree with it all bar one thing

I do think there is a market for 'better dancers' but that needs time

Incidentally the best thing that has happened to ceroc in the last 5yrs is (as they have competitions) having a catergory where you have to dance some or all of the 16 basic moves. Thats very good marketing

David Bailey
15th-February-2006, 04:15 PM
Despite this being an MJ discussion and not a Ceroc one, it's worth noting that Ceroc is starting to cater for the advanced dancers; there are specific advanced nights (e.g. Jive Bar) and advanced workshops (e.g. Franck's series) which are being set up. But IMO this is happening too slowly and in too piecemeal a fashion.


I really like mashed potato.
But do you like the Phoney Baloney?

Mary
15th-February-2006, 04:31 PM
Despite this being an MJ discussion and not a Ceroc one, it's worth noting that Ceroc is starting to cater for the advanced dancers; there are specific advanced nights (e.g. Jive Bar) and advanced workshops (e.g. Franck's series) which are being set up. But IMO this is happening too slowly and in too piecemeal a fashion.




I really like the sound of what Franck's doing, but from what I gather that's not the kind of thing happening at the Jive Bar.

M

David Bailey
15th-February-2006, 04:35 PM
I really like the sound of what Franck's doing, but from what I gather that's not the kind of thing happening at the Jive Bar.
Exactly - that's my complaint, it's "piecemeal". Or "inconsistent" if you prefer :innocent:

LMC
15th-February-2006, 04:46 PM
If by structure, we're talking about format, then the Ceroc model is evidently a good one.

Where I think more structure is required is in content - particularly lead and follow as someone has said already (sorry, just read all 42 posts, can't be bothered to scroll all the way up again). I was frustrated with MJ within less than six weeks - until my eyes were opened to lead and follow (within 6 minutes at a freestyle). Of course I'm still working on it and always will be. MJ is a partner dance, without connection, it doesn't matter how many moves either partner knows, it ain't going to work as a dance.


Ceroc is NOT about making dancers out of people. It never has been, it is about helping people enjoy themselves and forget about their day.
So why does it market itself as turning you into a dancer in one evening then? :whistle:

stewart38
15th-February-2006, 05:19 PM
If by structure, we're talking about format, then the Ceroc model is evidently a good one.

Where I think more structure is required is in content - particularly lead and follow as someone has said already (sorry, just read all 42 posts, can't be bothered to scroll all the way up again). I was frustrated with MJ within less than six weeks - until my eyes were opened to lead and follow (within 6 minutes at a freestyle). Of course I'm still working on it and always will be. MJ is a partner dance, without connection, it doesn't matter how many moves either partner knows, it ain't going to work as a dance.


So why does it market itself as turning you into a dancer in one evening then? :whistle:


Ceroc has been around about 50 times longer then you have been dancing it

So explain to us thickies what isnt 'working' in ceroc. your saying ceroc is partner dance without connection ?

I did ballroom dancing but didnt like the 'structure' or the 17 people there (cira 1994)

LMC
15th-February-2006, 05:24 PM
Why so aggressive?


your saying ceroc is partner dance without connection ?
It can be - a lot of people struggle with lead and follow: I know I did (and still have a long way to go). IMO, people's MJ experience would be vastly improved if lead and follow basics were taught as a matter of course in the main classes rather than only in workshops or some review classes. It only takes a couple of minutes for most people to "get" connection walking backwards and forwards, and some Ceroc venues do teach it - but it seems to be up to the individual teacher/taxis.

Saxylady
15th-February-2006, 05:53 PM
Isn't lead and follow intrinsic to any improvised partner dance?

David Bailey
15th-February-2006, 07:43 PM
Isn't lead and follow intrinsic to any improvised partner dance?
You'd think so, wouldn't you? :whistle:

Andybroom
15th-February-2006, 08:41 PM
You'd think so, wouldn't you? :whistle:

Except that modern jive (as originally conceived) uses a system of hand etc. signals rather than lead and follow. This is not the same.

In original MJ if the guy signals a first move the lady can dance it with the guy just standing there.

Now some people (in the Bristol area, anyway) don't use signals anymore and some of the classes either don't teach the signals at all or, if they do, it's only in a cursory way to beginners.

This is because, of course, no "signalling" is necessary if you lead the move. (That means leading every step in the move, not just initiating it).

I don't actually know what happens in other areas (or in the Ceroc organisation classes - never been to one - nothing against them, just isn't one close to me).

When I dance out of area I don't ever have much problem getting girls to follow my (signal less) lead, but I'm a pretty experienced leader (though I say so myself) so that doesn't overly surprise me. How others get on (and to what extent they use signalling) I don't know.

Andy

El Salsero Gringo
15th-February-2006, 08:46 PM
So why does it market itself as turning you into a dancer in one evening then? :whistle:Um, well, it doesn't. It says, "learn to dance in one evening", not "become a dancer in one evening."

(Like "learn French in one evening", is not the same as "become French in one evening". And, in one evening, it's possible to learn some passable French. Just not very much.)

Minnie M
15th-February-2006, 10:09 PM
When I dance out of area I don't ever have much problem getting girls to follow my (signal less) lead, but I'm a pretty experienced leader (though I say so myself) so that doesn't overly surprise me. How others get on (and to what extent they use signalling) I don't know.

Andy
I had that problem last night, funny enough my partner was called Andy (but from Surrey) He kept pressing his thumb on the back of my hand whilst twisting it slightly - that being my signal for the "Arches" It was in fact his own move when he turns by himself, so we had a couple of clashes :eek:

Yogi_Bear
15th-February-2006, 11:14 PM
:yeah: I totally agree with you here. I've been discussing this with my partner recently and did once think about giving MJ up because of it's lack of structure. I'd like something that is more challenging such as Ballroom/Latin as it has a set structure and there is much more to learn, and even then you're focusing on technique. With MJ, there is only so much you can learn until there is nothing else to do with it after.

I don't know where modern Jive is going...but my guess is it will just end up being a mixture of WCS (as it's now becoming very popular and makes MJ look good) and latin.
I would say that some of the better MJ dancers already incorporate a fair degree of either WCS, latin, or both. Will WCS ever supplant MJ?

clevedonboy
16th-February-2006, 12:12 AM
Will WCS ever supplant MJ?

no, why would one "illegitimate child" of Lindy surplant another? especially when it doesn't have a marketing machine behind it, it doesn't have the cache of Lindy in the wider population and it's harder to learn than MJ

Magic Hans
16th-February-2006, 12:32 AM
...
It can be - a lot of people struggle with lead and follow: I know I did (and still have a long way to go). IMO, people's MJ experience would be vastly improved if lead and follow basics were taught as a matter of course in the main classes rather than only in workshops or some review classes.
...

:yeah: :yeah:
Totally agree. I've yet to experience an MJ class/session that has even come close to teaching/training/facilitating/coaching lead/follow to any my satisfaction. [Not that I'm saying that it's easy ... I don't think it is]

!an

El Salsero Gringo
16th-February-2006, 12:44 AM
Will WCS ever supplant MJ?Yes - as soon as people work out how to dance WCS to Kylie.

Yogi_Bear
16th-February-2006, 09:20 AM
Yes - as soon as people work out how to dance WCS to Kylie.
Or if no-one plays Kylie any more

Yogi_Bear
16th-February-2006, 09:28 AM
no, why would one "illegitimate child" of Lindy surplant another? especially when it doesn't have a marketing machine behind it, it doesn't have the cache of Lindy in the wider population and it's harder to learn than MJ
Well, look at the US, where WCS and MJ's positions are reversed from what they are in the UK.
But it's simple. The points have been made before. MJ has a brilliant business model. It packs the punters in with the USP of a fun night out with your mates, a bit of close contact with the opposite sex, it's dead easy to learn, you won't have to bother with footwork, and so on. After a while some of the punters realise there's more to dancing than racking up a library of 500 moves and churning them out ad nauseam. They move out of MJ and into Lindy, WCS, tango or whatever. Or they might learn from teachers such as Nigel and Nina who show just what can be done with the MJ framework. They attend a master class in the first move and its variations, subleties, etc...Their numbers are replaced by new beginners looking for a fun night out. Which is exactly what MJ in its current incarnation delivers.

Robin
16th-February-2006, 09:32 AM
Have to add a little "snippet".

Whilst over in Spain recently I carried out a little "test" with one of the ceroc "wannabee" teachers who happens to be a formidable Tango dancer/teacher already.

I played a track which was specifically a tango and asked him to dance his own thing to it for a minute or so, then I did the same (with the same partner).
Would you be surprised to know that with all the lack of "structure" within MJ/Ceroc, there was hardly any difference in the dancing/style ?

[B]Curious ... very curious

LMC
16th-February-2006, 10:22 AM
Yeah, but you've been dancing for years Robin!

Some intermediate/advanced dancers have worked it out for themselves, and/or have had individual help from taxis, teachers and other dancers and/or are in the minority who actually "bother" with the workshops. As a "mid-intermediate", I fall into this category.

However, some of this type of tuition can be contradictory and confusing. I just can't help thinking that it would be a lot easier for beginners and early intermediates to progress faster if some of the basic concepts were included in lessons as "standard". Even in my very short experience taxi-ing I've had beginner leads complaining that they are being "held back" in their learning by intermediate followers who are backleading or have spaghetti arms. If just a couple of minutes on lead and follow were included in all beginners lessons, maybe more people would start actually dancing, rather than performing moves to music, in a much shorter space of time.

David Bailey
16th-February-2006, 10:31 AM
Um, well, it doesn't. It says, "learn to dance in one evening", not "become a dancer in one evening."
OK, but that's possibly a leetle bit of a fine distinction there.

And if I were to be told I could "Learn to speak French in one evening", I'd expect to be a French speaker in one evening :devil:


I played a track which was specifically a tango and asked him to dance his own thing to it for a minute or so, then I did the same (with the same partner).
Would you be surprised to know that with all the lack of "structure" within MJ/Ceroc, there was hardly any difference in the dancing/style ?
:confused: How do you know - did you video the dances? Or did you ask your partner?

Donna
16th-February-2006, 11:34 AM
:confused: How do you know - did you video the dances? Or did you ask your partner?[/QUOTE]



It most probably felt the same as dancing to any style of music. Changing the rhythm and style would help to make it LOOK different. Try ballroom and latin.

El Salsero Gringo
16th-February-2006, 11:41 AM
OK, but that's possibly a leetle bit of a fine distinction there.And in that ultra-fine distinction lies the genius of marketese...

Robin
16th-February-2006, 01:43 PM
:confused: How do you know - did you video the dances? Or did you ask your partner?

No I didn't, but we had a few "judges" aka dance professionals.

It was an interesting exercise though - his tango and my ceroc had both "evolved".

Maybe i'm in the wrong thread ...

stewart38
16th-February-2006, 03:14 PM
Well, look at the US, where WCS and MJ's positions are reversed from what they are in the UK.
But it's simple. The points have been made before. MJ has a brilliant business model. It packs the punters in with the USP of a fun night out with your mates, a bit of close contact with the opposite sex, it's dead easy to learn, you won't have to bother with footwork, and so on. After a while some of the punters realise there's more to dancing than racking up a library of 500 moves and churning them out ad nauseam. They move out of MJ and into Lindy, WCS, tango or whatever. Or they might learn from teachers such as Nigel and Nina who show just what can be done with the MJ framework. They attend a master class in the first move and its variations, subleties, etc...Their numbers are replaced by new beginners looking for a fun night out. Which is exactly what MJ in its current incarnation delivers.


Interesting if it were true but its not

I know loads of people who have been dancing ceroc/jive for years and years and thats all they want to do

Some people on the forum tend to often think we all want to be the next John Travlota many many old timers are just happy with ceroc/jive they dont want/need anything else :sad:

Give me two names of people in the whole country that have moved out of MJ and into Tango

Before we had the latest surge in interest in ceroc (last 18 months) some venues average age was creeping up and up as people who stayed around got older and older

To pretend there is such a migration is silly (of course a few do)

TheTramp
16th-February-2006, 03:20 PM
Interesting if it were true but its not

I know loads of people who have been dancing ceroc/jive for years and years and thats all they want to do

Some people on the forum tend to often think we all want to be the next John Travlota many many old timers are just happy with ceroc/jive they dont want/need anything else :sad:

Give me two names of people in the whole country that have moved out of MJ and into Tango

Before we had the latest surge in interest in ceroc (last 18 months) some venues average age was creeping up and up as people who stayed around got older and older

To pretend there is such a migration is silly (of course a few do)

Actually. I'd agree with the points that Yogi made. He didn't say 'everyone' moves on. He said that 'some punters' move onto other types of dancing. Which is quite true. And yes, most people are quite happy doing what they do, and have a social night out, enjoying themselves. He also said that too.

Some people move onto the other things totally, and don't come to MJ anymore. I think that most try other things. But still do come to MJ to dance, see their friends, etc.

Lynn
16th-February-2006, 03:41 PM
Some people move onto the other things totally, and don't come to MJ anymore. I think that most try other things. But still do come to MJ to dance, see their friends, etc.This isn't just exclusive to MJ - I know people who started out with salsa and have then moved on to other dances and no longer go to salsa - classes or social. (Me, for one!)

The big difference with MJ is that if people want to learn something new from another dance style they can do that, and still dance MJ socially because some aspects of what they are learning in the other dance styles can be applied to their MJ dancing.

But they aren't the sort of people who drop out of MJ because of a lack of 'structure' - I really do think its about learning styles as much as anything. Some people want to be given the basics and allowed to improvise, others want more guidance on how and where they should be stepping and moving.

BobbyA
16th-February-2006, 04:46 PM
:yeah: :yeah:
Totally agree. I've yet to experience an MJ class/session that has even come close to teaching/training/facilitating/coaching lead/follow to any my satisfaction. [Not that I'm saying that it's easy ... I don't think it is]

!an

There is one here in Cardiff now. Which is taught on thursday nights. Quite a busy class with about 60-70 people turning up. Its only a begineers class at the moment and we only learn 2 moves, in an hour. The emphasis has been on tension and being Leroc they tend to guide the ladies footwork (not compulsary). Seems to be going quite well. The class has been running about 4 or 5 weeks now and i think a 3rd move will be introduced. It is nice to see some classes teaching this.

Dancing Teeth
16th-February-2006, 05:14 PM
From all that has been said, would it be right to describe MJ as

A car with only a 1st gear (beginners) and 2nd gear (intermediates)…..:tears:

it can try to reach 100 miles an hour but it’ll never do because it hasn’t built in it, the 3rd gear (fundamentals) and 4th - 5th gear (structure) to push it that much further.:tears:

The Silly thing is the people in Car, ie you and me, don’t know about the gear problem. We were just put in the Car, we’re not mechanics. We're just loving the radio, sat nav, and all the mod cons in the car.:cool:
And as the saying goes, we can’t think outside the box. :eek:
(I think I’ve just described human exists):whistle:

stewart38
16th-February-2006, 05:17 PM
From all that has been said, would it be right to describe MJ as

A car with only a 1st gear (beginners) and 2nd gear (intermediates)…..:tears:

it can try to reach 100 miles an hour but it’ll never do because it hasn’t built in it, the 3rd gear (fundamentals) and 4th - 5th gear (structure) to push it that much further.:tears:

The Silly thing is the people in Car, ie you and me, don’t know about the gear problem. We were just put in the Car, we’re not mechanics. We're just loving the radio, sat nav, and all the mod cons in the car.:cool:
And as the saying goes, we can’t think outside the box. :eek:
(I think I’ve just described human exists):whistle:

Point id make is many do know were missing some gears but dont care we just turn the radio up :yeah:

LMC
16th-February-2006, 05:20 PM
To extend the analogy further: 2 gears are fine and do the job of getting from A to B - as long as the driver considers the limitations of the car and isn't trying to bomb along the motorway or off-road...

Dancing Teeth
16th-February-2006, 05:22 PM
Point id make is many do know were missing some gears but dont care we just turn the radio up :yeah:


Nice one Stewart38, that turn the radio up part made me laugh out loud in the office. :clap:

Tessalicious
16th-February-2006, 05:24 PM
So in fact, one could perhaps describe learning other dance styles which do have those added features as 'pimping your ride'? :devil:

clevedonboy
16th-February-2006, 05:29 PM
stuff about cars

Nice one!

So some of us spot the limitation of the car and buy a different one (in my case a vintage American model), but keep the one with the loud radio for social use

Dancing Teeth
16th-February-2006, 05:32 PM
To extend the analogy further: 2 gears are fine and do the job of getting from A to B - as long as the driver considers the limitations of the car and isn't trying to bomb along the motorway or off-road...


another nice one.... :yeah:


It's easier to go off road... ie other dances ,,WCS, Salsa etc.... because the gear ratio can handle this... just not bombing down the motorway....

LMC
16th-February-2006, 05:41 PM
Hmm, by off-road and high speed, I was referring to complicated moves - dips/drops/aerials and physical fitness (or lack thereof...) - this is where analogies fall over :rofl:

I prefer the idea of other dance styles being another car, as per clevedonboy's idea. After all, I'm probably just about Lada standard now when it comes to MJ, but calling my tango a rollerskate (you know, one of those leather and metal 1970s efforts) would be a compliment :blush:

Edited :rolleyes: ( :wink: Robin)

Robin
16th-February-2006, 05:48 PM
{snipped}I'm probably just about Robin Reliant standard

I take great offence .

tsh
16th-February-2006, 05:52 PM
Point id make is many do know were missing some gears but dont care we just turn the radio up :yeah:
And that's why I'd rather dance with most beginners on their first night than lots of people who've been dancing for a few months.

I understand that you might not feel that it's necessary to teach people to dance well, but teaching them how to dance badly is just unnecessary.

Sean

stewart38
16th-February-2006, 05:54 PM
Nice one Stewart38, that turn the radio up part made me laugh out loud in the office. :clap:


what do you have to do to get rep around here :whistle:

stewart38
16th-February-2006, 05:56 PM
And that's why I'd rather dance with most beginners on their first night than lots of people who've been dancing for a few months.

I understand that you might not feel that it's necessary to teach people to dance well, but teaching them how to dance badly is just unnecessary.

Sean


Its that old lets knock ceroc routine, yawn

Using the car analogy i think is good

your not driving badly if you turn the radio up what your doing is not wanting to take the car on to a racing track and really text your self

who teaches people to dance badly ? please clarify ??

TheTramp
16th-February-2006, 06:00 PM
what do you have to do to get rep around here :whistle:
:devil:

stewart38
16th-February-2006, 06:08 PM
:devil:


Postive rep on the way , i dont like rep tarts to, it was out of order :sad:

TheTramp
16th-February-2006, 06:09 PM
Postive rep on the way , i dont like rep tarts to, it was out of order :sad:

I feel so guilty now :tears:

tsh
16th-February-2006, 06:18 PM
Its that old lets knock ceroc routine, yawn

Using the car analogy i think is good

your not driving badly if you turn the radio up what your doing is not wanting to take the car on to a racing track and really text your self

who teaches people to dance badly ? please clarify ??

Did I mention Ceroc on this thread? My experience of non ceroc MJ teaching is pretty limited, but it doesn't seem to be significantly different. I'm not convinced that it's the teachers, but at most of the venues I go to irregularly (which happen to be ceroc venues) I believe I see a high proportion of followers becoming more difficult to dance with over time. It might just be that I make more allowances for beginners though. Since I don't believe it's the teachers at fault, I assume that it's the material they are presenting (at a more fundamental level than how you signal that you've started dancing - which makes no real difference to a beginner)

Your post seemed to suggest that you realise that there are improvements which could be made, but you want to ignore them. So long as people keep coming through the doors and the music keeps playing, you don't really care.

Sean

Gadget
16th-February-2006, 09:39 PM
From all that has been said, would it be right to describe MJ as

A car with only a 1st gear (beginners) and 2nd gear (intermediates)…..:tears:

it can try to reach 100 miles an hour but it’ll never do because it hasn’t built in it, the 3rd gear (fundamentals) and 4th - 5th gear (structure) to push it that much further.:tears: Perhaps you should take it back and ask for a refund so you can get a better model of MJ: Mine came with all the gears and the occasional lesson in how to get the best from them. Doesn't mean I'm any better at driving it though... and for the occasional crunch in the gear box, scrape of fender and rust spots, I think it's holding up quite well.
It's taken me to places I would never have been without it. It's the vehicle I use to progress my dancing. Although I've had it customised, the engine tweaked and the bodywork remoulded - the chassey remains the same.

You just need to up the suspension for those bumpy tracks and add a spoiler for better handling round corners of smooth tracks.

Just like any 'car' - you can take the MJ up to 100mph, but if you don't do it on the right roads with the experience and skill to handle it, there is going to be some serious injury or serious red faces.
{This is why you should always try to ensure that you have air-bags installed :whistle:}


A good anology, but I think that you got sold short with your model - better upgrade to a newer version :D

stewart38
16th-February-2006, 10:15 PM
Did I mention Ceroc on this thread? My experience of non ceroc MJ teaching is pretty limited, but it doesn't seem to be significantly different. I'm not convinced that it's the teachers, but at most of the venues I go to irregularly (which happen to be ceroc venues) I believe I see a high proportion of followers becoming more difficult to dance with over time. It might just be that I make more allowances for beginners though. Since I don't believe it's the teachers at fault, I assume that it's the material they are presenting (at a more fundamental level than how you signal that you've started dancing - which makes no real difference to a beginner)

Your post seemed to suggest that you realise that there are improvements which could be made, but you want to ignore them. So long as people keep coming through the doors and the music keeps playing, you don't really care.

Sean

you have lost me ??

which isnt hard I guess :sick:

can someone translate

Yogi_Bear
16th-February-2006, 11:53 PM
It reads to me as though they are saying that the material the teachers are being asked to put across is either too difficult or inappropriate, which asa result means that either the followers can't or won't follow, or the leaders can't or won't lead....or both.

Yogi_Bear
17th-February-2006, 12:01 AM
Interesting if it were true but its not

I know loads of people who have been dancing ceroc/jive for years and years and thats all they want to do

Some people on the forum tend to often think we all want to be the next John Travlota many many old timers are just happy with ceroc/jive they dont want/need anything else :sad:

Give me two names of people in the whole country that have moved out of MJ and into Tango

Before we had the latest surge in interest in ceroc (last 18 months) some venues average age was creeping up and up as people who stayed around got older and older

To pretend there is such a migration is silly (of course a few do)

But I said that a lot of people are quite happy with a good night out doing their MJ and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. It's where it excels by attracting the numbers.
Equally a lot of people would see MJ as a stepping stone to something else. That doesn't prevent them from keeping in touch with the MJ social scene and the occasional dance, style workshop, or whatever.
But I could certainly name you a couple of people who have gone from MJ to Argentine tango, though in my case more intention than deed....

clevedonboy
17th-February-2006, 12:13 AM
Perhaps you should take it back and ask for a refund so you can get a better model of MJ: Mine came with all the gears and the occasional lesson in how to get the best from them. Doesn't mean I'm any better at driving it though... and for the occasional crunch in the gear box, scrape of fender and rust spots, I think it's holding up quite well.
It's taken me to places I would never have been without it. It's the vehicle I use to progress my dancing. Although I've had it customised, the engine tweaked and the bodywork remoulded - the chassey remains the same.

You just need to up the suspension for those bumpy tracks and add a spoiler for better handling round corners of smooth tracks.

Just like any 'car' - you can take the MJ up to 100mph, but if you don't do it on the right roads with the experience and skill to handle it, there is going to be some serious injury or serious red faces.
{This is why you should always try to ensure that you have air-bags installed :whistle:}


A good anology, but I think that you got sold short with your model - better upgrade to a newer version :D


Nice try but I think that I'll go with the Formula 1 driver's understanding of the situation

bigdjiver
18th-February-2006, 04:31 PM
... There is a view expressed by a number of people here, namely that a whole host of things such as footwork, structure, assessments, etc, will inevitably lead to making MJ more difficult for beginners and less accessible to the primarily social dancer.To some of us it is as simple as (other things being equal):
more to learn = more difficult to learn
more difficult to learn = less people learning.


In my view, this is just a nonsense, and is a smokescreen for the rather British tendency to be jealous and suspicious of anything that's good (and in particular better then the person being jealous and suspicious).In my view denigrating those with different views is the smokescreen.


The funny thing is, beginners have none of this jealousy and suspicion. If that was so, you would have to explain how the intermediates acquire this alleged jealousy and suspicion.


They love seeing the good dancers, and want to be like them, even if they feel as if they'll never get there. :yeah:


Anything that cultivates a true development path for Modern Jivers at any level, from beginner to god/goddess, so that if they choose, they can improve in a structured way, will be a good thing - for the dancers and the dance.beginner-intermediate-workshops-weekenders
That looks like a structured development path to me.


My view is that providing such a path will make it easier for people to get beyond the "plateau of competence" that RobD mentions, and progress further - to the next plateau and beyond if they wish. And the consequence of this will be greater retention, not less.MJ has a retention rate that most product marketers would dream about. I suspect that the "plateau" is not flat, but a gentler incline, where dancers continue to improve, but at a much reduced rate. There is a tendency for systems to approach their maximum value asymptotically.

I believe that the right approach is to identify the most successful teachers and to learn from them, making as few assumptions as possible.

RogerR
18th-February-2006, 05:25 PM
Modern Jive being a "street style" and still in its formative stages would only be constrained by too formal a structure. As it stands MJ can evolve as popular taste changes.

David Bailey
18th-February-2006, 05:58 PM
beginner-intermediate-workshops-weekenders

That looks like a structured development path to me.

Well, not really - most workshops and weekenders are not specifically targetted at "beyond intermediate" level. Save the uber-weekender Minnie's been promising us of course :whistle:

I'd say that one of the reasons salsa has advanced as a dance more than MJ (and I'm sorry, but speaking as someone who's done both over the past 10 year, it has, OK?) is because they do have advanced classes, at most venues.

OK, fair enough, the teaching is generally highly-variable at best, and sometimes what is called "advanced" is what I'd class as intermediate.

But at least salsa has aspirational classes - it implicitly recognises that there are advanced dancers, and it's standard in most regular class nights to have an advanced class. Note: "standard" and "regular" - unlike the few-and-far-between, dip-toe-in-water approach espoused by Ceroc. Salsa has built-in assumptions of advanced dancer-dom, and Ceroc doesn't.


Modern Jive being a "street style" and still in its formative stages would only be constrained by too formal a structure. As it stands MJ can evolve as popular taste changes.
Hardly - MJ evolution is highly constrained by the standards imposed by Ceroc. It's impossible to conceive of a totally new style sweeping Ceroc the way NY style swept through salsa in the UK 5 years ago, for example.

And it's been around for 25 years already - how much of an infanthood do we want for the dance, for goodness sakes?

ChrisA
18th-February-2006, 06:38 PM
To some of us it is as simple as (other things being equal):
more to learn = more difficult to learn
more difficult to learn = less people learning.

This sort of "logic" oversimplifies the issue to the point of uselessness. :rolleyes:

It's possible, for example, to teach more in a simpler way, that is easier to absorb than teaching less in a more difficult way. So your first premise is simply wrong.

Nor does it follow that something that is more difficult is less appealing, and therefore has fewer learners. It can be so, of course, and I'd agree with you that making things on average more difficult for beginners would be a bad idea.

Let me give you just two little examples of where more structure can make it easier. I've given countless taxi review classes over about 7 years, and taught followers one to one in freestyle on countless more occasions. Time and again, I've noticed beginners struggling when confronted with the choice of which foot to step back on. They tend to hesitate, and thereby lose the beat, or not step back at all.

I tend to teach a step back on the right for a follower (if it's good enough for Nigel and Amir, it's good enough for me). And as soon as they don't have to worry about which foot, they just do it, and the hesitation goes away.

It's (a little) more structure, and it's easier.

The other example is spinning. Mostly, spinning technique isn't taught, not even that it's generally easier to spin to the right on the right foot and vice versa. The sigh of relief in the review classes when I offer a few minutes' spin teaching is usually audible. A few simple tips, and they find it easier. Again, a little more to learn makes it easier and therefore more accessible.


beginner-intermediate-workshops-weekenders
That looks like a structured development path to me.
I can imagine it would, but it's another oversimplification to the point of uselessness.

Most of what is taught at all of these consists of moves, moves, moves. Even the simplest basics of technique (that, as I say, can make things easier, not harder) are usually absent from beginner lessons. The bad habits that start to develop get ingrained at intermediate level. Workshops are usually either yet more moves, or specific topics such as drops which although worth doing, also do not usually improve the basic dance technique. Weekenders tend to have big classes with yet more moves.

So whatever "development" you think it is, it's not the kind of development that takes MJ beyond the second rate, "not for real dancers" kind of dance that Adam implied when he said:


Ceroc is NOT about making dancers out of people. It never has been, it is about helping people enjoy themselves and forget about their day.

I don't see any reason why the aims of:

keeping the fun and accessibility of MJ at the beginner end of the spectrum
letting those that are happy being long-term intermediates remain so
but also providing a more accessible route to more advanced dancing for those that want to learn to take it all further


... should be in any way mutually exclusive.

Jealousy and suspicion only arise when those that choose not to take things further get snotty about those that do, and project on to them their own bad feelings about their own dancing. It's only a minority that get like this - mostly people are just having fun.

Whitebeard
19th-February-2006, 12:31 AM
Let me give you just two little examples of where more structure can make it easier. I've given countless taxi review classes over about 7 years, and taught followers one to one in freestyle on countless more occasions. Time and again, I've noticed beginners struggling when confronted with the choice of which foot to step back on. They tend to hesitate, and thereby lose the beat, or not step back at all.


I'm sorry, ChrisA, this really puzzles me. It is no wonder that people get confused. This, which foot to step back on, really does seem to be some sort of bone of contention and yet the teaching, as experienced by me, seems quite clear.

For the first step back there is no question that I, as a lead, have been very explicitly taught to step back on the right. This is so both of Ceroc, in the "warm up" or "Ceroc essentials", and in Jazzjive as I remember it. And the follow mirrors this and steps back on the left.

ChrisA
19th-February-2006, 10:25 AM
I'm sorry, ChrisA, this really puzzles me. It is no wonder that people get confused. This, which foot to step back on, really does seem to be some sort of bone of contention and yet the teaching, as experienced by me, seems quite clear.

For the first step back there is no question that I, as a lead, have been very explicitly taught to step back on the right. This is so both of Ceroc, in the "warm up" or "Ceroc essentials", and in Jazzjive as I remember it. And the follow mirrors this and steps back on the left.

The point I'm making isn't about whether left or right is better.

If you've been to Ceroc and Jazzjive and they've specified a foot, fine, but you must understand it has not been the norm at Ceroc. The party line for many years has been that it doesn't matter which foot, so the beginner has to choose.

By not giving them a structure, right at the very outset they have to decide what to do - in effect, invent their own footwork - and that makes it harder. As I say, beginner followers tend to hesitate, and end up not stepping back at all. Not in all cases, but in many.

I gave the other example for the same reason - to illustrate that absence of structure can make it harder, not easier, to learn at the very beginning.

ducasi
19th-February-2006, 11:22 AM
If you've been to Ceroc and Jazzjive and they've specified a foot, fine, but you must understand it has not been the norm at Ceroc. The party line for many years has been that it doesn't matter which foot, so the beginner has to choose.

By not giving them a structure, right at the very outset they have to decide what to do - in effect, invent their own footwork - and that makes it harder. As I say, beginner followers tend to hesitate, and end up not stepping back at all. Not in all cases, but in many. But by telling all beginners they must step back on a certain foot, you may make it easier for some, but harder for others. Being left-handed I always step back on my left. I find it natural. If I'd been told I had to step back on my right that would have made things harder for me as I struggled to find the right foot. (No pun intended.)

Perhaps just reassurance that it does not matter greatly which foot they step back on would help just as much as telling them which foot.

I gave the other example for the same reason - to illustrate that absence of structure can make it harder, not easier, to learn at the very beginning. In your other example of spinning, one of my regular teachers regularly teaches the spinning techniques you mention.

But what I fail to see is how (in these cases) better teaching gives more structure?

clevedonboy
19th-February-2006, 12:24 PM
But by telling all beginners they must step back on a certain foot, you may make it easier for some, but harder for others. Being left-handed I always step back on my left. I find it natural. If I'd been told I had to step back on my right that would have made things harder for me as I struggled to find the right foot. (No pun intended.)


But in most other dances you have defined footwork and beginners seem to cope. Your left/right thing is a bit of herring rouge as well - Lindy Hop leaders first step is almost always onto the left foot, it's just what you do (of course the follow is on the right foot so they're happy until they have to step back on the left as well in the Back Charleston).

I think that the do your own footwork thing is the biggest problem for advancing MJ as a dance form, as a leader you can only spend so much mental energy on ensuring that your partner is on the correct foot or deliberately unbalancing her to get her to step in a particular fashion.

In othe dances I'm learning your partner knows that she will be expected to step on a given foot for a given length of time in response to your lead and even if she doesn't follow your lead exactly (e.g. she's still on a triple step while you did a kick step) her footwork will soon return to sync.

I agree with ChrisA about teaching a structured approach to Spins and Turns. Teach a follow how many musical beats she should take to execute a turn and how she should execute that turn so that her footwork is as expected. It will be harder to begin with than just letting her get on with it like many MJ classes I've attended, but I'm sure most will benefit.

IMHO the structured approach puts both of you ahead of the game but it doesn't make the dance boring either.

El Salsero Gringo
19th-February-2006, 12:51 PM
I agree with ChrisA about teaching a structured approach to Spins and Turns. Teach a follow how many musical beats she should take to execute a turn and how she should execute that turn so that her footwork is as expected. It will be harder to begin with than just letting her get on with it like many MJ classes I've attended, but I'm sure most will benefit.That's what they do in a salsa class I go to sometimes, and I'm sure it contributes to their beginner retention rate of about zero.

clevedonboy
19th-February-2006, 02:01 PM
That's what they do in a salsa class I go to sometimes, and I'm sure it contributes to their beginner retention rate of about zero.

but the same can't be said for Lindy & Lain ballroom

Andy McGregor
19th-February-2006, 04:45 PM
YIPPEEE!!!

Another debate about which foot to take that first step. I always teach the same as I've been told by Nigel and Amir. Girls back right guys back left. I'm not sure if it's essential for the guy to step back left but it's COMPLETELY WRONG for the girl to step back on the left for so many reasons: the most important of which is that the follower has been led back with their right hand and this should ALWAYS lead a step back with the right foot.

I know that LeRoc in Bristol (and I hear Jazz Jive are the same) teach the first move with a step back on the left. They are, of course :innocent:, wrong and later in the move they confess to this by asking the follower to do a syncopated foot change/shuffle to get on the right foot for the rest of the move - why they don't start off on the correct foot in the first place is beyond me :confused:

My own belief is that there should be a central body for MJ. Currently the LeRoc Federation are the only one and I believe their advice is that it doesn't matter which foot - this is patently wrong from a teaching/confidence point of view as well as lead and follow and consistency and, and, and, and, ...

Maybe we can form our own Federation which can fix this. Although I think this is unlikely. I'd prefer it if the IDTA could take MJ under its wing and give us some nice, well written guidelines. Then we'd all know where we were and wouldn't need to have the "which foot" debate every month or two.

ChrisA
19th-February-2006, 11:09 PM
Teach a follow how many musical beats she should take to execute a turn and how she should execute that turn so that her footwork is as expected. It will be harder to begin with than just letting her get on with it like many MJ classes I've attended, but I'm sure most will benefit.
No way would I advocate this in the mainstream beginners class.

This is the big misunderstanding, I think.

Talk about structure, even quietly, and some people run for the hills, frightened that the end of Modern Jive is nigh. They seem to believe that a development path implies a regimented approach to beginner instruction that will put everyone off and put all the MJ venues out of business.

But the alternative isn't the "anything goes" approach that you usually find.

Ducasi made an excellent point when he said:


But what I fail to see is how (in these cases) better teaching gives more structure?
If teaching was uniformly better, as I hinted in my reply to Adam's robust post, a lot of what those that seek more structure are looking for would be unnecessary.

To pick up Andy's point about


a syncopated foot change/shuffle to get on the right foot
... if beginner followers are naturally able to get themselves into the right place by doing such a shuffle, I don't try to change what they do when I dance with them. Sometimes it even looks quite cool. If someone can stylishly step back on her left foot at the beginning of a first move, and equally stylishly excute the inevitable triple step that's required to still end up back right in the turn out, all well and good, especially if she can maintain a nice connection through all that, and adapt it so that the guy can turn it into a Manhattan instead. In that case, :respect: - there's no need to get on her case.

But the reality is that this is rare. Usually they don't, except by accident, and then only one time in ten. The other nine times there is an unpleasant jarring in the connection, and a shambling mush of a movement that ends up roughly in the right place, at roughly the right time. But it doesn't feel or look very nice at all. The wonder is that people nevertheless have enough fun to keep coming back.

One to one, it's possible to assess a beginner's dancing, and decide if it would be helpful to get them to place their feet in a particular way, to make it easier for them. And for those, telling them to step back on their right foot makes it miles easier.

But in a class, a more uniform approach is necessary, so at beginner level, it makes sense to actually teach the minimum of good footwork that means they don't have to invent it for themselves.

So more of "if you have any trouble deciding which foot to use ladies, step back on your right", and "spin to the right with your weight on your right foot, and finish the spin with your feet together before stepping back", would probably be enough extra structure for the beginners class.

(That, and getting them to feel a connection by leaning towards and away from their partners, and getting rid of that godawful semicircle. But I digress.)

The structure can be brought a little more to the fore in the consolidation class. There aren't as many in it, and the teacher can dance with all the followers, and hopefully there's another taxi there that can dance with all the leaders. Some real connection can be taught there, with a bit more footwork to make it easier where appropriate, a bit more on spinning, and things can move a bit further forward.

Given that most intermediates don't actually use the moves taught in the intermediate classes, I don't see a risk to the franchisees' wallets in consolidating technique a bit there as well.

But you know the real obstacle to teaching people well?

It's a shortage of really good teachers, that can teach more than moves. Come on Ceroc - you're the ones with the resources. Lead the way :flower:

El Salsero Gringo
19th-February-2006, 11:49 PM
"spin to the right with your weight on your right foot, and finish the spin with your feet together before stepping back"To some extent, I agree with you Chris - but I think you're kidding if you think most beginners could make sense of even this simple advice in a class.

DavidB
20th-February-2006, 12:12 AM
If you look at an average* Modern Jive dance, the standard is lower that you would get an a Lindy dance, or Ballroom dance etc. There is one overriding reason for this - there are far more people who have stuck with MJ than any of the other partner dancers. If you have people with "two left feet", they can still step back on one of them, and it doesn't matter. Do the same in any other partner dance and you get told off...

I don't see a problem with this approach for the majority of people who do Modern Jive. However I would like to see the availability of a more structured approach to learning MJ to cater for the minority.

'Structured' to me would mean 'what do you need to learn to do MJ well, and how is the best way to learn it.' Fixed footwork isn't a structure - it is an arbritary rule based on what soneone else did in the past. 'Why move your feet' and 'how do you move your feet' is true structure. (Obviously this applies to ladies only.)

I personally don't think this should be as part of a regular class, other than some very basic concepts. It is more suitable for workshops, or as Alex once suggested, a series of workshops at a weekender (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/showpost.php?p=153203&postcount=22).

David



*deliberately to annoy ESG

clevedonboy
20th-February-2006, 12:18 AM
No way would I advocate this in the mainstream beginners class.




Why? you attend a latin class & are told how to turn, you attend a Lindy class you are told how to turn - are people who attend MJ dance gods who already know how to do it? or do we assume that they don't want to know? or are they too simple to cope?

The attempts at turns and spins I've seen with most beginners is not a pretty sight, MJ setsout to teach people to dance so why not teach a fundamental feature properly?

As an example of what people can achieve, 4 young people attended our Lindy class for the first time recently. I don't know if they misunderstood how the session worked but they stayed for the intermediate session & were able by the end of the night to do some Charleston steps - like all of us they will need time and more lessons to do them well, but they were off and running with a reasonable grounding.

Of course it would be stupid to expect them to be able to perform complex dance moves without being told how to do it and time to develop the skill - but of course followers know how to spin instinctively don't they?

Whitebeard
20th-February-2006, 12:52 AM
If you've been to Ceroc and Jazzjive and they've specified a foot, fine, but you must understand it has not been the norm at Ceroc. The party line for many years has been that it doesn't matter which foot, so the beginner has to choose.

Perhaps things are changing ever so slowly. I do feel that a few concepts are starting to perculate through which weren't there even a couple of years ago.

Spinning technique is taught locally and there is even talk of styling and warnings against bouncing the hand.

Actually I agree with your basic premise of establishing a little more structure right from the word go. If indeed my stepping back (together with many others) with the right really is as bad as Andy suggests then I'm afraid it will just have to stay that way. I would find trying to change far too disruptive and having stepped through a few moves I'm sure it would alter the whole feel of the dance. To me it is seems quite counter intuitive to lead forward with the left arm where the tendency is for the shoulder to also move forward slightly, whilst at the same time stepping back with left leg where the tendency is for the shoulder to also move backwards. A conflict - though I'm sure a balance could be achieved by repetition. But it does seem to me this would restrict movement apart and throw more strain on the shoulder. Perhaps this is why some experience perceived yanking, suffer shoulder injuries, and dislike ladies who take big steps.

El Salsero Gringo
20th-February-2006, 12:54 AM
If you look at an average* Modern Jive danceGrrrr

Andy McGregor
20th-February-2006, 01:47 AM
If indeed my stepping back (together with many others) with the right really is as bad as Andy suggests then I'm afraid it will just have to stay that way. You could even step forward with the left foot if the lady steps back too far. In freestyle I usually do a step-in-place as that's all that's required to get the tension going. To step with the left foot just means you need to do a quick shuffle to change the weight to the correct foot. This is fine for the guy as he knows what move he's leading. What is 'really as bad as Andy suggests' is the follower stepping back with the opposite foot to the one the leader has indicated - a lead to the followers right hand is a signal to move the right foot. What could be simpler than that?

David Bailey
20th-February-2006, 09:26 AM
Re: spinning technique:

Why? you attend a latin class & are told how to turn, you attend a Lindy class you are told how to turn - are people who attend MJ dance gods who already know how to do it? or do we assume that they don't want to know? or are they too simple to cope?
I agree with ChrisA - I also wouldn't want to change the beginner's class, it's a very effective marketing tool to get people moving. The main aim of the beginner's class in Ceroc is to achieve a high retention rate, and it does that superbly.

I can't imagine Ceroc would ever contemplate risking a reduction in this rate, so suggesting they add some technique in the beginner's class would be a total non-starter from a business point-of-view if nothing else.

And:

YIPPEEE!!!

Another debate about which foot to take that first step
:rolleyes: It's the CerocScotland equivalent of Godwin's Law isn't it? Or was that the one about shoes...?

Yogi_Bear
20th-February-2006, 09:31 AM
Well it cannot do any harm to be consistent with dances such as Lindy Hop where the lead needs to dance a rock step, ie step back on the left. I have always done that.
Another one to consider is the MJ basket. Here the leader stepping back on the right when partner steps back in the wrapped position feels better and I'm sure looks more stylish as it keeps the couple together.

ChrisA
20th-February-2006, 09:57 AM
To some extent, I agree with you Chris - but I think you're kidding if you think most beginners could make sense of even this simple advice in a class.
Of course they couldn't. Not straight away at any rate. But if they hear it in the class, and then hear it again in the smaller consolidation class, and then again in the intermediate class if there's a spin in the moves.

It doesn't have to be laboured, and it doesn't have to take long. I've done a couple of minutes on spinning in many consolidation classes, and it goes down well.

It relies on the taxis being able to demonstrate and teach it, and it would be far better still if Ceroc provided enough training and guidance for the taxi dancers to know that it was "on the syllabus", so to speak.

Don't get the impression that when I talk about structure, I'm talking only about how classes should be taught. That's a small part of it, but it would have to be backed up by the availability of good consolidation class teaching, and a much more widespread availablility of additional classes and workshops that were about more than moves, for those that wanted it.

I don't believe that the infrastructure is there yet - there would have to be more good teachers, and more taxis capable of teaching the basics of technique. Which implies the need for better training for taxi dancers. I don't yet see any desire from HQ to elevate the taxi dancer role to a level where payment might be appropriate ... :whistle:

Yogi_Bear
20th-February-2006, 10:00 AM
...coincidentally I was just reading from UK Jive re taxi dancers
'A friendly and out-going personality is more important than dancing ability'.

ChrisA
20th-February-2006, 10:02 AM
...coincidentally I was just reading from UK Jive re taxi dancers
'A friendly and out-going personality is more important than dancing ability'.
Well I'd actually agree with that.

A miserable sod that couldn't talk to people would be no good at all, no matter how good their dancing was.

And there's plenty of need still for the "friendly, welcoming" aspect of the taxi role, to just dance with people and make them feel at home.

Yogi_Bear
20th-February-2006, 10:04 AM
Well I'd actually agree with that.

A miserable sod that couldn't talk to people would be no good at all, no matter how good their dancing was.
Yes. I suppose there has to be a trade off between personality and ability, unless you can find people with both, of course. Ultimately it's got to be about the beginner retention rate, I guess.

El Salsero Gringo
20th-February-2006, 10:30 AM
A miserable sod that couldn't talk to people would be no good at all, no matter how good their dancing was.In which case .... ?

:D

Yogi_Bear
20th-February-2006, 10:34 AM
In which case .... ?

:D
....aspiring taxis need a personality test as well as a dancing ability test.

Andy McGregor
20th-February-2006, 10:35 AM
In which case .... ?

:DOf course some people are grumpy and can't dance:innocent:

Yogi_Bear
20th-February-2006, 10:36 AM
Of course some people are grumpy and can't dance:innocent:
...yeah, find these people and get rid of them!

Lory
20th-February-2006, 11:04 AM
I've not read every post on this thread so excuse me if my post doesn't quite flow with the rest.
.................................................. .........................................

I've come full circle on my thinking on this one

When I first started, I just went along for a giggle, something to do once a week to get me out the house. I know I wouldn't have enjoyed my first experience half as much if i'd spent the lesson fussing with technique and I doubt i'd have understood the concept anyway.

Stage two - I rapidly got 'into' the whole thing. I think I picked it up fairly quickly but it was 'then' I found I hit limits because of my lack of basic skill. I realised, if I wanted to get any better, I'd have to do something about my technique.

Stage three, I got bored with the lessons, :sad: I found there was nothing in a normal nights class for me.. I didn't want to just learn more moves.

Stage four - I started ballroom, WCS and Tango. Each dance is extremely structured, there is a 'correct' way to do things and anything else is just plain WRONG.:cool:
The frustration is far greater BUT the sense of achievement when you get it right, is also much greater.:clap:
And because I love dancing so much, I'm actually enjoying the 'nit picking,' I love it when the teacher is so pedantic, that she tells me off for taking a step that's an inch bigger than it should be.:na:

But here's the bit where I've come back round. I now arrive at an MJ night, and enjoy the fact that everyone is free to just do their thang, in whatever unique style they have, i relish the variety. :cheers: Be it, going round in circles or slotted, funky or smooth, (ok I draw the limits at bouncy:wink: ) there doesn't appear to be anyway which is right or wrong. And we're free to sling all sorts of other styles as well, just for the hell of it.:clap: :clap: :clap:

El Salsero Gringo
20th-February-2006, 11:07 AM
...yeah, find these people and get rid of them!I think we should have a campaign to Eject Sourpuss Grumpyguts. We could even give it a catchy three letter acronym.

Yogi_Bear
20th-February-2006, 11:10 AM
Absolutely. Experience the other styles and the structured learning (it can mean being a beginner for quite a while), and have a good night out with MJ. Work all the other stuff into an MJ night as appropriate. My thoughts exactly. I can end up dancing a bit of three or four styles in the same track, loosely bound together within the MJ framework. It might confuse people but, hey, the muisic is king...:worthy:

Yogi_Bear
20th-February-2006, 11:13 AM
I think we should have a campaign to Eject Sourpuss Grumpyguts. We could even give it a catchy three letter acronym.
No, to borrow another thread, deploy the ESGs to dance with the know it all beginners....

Andybroom
20th-February-2006, 12:03 PM
Absolutely. Experience the other styles and the structured learning (it can mean being a beginner for quite a while),

The term "Beginner" is a relative thing. MJ "promotes" people to intermediate after they know a handful of moves whereas most other dance forms expect people to progress quite a lot further before "promoting" them.

But actually I would say when I first started dancing (ballroom, some 15 years ago) it took me about the same length of time to be able to actually dance a few moves around the floor as it does most MJ beginner leads and that my rate of acquisition of moves (if that's the right term!) as a beginner was about the same in ballroom as it is for a "from scratch" beginner in MJ. I did learn a lot more technique along the way though.

At the end of the day, that's what matters - it's irrelevent what the class you attend is called.

I think one of the issues for MJ is that -whatever it may feel like- progression as an MJ dancer isn't really any faster than in any other dance form, but (for most MJ only dancers) technique is almost totally sacrificed.

Andy

Mary
20th-February-2006, 12:13 PM
A miserable sod that couldn't talk to people would be no good at all, no matter how good their dancing was.




Looks like I'm the one that slipped through the net. :(

M

Gadget
20th-February-2006, 02:42 PM
How does the "Ceroc Essentials" warmup fit in with the structure? It teaches timing, which foot to step on, transferal of weight, turning and spinning... all before you've even lifted your partner's hand.

Isn't this a good thing? Isn't this what we've(*) been saying is lacking?

(* with a few exceptions)

Lou
20th-February-2006, 02:50 PM
but it's COMPLETELY WRONG for the girl to step back on the left for so many reasons
I've missed this place! :hug:

If someone can stylishly step back on her left foot at the beginning of a first move, and equally stylishly excute the inevitable triple step that's required to still end up back right in the turn out,
Speaking as someone who follows with either foot, there is no triple step. If you start left foot back, the pattern is 1, 2 - and - 3. If you start right foot back you dance 1 - and - 2 - and - 3. There's syncopation in the left foot back version, but not normally a triple step (unless the follower is really trying to make life difficult for herself).

It's easier to follow right foot back, for the reasons Andy gives. And if Viktor wants more structure to MJ lessons, then maybe consistent footwork is a good place to start. Perhaps we could learn something from our Australian cousins who have specific prescribed footwork for beginners & intermediates.

Ahhh... that feels better! :D

ChrisA
20th-February-2006, 03:26 PM
Speaking as someone who follows with either foot, there is no triple step. If you start left foot back, the pattern is 1, 2 - and - 3. If you start right foot back you dance 1 - and - 2 - and - 3. There's syncopation in the left foot back version, but not normally a triple step (unless the follower is really trying to make life difficult for herself).

Not sure I understand your notation here. If you mean that starting left foot back, you only step four times (including the step back), then you either end up in a different place (not having travelled so far), or you have to take bigger steps forward on 2 - and - 3 to compensate. Or have I still not undertstood what you mean?

Here's what I meant:

When not taught either way, I've observed followers doing three variations:

1. Stepping back right first, in which case it's easy, since as you say it's much easier to follow (and to lead).

Steps R-L-R-L-R (timing: slow, slow, slow, slow, slow)

2. Stepping back left, then closing right to left, then stepping forward L, then RLR as 1. Timing the same as starting back right, but with the initial LRL in the same time as the back right case's initial RL. So effectively a triple step at the beginning to change weight.

Steps L-R-L-R-L-R (timing: quick, quick, slow, slow, slow, slow)

3. Stepping back left, then forward right, then left - close right to left - left side back right. So a triple step effectively just prior to the turn out.

Steps again L-R-L-R-L-R (timing: slow, slow, quick, quick, slow, slow)

Both 2 and 3 are of course much more difficult. But there's a strong tendency when learning almost anything to make it more difficult for oneself.


Although I understand the theory of being able to lead a follower to step back on either foot, it's far too advanced for beginners. Stepping back on the side you get led on seems most natural to me. The accursed semicircle buggers that up as well... :tears:

clevedonboy
20th-February-2006, 04:17 PM
How about the variant of the First Move that goes Quick Quick Slow Slow, Quick Quick Slow Slow (leader L R L R L R L R), by including two Rock Steps in the footwork. It's totally leadable, there is no ambiguity & it's very stylish. It also has the advantage of taking 12 musical beats to complete (no prizes for spotting a multiple of 4) and you begin on one foot and end on the other - meaning your next move begins on the left again (for leaders).

(I know that Ceroc would not sanction teaching such a move for beginners as they would be too scared leading to certain loss of revenue and possible large numbers of premature deaths)

Lou
20th-February-2006, 04:37 PM
Not sure I understand your notation here. If you mean that starting left foot back, you only step four times (including the step back), then you either end up in a different place (not having travelled so far), or you have to take bigger steps forward on 2 - and - 3 to compensate. Or have I still not undertstood what you mean?

Notation is really tricky! Describing the footwork on here is always a challenge. And I remember discussing it with John Eastman & we decided that with a lady's left foot back First Move, it was a lot more fluid than the notation indicated.

When it's taught in Bristol (with the exception of Nailsea & Elmgrove, who do ridiculous counts), with specific footwork, the Lady steps back on her left on 1, into the side on 2, pivot & step back on 3. And that's because the teacher will pause when the lady is brought into the man's side. But Ceroc teach that way too.

During this "Teach" (sorry), the ladies will probably step back on their Left on 1, forward on Right on "And", and on their Left, bringing feet together on 2. This is where the pivot starts, meaning that they'll step back on Right on 3. In freestyle, the rhythm changes slightly, so that the step in, pivot & step back timing merges into something a lot more fluid. And it does change into something a bit more 1-2-and-3-ish. There are 5 beats to the music, but only 4 transfers of weight, you see.

Whereas with the standard Ceroc "Walking Style" (your first example), the lady transfers her weight during each beat. Simpler, but not as nice to look at!

So it doesn't really match up with the very scary variations of left foot back you've seen! :what:

ChrisA
20th-February-2006, 05:21 PM
Whereas with the standard Ceroc "Walking Style" (your first example), the lady transfers her weight during each beat. Simpler, but not as nice to look at!
Ironic, really, that with all this worrying about how important it is to make MJ easy for beginners, Leroc teaches something nice but harder, Ceroc makes it (IMHO) harder by not teaching anything, and the BigdJivers of this world think I'm the one trying to make it less accessible.:confused: :rolleyes:

Interesting footwork variations are cool, but not for novices, IMHO.

The great thing about what you call the "walking style" is that it provides a real consistency to practically every single beginners move. The footwork for the first move is virtually identical to that for the basket, octopus, travelling return, manspin, in fact almost everything.

If there's one thing that would make MJ more accessible to brand new dancers, not inhibit a good grounding in lead/follow, and make all the moves feel like one another in their execution (though not in look), it would be the adoption of this very simple footwork.

There's no counterintuitive "lead through the right, but step back on the left", no arbitrary "teach it one way in the class, dance it another way in freestyle", and in my view it is MUCH easier to learn and adapt to more complex moves - it doesn't make any later moves any harder.

The dancers get used to having their weight in the right place at the right time, and variations don't then require as much learning.

I do agree that if it's danced consistently step, step, step, on the count, with no variation, it looks a bit dull. But it still feels nice, in fact much nicer than when the footwork is random or awkward.

And if I had a fiver for every time I've taken a floundering beginner, got her to step on the count, right foot back at the end and the start, and turned her into a decent follower that can follow all the beginners moves, and many of the intermediate ones as well, in one track (occasionally two, but 70% of the time it takes only one track), I, erm, well I'd have a lot of fivers.

Andy McGregor
20th-February-2006, 05:26 PM
Lovely to have the debate about footwork back again :wink:

ChrisA
20th-February-2006, 05:37 PM
Lovely to have the debate about footwork back again :wink:
Well it is unusual to actually have a topic about dance on here... :whistle:

Lou
20th-February-2006, 05:53 PM
Lovely to have the debate about footwork back again :wink:
:D

Although things change. Right now, we're proposing that teaching a simple and consistent "Men back left, Ladies back right" footwork to beginners is A Good Thing, within Viktor's desire to see a more structured way to teach MJ.

I'd love to hear Franck's current opinion. :nice:

Andy McGregor
20th-February-2006, 06:16 PM
I'd love to hear Franck's current opinion. :nice:I think he might have a different opinion from Ceroc-the-business-before-all-else. I think their opinion will be that you can step back on whichever foot you like so long as you pay £6/7/8 :whistle: And if you paid £10 you wouldn't have to step back for yourself, they'd have a foot-maiden move you chosen foot for you:innocent:

Andy McGregor
20th-February-2006, 06:21 PM
If I didn't make the point earlier in the thread, I was intending to use the fact that we can't agree on which foot to move first in the first move we'd have a real problem agreeing a formal structure in MJ.

IMHO a formal structure would be brilliant for MJ - and it would raise standards too. I don't think this will come from Ceroc though. There's no profit in putting people off by getting picky about which foot you move or telling people they need to improve. Well, there is a profit, but it's probably not as high as it would be if you let people do what they want within a loose structure of clues about how moves are done with no specific right and wrong way.

Robin
20th-February-2006, 06:58 PM
IMHO a formal structure would be brilliant for MJ - and it would raise standards too. I don't think this will come from Ceroc though.

Thats not entirely true Andy, how organised has Modern Jive become because of Ceroc? I'd also hazard a guess that a lot of the "competition" specifically keeps their distance rather than work with Ceroc to establish such a structure.

You also seem to be forgetting that Ceroc probably introduced 90+% (?) of Modern Jivers into the scene .... without it there simply wouldn't be enough numbers to even entertain some form of formal structure. On that basis I would suggest that whether you like it or not, Ceroc are probably the most well placed organisation/body to introduce said standards and to get them acknowledged professionally. However, there has to be a balance for the business economics - you don't introduce something thats going to be bad for your business ..... and by that I mean that perhaps the MJ field is simply not yet ready to accommodate the structure you have in mind.

As an example, in many latin countries , peoples' mindset are much more pre-disposed to dancing ... in the UK its much more of a "Fancy a pint?" mindset.

El Salsero Gringo
20th-February-2006, 07:54 PM
If I didn't make the point earlier in the thread, I was intending to use the fact that we can't agree on which foot to move first in the first move we'd have a real problem agreeing a formal structure in MJ.

IMHO a formal structure would be brilliant for MJ - and it would raise standards too. I don't think this will come from Ceroc though. There's no profit in putting people off by getting picky about which foot you move or telling people they need to improve. Well, there is a profit, but it's probably not as high as it would be if you let people do what they want within a loose structure of clues about how moves are done with no specific right and wrong way.Hypothetical question for you Andy (and for anyone, really): suppose Ceroc decided, overnight, that there was a correct foot to step back on (say the left, for argument's sake) whereas you thought it should be the right. Would you support Ceroc and go along with the new structure - even though you thought the other way was better - or would you teach it as you thought best, promoting 'schism' between left-footed and right-footed MJ? In other words, what premium would you place on structure (or uniformity) over best-practice?

clevedonboy
20th-February-2006, 08:43 PM
Hypothetical question for you Andy (and for anyone, really): suppose Ceroc decided, overnight, that there was a correct foot to step back on (say the left, for argument's sake) whereas you thought it should be the right. Would you support Ceroc and go along with the new structure - even though you thought the other way was better - or would you teach it as you thought best, promoting 'schism' between left-footed and right-footed MJ? In other words, what premium would you place on structure (or uniformity) over best-practice?

Funny - I was having a similar thought while doing the washing up. Would there be dance police out there to enforce the left / right footedness, would unreformed old skool lerocers be banned until they conformed to the new structure?

Really, I suppose the question is how can your impose structure on something retrospectively? Or is that actually how structured dance develops?

David Bailey
20th-February-2006, 09:10 PM
Funny - I was having a similar thought while doing the washing up.
As one does...



Would there be dance police out there to enforce the left / right footedness, would unreformed old skool lerocers be banned until they conformed to the new structure?

Really, I suppose the question is how can your impose structure on something retrospectively? Or is that actually how structured dance develops?
I'm still not sure if we're talking about the same thing when we say "structure" - people seem to equate it with "footwork", which to me is almost irrelevant, despite the footwork fetishists who are popping out of the woodwork - yes, I am looking at you, Lou.

To me, structure is a developmental area for MJ that builds on the existing (and excellent) beginner-oriented structure, by providing something for people to aspire to, combined with a standardised definition of both form and technique. In other words, something beyond the "after 6 weeks, you're an intermediate, and that's pretty much it" attitude which to me still seems prevalent in a lot of Ceroc.

So, to take this (boring) discussion about footwork on the first move; a structure would not necessarily tell people what foot to step back on, but might well tell people what the advantages and disadvantages of both are, and possibly explain how to do both variations well. And it would do it on a national standard level - and that's the key point.

A structure would also define a standardised national progression path for dancers (and yes, that could involve assessments, so sue me). Hell, I'd even accept competitions as a reasonable price for a proper MJ structure - that's how badly I want to see it in place.

In terms of "advancing MJ dancing", I'm pretty sure that Ceroc is poorly-placed to do that - I believe that most of the innovation in MJ over the past few years has I believe been driven by independent teachers. But Ceroc is in a good position to incorporate, adapt, and spread such innovation nationally.

El Salsero Gringo
20th-February-2006, 09:27 PM
So, to take this (boring) discussion about footwork on the first move; a structure would not necessarily tell people what foot to step back on, but might well tell people what the advantages and disadvantages of both are, and possibly explain how to do both variations well.Yes, but hang on a minute: when you've finished listing the pros and cons of boths ways of doing it, it will abundantly clear that either there is a better foot to step back on, or there isn't. If there is, then it de facto becomes the correct foot. And if there isn't, then you can summarise as "it doesn't matter which foot you step back on", which is exactly where we are at the moment. You can't ask for structure without having the detail to fill the structure in with - which foot to step on, how exactly to spin. By structure one means rule-book, and a rule-book can't be full of blank pages or wishy-washy "you can do it any way you like" suggestions.


A structure would ... involve assessments,And unless you give the exact criteria (including "steps back on the correct foot") then what are you going to assess?

El Salsero Gringo
20th-February-2006, 09:35 PM
In terms of "advancing MJ dancing", I'm pretty sure that Ceroc is poorly-placed to do that - I believe that most of the innovation in MJ over the past few years has I believe been driven by independent teachers. But Ceroc is in a good position to incorporate, adapt, and spread such innovation nationally.And there appears to be another inconsistency in this thread. The endpoint of a formal structure is diametrically opposed to the desire to adapt and incorporate new ideas. How much has Ballroom evolved in the last thirty years? How much has Salsa? Why the difference? Precisely *because* there's no formal Salsa structure. On the one hand the point is made that MJ suffers because of lack of rules - you can dance it any way you please - yet on the other hand, Ceroc comes under fire because it has a consistent and centrally controlled teaching syllabus.

clevedonboy
20th-February-2006, 09:40 PM
hold up a sec DJ - I'd describe Lindy as a structured dance not because people are assessed or it has a federation but because (how can I put it without stating rhe obvious?) it has a structure that people work to - lesson 1 rock step etc etc. There are variations & disagreements (there were untold caualties in the Savoy / Hollywood style wars) but fundamentally the dance works because everyone agrees that there is a pattern of 6 or 8 counts with several defined (that doesn't mean exclusive) footwork and lead follow conventions. The shapes follow from that. MJs current structure for want of a better word to me seems to be its list of core moves - very different

David Bailey
20th-February-2006, 09:41 PM
Yes, but hang on a minute, either there is a better foot to step back on, or there isn't. If there is, then it de facto becomes the correct foot. And if there isn't, then you can summarise as "it doesn't matter which foot you step back on", which is exactly where we are at the moment. You can't ask for structure without having the detail to fill the structure in with - which foot to step on, how exactly to spin.
There certainly is a best foot to step back on, and it's the one you are led to step back on. Stepping back on the other foot is wrong. That's what the DavidJamesCerocRuleBook would say*. It would then go on to provide examples of how to lead the lady to step back on either foot. And fair enough, it would probably acknowledge that most of the time, for a standard First Move, it's easier for the lady to learn to step back on the left foot.

* Yes, OK, the diagram would be contracted out to an artist, who'd get it wrong as usual.


By structure one means rule-book
You may do - doesn't mean I have to. By "structure" I mean definition, progression and transparency. Ceroc's got enough move definition for anyone already, I imagine. By structure, I mean "more than moves".


, and a rule-book can't be full of blank pages or wishy-washy "you can do it any way you like" suggestions.

And unless you give the exact criteria (including "steps back on the correct foot") then what are you going to assess?
How about "steps back on the correct foot for the next step"? Leaders don't even have to step back to lead a first move, they can step forward / sideways / stand still.

Focussing on exact footwork for every move is nothing like the sort of structure I want to see. Adding proscribed and exacting footwork to MJ won't make it a structured dance; at best, it'll maybe get a few people thinking a bit more about what do do with those things on the ends of their legs.

David Bailey
20th-February-2006, 09:53 PM
hold up a sec DJ - I'd describe Lindy as a structured dance not because people are assessed or it has a federation but because (how can I put it without stating rhe obvious?) it has a structure that people work to - lesson 1 rock step etc etc.
I know nothing about Lindy. But salsa has a structure derived from the underlying musical beat of the music it's played to; it's actually difficult after a while to dance to that beat without dancing salsa.

The problem is, I think focussing on the moves is a distraction. Using the car analogy previously mentioned, defining moves better is like changing the tyres on a Model T to Pirellis. It may make some difference, but it's still a Model T.

What would make a major difference is introducing technique and progression as part of the standard format. Having a built-in "career path" for dancers, with the aim of stopping them leaving MJ, in other words.

It's profoundly depressing to hear franchise owners explicitly say they don't care about dancers beyond beginners - and if MJ is to progress, that attitude needs to be ripped out. Otherwise, eventually, I think MJ will die out; Ceroc will have taught enough people to be confident enough in partner dancing, that other more advanced forms will become more attractive.

El Salsero Gringo
20th-February-2006, 10:04 PM
There certainly is a best foot to step back on, and it's the one you are led to step back on. Stepping back on the other foot is wrong. That's what the DavidJamesCerocRuleBook would say*. That's not terribly helpful in a discussion about structure. You might want to change the teaching method from "either foot is OK" to "the foot the man leads is OK" - but that's no more structured.
You may do - doesn't mean I have to. By "structure" I mean definition, progression and transparency. Ceroc's got enough move definition for anyone already, I imagine. By structure, I mean "more than moves".Hmmm.... definition... sounds like a rule-book to me.
How about "steps back on the correct foot for the next step"? Leaders don't even have to step back to lead a first move, they can step forward / sideways / stand still. And how is one to know which is the correct foot for the next step, unless your rule book (which you deny you want to exist) tells you which is the correct foot for the next step?
What would make a major difference is introducing technique and progression as part of the standard format. Having a built-in "career path" for dancers, with the aim of stopping them leaving MJ, in other words.I don't understand how you can say this doesn't exist in Ceroc (or MJ) for those who want it. Either we have what we have now in MJ and in Salsa (no rules, no assessments) or we have Ballroom with exams, medals and technique fixed in concrete. I can't see the alternative.

ducasi
20th-February-2006, 10:40 PM
Does it strike anyone else following this thread that no-one here really knows what "structure" means, but they're damn sure that MJ doesn't have it, but [insert-favourite-other-dance] has?

And that many of the arguments for what MJ needs are contradictory?

E.g., "Salsa has advanced over the years because it has structure" vs. "Salsa has no structure, that's what allowed it to advance."

It sounds like people are just seeing what they see wrong in the current teaching of MJ, proposing a fix, and calling that structure...

Poor MJ has turned into the scarecrow in The Wizard of Oz...
MJ – "If only I had a structure!"
Oz – "You don't need structure, all you need is a diploma!"


Just on the advancement thing, I'd suggest that that happens when talented individuals with an enthusiasm for the dance introduce and teach new ideas that work with the existing style, renewing it, and keeping it new and exciting.

Dare I suggest that that is what Amir is doing with Jango, and Mark is doing with Latin Blues?

Still don't see where the structure thing comes into it... :confused:

Gadget
20th-February-2006, 11:11 PM
I have just discoverd how to lead a follower to finish from a standard traveling return with her right foot back, or her left foot back. (without any concious effort on her part, lead into it is the same and not taking a second step back)

Which of these is "correct"?

{.. and now that I can do it, what can I use it for? :confused:}

spindr
20th-February-2006, 11:40 PM
First part of structure is consistency and repeatability.

For example: dance (*) (a first move + a return) + (a first move + a return).

One might suggest that to be consistent and repeatable that the way of dancing the a first move and the way of dancing the a first move should be the same. Similarly, the way of dancing a a return and a a return should also be the same.

You may find that the "footwork" for the a first move and a first move are in fact determined by the "footwork" for the a return and the a return :)

SpinDr

(*) See first move (http://www.afterfive.co.uk/guide/latest/html/first_move.html), and return (http://www.afterfive.co.uk/guide/latest/html/return.html) for definitions of terms, if reqd.

ducasi
21st-February-2006, 12:14 AM
First part of structure is consistency and repeatability.

...

(*) See first move (http://www.afterfive.co.uk/guide/latest/html/first_move.html), and return (http://www.afterfive.co.uk/guide/latest/html/return.html) for definitions of terms, if reqd. Based on your own definitions of "a first move" and "a return", Ceroc does teach a consistent and repeatable dance. Where the definition covers footwork, Ceroc teaches it. Where it is missing, Ceroc doesn't teach it.

I'd suggest that anything missed out in the definition does not need to be part of the consistent and repeatable structure. In the same way as your guide and Ceroc don't tell you what to do with your spare hand – because it is up to you – they miss out the unnecessary footwork details.

So, is Ceroc teaching consistent and repeatable?

TheTramp
21st-February-2006, 12:31 AM
Funny - I was having a similar thought while doing the washing up.
If I thought that doing the washing up made me think like ESG, I'd buy a dishwasher immediately....

Andy McGregor
21st-February-2006, 12:50 AM
think like ESGThink? ESG :confused:

bigdjiver
21st-February-2006, 12:50 AM
Tonights teacher was Andy, who I had not seen before. A few snippets:
"Both step back on your outside foot."
"If you slow it down somewhat and sweep your foot around it looks better."
"the secret of this is to dip a bit and to move smoothly through it."
"The secret is in the flow."
Perhaps it is because I do not know how lucky we are around here that I am not convinced that we need major changes. I was going to write in praise of Michaela, but she is not the only Ceroc Central teacher that teaches style. We have mini-tutorials on spinning, wiggling, posture, the use of the spare arm, and various other styling techniques. She does say which foot to use when it matters, and where the feet should finish up. Both Mark and Paul teach styling for men. I am well content with the standard of the lady dancers at the venues I attend and I can see no clear advantage in changing the way they are taught. The ladies may have a different perspective on things.

Andy McGregor
21st-February-2006, 01:00 AM
either there is a better foot to step back on, or there isn't. If there is, then it de facto becomes the correct foot. And if there isn't, then you can summarise as "it doesn't matter which foot you step back on", which is exactly where we are at the moment. No, it's where Ceroc is at the moment. There is very clearly a correct foot for the follower to move. It's the one the leader led. At the start of the first move the leader pushes back the followers right hand: this should result in the follower moving her right foot. For Ceroc to say it doesn't matter is, IMHO, incorrect. It matters that the follower follows the lead and gets used to doing so. I must admit I was quite surprised to hear a Ceroc teacher say it doesn't matter which foot you move a couple of weeks ago - it actually left me uncertain what to do. I was a visiting dancer, I couldn't say to my partners that their teacher was wrong but I couldn't dance properly with women that didn't follow my lead. If I'd been local I would have avoided attending that class as I considered the teaching of dance to be technically poor.

El Salsero Gringo
21st-February-2006, 01:27 AM
At the start of the first move the leader pushes back the followers right hand: this should result in the follower moving her right foot. You say that as written-in-stone fact, but is it? Lots of ballroom figures have contra-body motion where the hips and torso go in different directions - why shouldn't MJ? I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'd like to know the source of your authority to dictate which *is* the correct foot.

Andy McGregor
21st-February-2006, 01:39 AM
You say that as written-in-stone fact, but is it? Lots of ballroom figures have contra-body motion where the hips and torso go in different directions - why shouldn't MJ? I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'd like to know the source of your authority to dictate which *is* the correct foot.Nigel Anderson and the laws of Physics - but not necessarily in that order :wink:

Franck
21st-February-2006, 01:46 AM
At the start of the first move the leader pushes back the followers right hand: this should result in the follower moving her right foot.
You say that as written-in-stone fact, but is it? Of course it isn't, and Andy clearly failed to read the good advice given in this thread fully:

The follower will step back on the foot as led, or (in the absence of proper leading) will step back on the foot that is available!

The fact that we are holding the follower's right hand is irrelevant, what matters is your partner's weight distribution. If the follower is resting on her right foot prior to the (step back) lead, she will step back on her left because she has no choice, so unless the Leader has the skill and awareness (unlikely in most Beginners classes) to 'lead' a weight-shift first, then she will naturally follow the (step back) lead and use her left foot.
It would be counter-productive to tell her that she stepped back on the wrong foot if she didn't seem to have a choice at the outset, and as teaching that much awareness and leading skills to Beginner men would definitely not help them, we are stuck with: "Whatever foot you step back on is fine!".

As for more structure in MJ, I'm all for it, and as far as I can tell, Ceroc are doing their bit to introduce a more formal learning environment. Many pilot classes are being experimented with and gradually, the results are being shared and extended nationally. I would strongly oppose any attempt to make MJ the dance more rigid and less flexible though. I love all the different 'fads' we seem to go through, and I expect I would have got bored with it, were it not for the lindy, salsa, hip hop, WCS and now Tango trends and influences we have had over the last 10 years.

Andy McGregor
21st-February-2006, 10:34 AM
Of course it isn't, and Andy clearly failed to read the good advice given in this thread fully:Was that the advice that people should get the moves wrong because it doesn't matter?


The follower will step back on the foot as led, or (in the absence of proper leading) will step back on the foot that is available!

The fact that we are holding the follower's right hand is irrelevant, what matters is your partner's weight distribution. If the follower is resting on her right foot prior to the (step back) lead, she will step back on her left because she has no choice, so unless the Leader has the skill and awareness (unlikely in most Beginners classes) to 'lead' a weight-shift first, then she will naturally follow the (step back) lead and use her left foot. And what I'm saying is that "in the absence of proper leading" the follower is told which foot is the correct one to move. This means that the follower does not get into bad habits. Almost all the instructions given to the follower would be irrelevant in the presence of a proper lead. However, it's a learning situation and the leads can't be expected to get it right every time: in the absence of that proper lead I believe that the follower should be told what to do in a move if they had been led properly - rather than told it doesn't matter!


As for more structure in MJ, I'm all for it, and as far as I can tell, Ceroc are doing their bit to introduce a more formal learning environment. Many pilot classes are being experimented with and gradually, the results are being shared and extended nationally. I would strongly oppose any attempt to make MJ the dance more rigid and less flexible though. I love all the different 'fads' we seem to go through, and I expect I would have got bored with it, were it not for the lindy, salsa, hip hop, WCS and now Tango trends and influences we have had over the last 10 years.:yeah: :yeah: :yeah:

I'm not saying that MJ needs to be made "more rigid and less flexible". I'm saying that it should be taught correctly with more emphasis on getting it right. IMHO, the advice from the stage that "it doesn't matter which foot" put an emphasis in getting it wrong:innocent:

El Salsero Gringo
21st-February-2006, 10:54 AM
And what I'm saying is that "in the absence of proper leading" the follower is told which foot is the correct one to move. This means that the follower does not get into bad habits. Almost all the instructions given to the follower would be irrelevant in the presence of a proper lead. However, it's a learning situation and the leads can't be expected to get it right every time: in the absence of that proper lead I believe that the follower should be told what to do in a move if they had been led properly - rather than told it doesn't matter!If a new dancer spends the first few months learning that the right (or left) foot is *the* correct one, they're going to have a very much harder time following a lead later on (..."Why is that nasty man trying to lead me back on the wrong foot, Mummy?") than if they learn that whichever foot feels comfortable is OK. In the latter case, all the lead ever has to do is make the desired foot be the most comfortable option, which is the essence of a good lead anyway.

Franck
21st-February-2006, 10:59 AM
Was that the advice that people should get the moves wrong because it doesn't matter?No, but that kind of advice:
Lots of ballroom figures have contra-body motion where the hips and torso go in different directions
There certainly is a best foot to step back on, and it's the one you are led to step back on. Stepping back on the other foot is wrong. and
Although I understand the theory of being able to lead a follower to step back on either foot, it's far too advanced for beginners. Stepping back on the side you get led on seems most natural to me.
All the above agree that the follower should step back on the foot that is led, and you quote that yourself, except that you seem to think that all there is to leading is 'pushing back on her right hand'.

And what I'm saying is that "in the absence of proper leading" the follower is told which foot is the correct one to move. This means that the follower does not get into bad habits. Almost all the instructions given to the follower would be irrelevant in the presence of a proper lead. However, it's a learning situation and the leads can't be expected to get it right every time: in the absence of that proper lead I believe that the follower should be told what to do in a move if they had been led properly - rather than told it doesn't matter!The absence of a proper lead does not mean that no lead is present. Many beginners will try to lead the step back, but before they even start dancing they will have unwittingly led their partner to be balanced on one foot or the other (and many followers do it by themselves if a lead is truly neutral), and this will determine what foot they step back on, much more than which hand is being used for connection.

I'm not saying that MJ needs to be made "more rigid and less flexible". I'm saying that it should be taught correctly with more emphasis on getting it right. IMHO, the advice from the stage that "it doesn't matter which foot" put an emphasis in getting it wrong:innocent:I take the opposite view, and have argued it many times with Lou... :wink: It's a great idea to suggest to beginners that they try stepping on the other foot if it's not working, but I have seen many situations where either foot was the problem and switching worked. Telling them to step back on the foot that doesn't feel comfortable at the start of the dance is the surest way to convince them they have 2 left feet and they do stop attending classes shortly after that, and yes, I care passionately about beginners, I want them to enjoy their first experience of dance, I want to discover the pleasures of partner dancing without being put off too early, and it has nothing to do with money! It really is about watching people smile when they get it after a few weeks, when they look back after a year and see how much progress they've made, when they attend their first week-ender, join the forum, etc... This is what keeps me and most MJ organisers in the job.

By all means, let's discuss ways to improve MJ is already taught, let's have a clearer teaching progression, but let's not randomly adopt any doctrine that says "My way is right, so do it my way or you'll be wrong". MJ is about exploring new directions all the time, and long may it continue.

spindr
21st-February-2006, 11:49 AM
the most important of which is that the follower has been led back with their right hand and this should ALWAYS lead a step back with the right foot.

The same argument suggests that if I want the girl to walk backwards on her left I should then lead with their left hand?

But that means if I want her to keep walking (backwards) right, left, right, etc. -- then I need to keep swapping hands -- seems a bit tricky to me, I always thought the lead moved the follower's "center" not individual legs :)

SpinDr

LMC
21st-February-2006, 12:02 PM
The same argument suggests that if I want the girl to walk backwards on her left I should then lead with their left hand?
See here (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6760) :innocent:

I seem to remember saying on a previous footwork discussion thread that you don't *know* what move is coming up next in freestyle, so the discussion of left/right foot for the first moves seems a bit redundant - I think it's more a case of "pick a foot and stick with it" - I use my right. Even when I'm leading - and so far it seems to work OK :shrug:

ChrisA
21st-February-2006, 01:09 PM
It's a great idea to suggest to beginners that they try stepping on the other foot if it's not working, but I have seen many situations where either foot was the problem and switching worked.
Do you teach them to establish a connection first, when working with them one-to-one?

I've found that as soon as you can get them to give some resistance in the connected arm, they step back on the right much more naturally almost always.

Those that have a nice connection and still step back left (very rare, in itself) seem to be able to do the necessary skip to get on to the right foot for (eg) the first move turn out without any trouble.

Andy McGregor
21st-February-2006, 01:17 PM
By all means, let's discuss ways to improve MJ is already taught, let's have a clearer teaching progression, but let's not randomly adopt any doctrine that says "My way is right, so do it my way or you'll be wrong". MJ is about exploring new directions all the time, and long may it continue.To some extent I'm not saying what's right, I'm saying what I think it wrong. One way we can improve the way MJ is taught is to stop telling people things that are wrong. Not saying which foot you should move is not wrong, not worrying too much if a beginner moves the wrong foot is not wrong - but saying, from the stage that it doesn't matter which foot you move is COMPLETELY WRONG*.

*IMHO:innocent:

Andy McGregor
21st-February-2006, 01:19 PM
The same argument suggests that if I want the girl to walk backwards on her left I should then lead with their left hand?

But that means if I want her to keep walking (backwards) right, left, right, etc. -- then I need to keep swapping hands -- seems a bit tricky to me, I always thought the lead moved the follower's "center" not individual legs :)

SpinDrThis, of course, forgets the basic MJ footwork. The footwork goes RLRLRLRLRLRL, etc. And as ESG, so rightly says, there's the whole contra thingy you can use.

ChrisA
21st-February-2006, 01:20 PM
But that means if I want her to keep walking (backwards) right, left, right, etc. -- then I need to keep swapping hands -- seems a bit tricky to me,

It doesn't mean anything of the sort - that is just fatuous. Once they've taken one step, if led to continue backwards, they'll obviously step on the next available foot.


I always thought the lead moved the follower's "center" not individual legs :)

More clever-sounding words that just confuse. :mad:

If the lead is going to move the follower's "centre" (straight back), he'll have to push on it. If, on the other hand, the lead is offset from the centre, as you'll find arms and shoulders usually are, there will be a tendency for that lead to initiate a turn as well as a move back.

If the follower chooses to provide the necessary resistance to turning, and move herself from her centre, with indeed, whichever foot is unweighted due to the lead's communication of where he wants her weight to be, all well and good.

But this has nothing to do with teaching beginners.

Lynn
21st-February-2006, 01:22 PM
Oh, a footwork debate - goody!


The follower will step back on the foot as led, or (in the absence of proper leading) will step back on the foot that is available!

The fact that we are holding the follower's right hand is irrelevant, what matters is your partner's weight distribution. If the follower is resting on her right foot prior to the (step back) lead, she will step back on her left because she has no choice, so unless the Leader has the skill and awareness (unlikely in most Beginners classes) to 'lead' a weight-shift first, then she will naturally follow the (step back) lead and use her left foot. This is something I'm becoming very aware of in tango - what foot I am on etc. And a more experienced lead probably could put my weight on whatever foot he wanted and so lead me to step back on a particular foot. A beginner couldn't of course.

I started learning salsa about a week or two before I started learning MJ and perhaps because of that I now automatically step back right. I might try stepping back left to see what happens tomorrow night, though I suspect I'll end up doing a triple step thingy.

spindr
21st-February-2006, 01:23 PM
Based on your own definitions of "a first move" and "a return", Ceroc does teach a consistent and repeatable dance. Where the definition covers footwork, Ceroc teaches it.
Well the footwork in the definitions is based on a modified LeRoc footwork (and I believe also used in Oz) -- that anticlockwise turns are danced stepping back on the right leg, turning on the left leg (as the right leg closes and changes weight) and stepping back on the left leg. Clockwise turns are mirrored.

If you believe that the last step of a return is in fact now the first step of a first move, then the lady will be stepped back on the left foot as the first step of a first move.

If you want the lady stepped back on the right foot as the first step of a first move, then you need to adjust the footwork for the return as well. To be consistent :)

SpinDr.

LMC
21st-February-2006, 01:23 PM
Do you teach them to establish a connection first, when working with them one-to-one?
My total lack of connection as a beginner is a recent enough memory for me to a) recognise it in others and b) believe that this is the critical thing that is missing from most beginner teaching - no matter which foot you're stepping back on or which move you are doing.

Franck
21st-February-2006, 01:25 PM
Do you teach them to establish a connection first, when working with them one-to-one?I meant to reply to a similar post you made earlier too.

Teaching one to one (in the Taxi revision class or later on in the night) is very different from teaching from the stage and you can see people getting frustrated because they think they are stepping on the wrong foot.
Being able to reassure everyone at once that it truly doesn't matter which foot they step back on in the class, and whatever feels comfortable will be right is a huge bonus and the beginners are then able to concentrate on the rest of the move / class without worrying.

A lot of the good advice that can be given (usually with hands on demonstration) during a revision class, or during the freestyle if a beginner asks for help is simply not practical in a large class where everyone understands different things, or might not be paying enough attention, or indeed where a poor lead might make them do the opposite of what you're trying to teach. This is why we need to keep the classes as simple and un-ambiguous as possible and hope that good teachers, taxi-dancers and other good dancers will catch our beginners later on and help them get good habits.

LMC
21st-February-2006, 01:28 PM
All the beginners' review classes I went to (and I did at least 8 over at least four different venues, plus two workshops before I moved up to intermediate) were purely move based. Content of beginner support varies widely between franchisees and even between venues.

spindr
21st-February-2006, 01:38 PM
and hope that good teachers, taxi-dancers and other good dancers will catch our beginners later on and help them get good habits.
"Teaching" by osmosis? :devil:

Franck
21st-February-2006, 01:41 PM
It doesn't mean anything of the sort - that is just fatuous. Once they've taken one step, if led to continue backwards, they'll obviously step on the next available foot. Yes, that is exactly the issue, the follower (whether they are a beginner or an experienced dancer) will continue on the next available foot. If that concept works in a walk, it also applies for the first step and will really depend on which foot the follower is waiting to start the dance on.
Some people are naturally resting on their left foot when standing, others will be on their right. In some cases, whether led or not, the man will influence which side is partner is balanced on by his body language, by a side to side swing of the hand, by his own stance (then mirrorred by his partner), etc... From that point on, if the man leads a step back, the follower will take a step back on the next available foot (right or left).

But this has nothing to do with teaching beginners.It has plenty to do with teaching Beginners as they won't understand why the instruction given by the teacher (step back on your right foot) feels wrong sometime, and they will start blaming themselves and assume that they have two left feet. They will also spend most of the class fighting with their feet to get them the 'alleged correct way' and miss other good advice in the class... :sad:

JonD
21st-February-2006, 01:44 PM
Content of beginner support varies widely between franchisees and even between venues.
And even between individual coaches/taxis at the same venue. I know that there is a wide variation in the way the different coaches in Exeter run their review classes - dependent on personality, confidence, experience. While none of us concentrate on just teaching the moves (we all provide advice on lead/follow, spins, technique) there are some dramatic differences in the way we achieve it. We get the same training but we all implement it differently - and I did my formal training 4 years ago so I guess I've evolved all sorts of bad habits!

It's something I'll talk to Nelson about - I suspect we should have a greater degree of standardisation of content while still leaving room for the coaches to develop their own style of delivery and cater to the needs of individual beginners.

It's a tricky one: how does the teacher evaluate review classes when s/he's busy on the stage teaching a class. Ah, I know: I'll offer to become "Inspector of Coaches". The power .......

Tessalicious
21st-February-2006, 01:45 PM
Content of beginner support varies widely between franchisees and even between venues.Of course it does - and yes, that is a problem, but the nature of the taxi-dancer is that, without consistent training, there will always be an inconsistent output. However, there are very few venues where there are never any experienced dancers, and those dancers can usually discern those beginners who can benefit from extra tips during review and freestyle, and those who really won't understand more than the moves that are being taught, and will need a few weeks to cope with even that much. A review class may have to cater for the apparent majority group, and pick out those with more potential later.

Back on the main topic, I personally think it would be a real shame for this one dance-form which seems accessible to the general public, which screams 'fun' at anyone who sees it being danced, and which has so much innate expressive versatility, to take on a structure which might in any way restrict that, and put it just that little bit more out of reach of those people who want to learn to dance but for whom the structure of ballroom, salsa etc is too scary/boring/complicated. Maybe MJ/Ceroc does suffer a little by losing its top level dancers to those other dance forms, but the benefits of its immediate accessibility are not just to the company, they're to every one of those 'two left feet' dancers who now enjoy dancing every week.

Andy McGregor
21st-February-2006, 01:59 PM
Oh, a footwork debate - goody!
:yeah:

Andy McGregor
21st-February-2006, 02:05 PM
I meant to reply to a similar post you made earlier too.

Teaching one to one (in the Taxi revision class or later on in the night) is very different from teaching from the stage and you can see people getting frustrated because they think they are stepping on the wrong foot.
Being able to reassure everyone at once that it truly doesn't matter which foot they step back on in the class, and whatever feels comfortable will be right is a huge bonus and the beginners are then able to concentrate on the rest of the move / class without worrying.

A lot of the good advice that can be given (usually with hands on demonstration) during a revision class, or during the freestyle if a beginner asks for help is simply not practical in a large class where everyone understands different things, or might not be paying enough attention, or indeed where a poor lead might make them do the opposite of what you're trying to teach. This is why we need to keep the classes as simple and un-ambiguous as possible and hope that good teachers, taxi-dancers and other good dancers will catch our beginners later on and help them get good habits.This might be true (might be :wink: ) for classes where everyone is a complete beginner. However, in most beginners classes there are mixed abilities. To say "it doesn't matter which foot" to someone who can select the foot they step back or and can lead the foot their follower steps back on cannot be right and will be confusing. I'm not even advocating that the teacher says which foot us use, what I'm saying is that saying it doesn't matter is wrong on so many levels that is shouldn't be said.

Gadget
21st-February-2006, 02:14 PM
...but saying, from the stage that it doesn't matter which foot you move is COMPLETELY WRONG*.

*IMHO:innocent:
How about not just saying it, but demostrating it?
Any time I have heard the above line (many, many, many times) it is normally assosciated with a demonstration of what it looks like on one foot and then the other, with any half-beat changes highlighted.

It really dosn't matter, as long as you can move your body into the right position without a) falling over b) getting trod on c) tredding on someone else. (even then, I'm not convinced about b and c :whistle: )

Franck
21st-February-2006, 02:16 PM
what I'm saying is that saying it doesn't matter is wrong on so many levels that is shouldn't be said.I still haven't seen any compelling reasons why it would be wrong!
I have given many reasons why telling beginners that it doesn't matter will help them learn better.
I have also debated many times in the past that both feet have their advantages and drawbacks, so in my opinion, it really does not matter in the collective sense, yes, individuals will benefit from stepping back on one or the other, depending on whether the skills they find easiest and most natural, but overall, few beginners will agree on what foot is the most natural / comfortable and practical, so we might as well let them know that their choice will work.

What possible drawbacks are created by telling beginners that it doesn't matter?
Those who are able to choose which foot to step back on will think their choice is the correct one, and might even start telling other beginners that they should step back on their right / left because it is much easier for them, beginners will then have the reassurance that if one foot doesn't work, they can try the other and get on with it.

Donna
21st-February-2006, 02:24 PM
Some people are naturally resting on their left foot when standing, others will be on their right.

And this might have something to do with being left or right handed. I'm right handed and always feel as though I want to use my right foot first. Using my left feels strange especially when starting off. As Chris said, it's all about resistance. If it's mans left hand to ladys right, and he wants to lead her back say, then of course, there is more pressure on her right hand side of her body making her step back on her right. It all depends on the lead as to which foot the lady steps on in order to make dancing more consistent. Trying West Coast Swing is very good for putting this into practice and I think this could be the reason why there seems to be WCS coming into MJ now.

LMC
21st-February-2006, 02:24 PM
When I'm taxi-ing, I just issue a collection of the best advice I ever had - not necessarily all at once. Which is

that footwork *does* matter for *some* moves/steps (e.g. followers pivot on the left, step on the right for the turn out on the first move if this comes up), but that footwork is something they really don't need to worry about at this stage
pick a foot to do the first step back and stick with it - consistency is good
that most people find it easier to turn clockwise on the right, a/c on the left on turns and spins (and demo/practice)
that your feet are rather attached to your body, and one way or another, will follow what you're doing - no need to think about them too hard or watch them intently to ensure that they do as they are told.


This seems to be enough to reassure most people that they aren't "missing anything" or being condescended to but not so much that they can't take it in.

Dancing Teeth
21st-February-2006, 02:36 PM
I still haven't seen any compelling reasons why it would be wrong!
I have given many reasons why telling beginners that it doesn't matter will help them learn better.
I have also debated many times in the past that both feet have their advantages and drawbacks, so in my opinion, it really does not matter in the collective sense, yes, individuals will benefit from stepping back on one or the other, depending on whether the skills they find easiest and most natural, but overall, few beginners will agree on what foot is the most natural / comfortable and practical, so we might as well let them know that their choice will work.

What possible drawbacks are created by telling beginners that it doesn't matter?
Those who are able to choose which foot to step back on will think their choice is the correct one, and might even start telling other beginners that they should step back on their right / left because it is much easier for them, beginners will then have the reassurance that if one foot doesn't work, they can try the other and get on with it.


I go for girls back on the right foot without a doubt.
There is a girl I sometimes dance with in Brighton, she constantly steps back on her left and she's as difficult to lead as Hell.
I suggested for her to try stepping back on the right and everything was fixed, including my lead. :innocent:

Dancing Teeth
21st-February-2006, 02:53 PM
I go for girls back on the right foot without a doubt.
There is a girl I sometimes dance with in Brighton, she constantly steps back on her left and she's as difficult to lead as Hell.
I suggested for her to try stepping back on the right and everything was fixed, including my lead. :innocent:


The other thing is our much loved Semicircle to the Left and Step back is really to show that you as the leader has started moving. I does nothing for leading the follower in the right place. What I generally do nowadays is gently push. That way, my intentions are clear...

Dancing Teeth
21st-February-2006, 02:57 PM
The other thing is our much loved Semicircle to the Left and Step back is really to show that you as the leader has started moving. I does nothing for leading the follower in the right place. What I generally do nowadays is gently push. That way, my intentions are clear...


I think I may have found the Culprit... Semicircle

Andy McGregor
21st-February-2006, 02:58 PM
What possible drawbacks are created by telling beginners that it doesn't matter?
Those who are able to choose which foot to step back on will think their choice is the correct one, and might even start telling other beginners that they should step back on their right / left because it is much easier for them, beginners will then have the reassurance that if one foot doesn't work, they can try the other and get on with it.Drawback 1 = they might choose the wrong foot which will create problems in the future.

Drawback 2 = most classes do not contain beginners alone. They also contain people who really would benefit from knowing which foot to move - and that there is a right and wrong foot.

Drawback 3 = the people in the class tell other people to step back with the wrong foot.

Drawback 4 = As Viktor says, stepping back with the wrong foot doesn't work.


I go for girls back on the right foot without a doubt.
There is a girl I sometimes dance with in Brighton, she constantly steps back on her left and she's as difficult to lead as Hell.
I suggested for her to try stepping back on the right and everything was fixed, including my lead. I just hope she wasn't one of the people I taught :blush:

El Salsero Gringo
21st-February-2006, 02:59 PM
I think I may have found the Culprit... SemicircleDoes *anyone* actually do a semicircle while they're dancing?

Andy McGregor
21st-February-2006, 03:00 PM
The other thing is our much loved Semicircle to the Left and Step back is really to show that you as the leader has started moving. I does nothing for leading the follower in the right place. What I generally do nowadays is gently push. That way, my intentions are clear...And a gentle push into the followers right hand should result in a step back with the right foot. How hard is that to say and how hard is that to do for a beginner? :confused:

Dancing Teeth
21st-February-2006, 03:01 PM
Does *anyone* actually do a semicircle while they're dancing?


No Dude, this is at the start. It you start Wrong, were will the rest of the dancing go...:innocent:

Andy McGregor
21st-February-2006, 03:01 PM
Does *anyone* actually do a semicircle while they're dancing?I think it gets translated into a bounce :whistle:

El Salsero Gringo
21st-February-2006, 03:06 PM
No Dude, this is at the start. It you start Wrong, were will the rest of the dancing go...:innocent:Clearly this is what I am doing wrong since I have no idea where my dancing goes! I blame that guy who taught me when I started - used to teach at the Jive Bar - with the teeth. Had a foreign lady with blonde curly hair to demonstrate for him.

Dancing Teeth
21st-February-2006, 03:11 PM
Clearly this is what I am doing wrong since I have no idea where my dancing goes! I blame that guy who taught me when I started - used to teach at the Jive Bar - with the teeth. Had a foreign lady with blonde curly hair to demonstrate for him.

Now Now... you can't blame your parents for everything....:grin: :cheers:

Franck
21st-February-2006, 03:24 PM
Drawback 1 = they might choose the wrong foot which will create problems in the future.Making them step back on any specific foot will create problems for the future as ESG pointed out earlier:
If a new dancer spends the first few months learning that the right (or left) foot is *the* correct one, they're going to have a very much harder time following a lead later on (..."Why is that nasty man trying to lead me back on the wrong foot, Mummy?") than if they learn that whichever foot feels comfortable is OK. In the latter case, all the lead ever has to do is make the desired foot be the most comfortable option, which is the essence of a good lead anyway.


Drawback 2 = most classes do not contain beginners alone. They also contain people who really would benefit from knowing which foot to move - and that there is a right and wrong foot.As above, those people would benefit from learning to follow better and a better inner connection to follow any lead, rather than anticipating with a pre-determined footwork.

Drawback 3 = the people in the class tell other people to step back with the wrong foot.indeed, and in some cases they might actually help by doing so.
Once again: Both feet work, right and left. For some people one foot will work better, than the other, but you can't apply one rule for all.

Drawback 4 = As Viktor says, stepping back with the wrong foot doesn't work.and that would be wonderful if everybody could agree on the wrong foot!
Viktor's example is another specific, in the same way that by helping Beginners in the Taxi revision class you can improve their dancing considerably, and yes in that case I would also ask them to try a different foot, or work out why they were not following correctly in the first place. I expect that they didn't have a very good connection (either inner -arm travelling independently of their body- or with their partner) to start with, and making them change their footwork is only a temporary fix. It will get them through the move, but will not solve the underlying problem!

ChrisA
21st-February-2006, 03:26 PM
Clearly this is what I am doing wrong since I have no idea where my dancing goes! I blame that guy who taught me when I started - used to teach at the Jive Bar - with the teeth. Had a foreign lady with blonde curly hair to demonstrate for him.
Blimey, you weren't watching him, were you???

All the people that went on to be good dancers were watching her.... :drool: :devil:

Anyway, it was at the Jive Bar that all the trouble started... at the Central Club he had a decent taxi-dancer to fix all the problems he caused... :whistle:

TheTramp
21st-February-2006, 03:28 PM
Blimey, you weren't watching him, were you???

All the people that went on to be good dancers were watching her.... :drool: :devil:
Ah. That explains it. I was watching him too. Well, most of the time :rolleyes:


Anyway, it was at the Jive Bar that all the trouble he caused started... at the Central Club he had a decent taxi-dancer to fix all the problems he caused... :whistle:
You've really been dancing that long Chris?? :eek: You'd have thought that you'd know what you were doing by now :whistle: :flower:

ChrisA
21st-February-2006, 03:31 PM
Anyway, history apart, we now have the illustrious trio of Nigel, Amir, and Viktor who all teach right foot back for the girls.

Does anyone see a pattern here? :whistle:

ChrisA
21st-February-2006, 03:33 PM
You've really been dancing that long Chris?? :eek: You'd have thought that you'd know what you were doing by now :whistle: :flower:
You can shut it, and all. Like you can talk, still a beginner after all this time :wink:

ducasi
21st-February-2006, 03:33 PM
And this might have something to do with being left or right handed. I'm right handed and always feel as though I want to use my right foot first. ... I'm left-handed and usually step back on my left... But the few times I've tried following, I've surprised myself by stepping back right. I put it down to being led to step back on my right, but who knows? :)

El Salsero Gringo
21st-February-2006, 03:34 PM
Anyway, history apart, we now have the illustrious trio of Nigel, Amir, and Viktor who all teach right foot back for the girls.

Does anyone see a pattern here? :whistle:Yes. They all teach (probably) fairly small, independent classes.

Donna
21st-February-2006, 03:39 PM
The other thing is our much loved Semicircle to the Left and Step back is really to show that you as the leader has started moving. I does nothing for leading the follower in the right place. What I generally do nowadays is gently push. That way, my intentions are clear...



And that's exactly how it should be!:respect: I mean gently push, not semicircle. Yuk!

TheTramp
21st-February-2006, 03:43 PM
Yes. They all teach (probably) fairly small, independent classes.
Was that:

teach (probably)

or:

(probably) fairly small .....

I'm assuming the latter. I'm sure that you wouldn't be casting aspersions on that illustrious trio of names.... :rolleyes:

clevedonboy
21st-February-2006, 03:45 PM
Anyway, history apart, we now have the illustrious trio of Nigel, Amir, and Viktor who all teach right foot back for the girls.

Does anyone see a pattern here? :whistle:


mmm ... are they all members of the GB 4 man bobsleigh team?

El Salsero Gringo
21st-February-2006, 03:47 PM
Was that:

teach (probably)

or:

(probably) fairly small .....

I'm assuming the latter. I'm sure that you wouldn't be casting aspersions on that illustrious trio of names.... :rolleyes:Oh, I'm sure they teach. At least they did the last time I attended any of their classes, which were all very good. But not necessarily aimed at beginners.

ChrisA
21st-February-2006, 04:09 PM
Yes. They all teach (probably) fairly small, independent classes.
Regarding class size, that would only be true of Amir, I think. And I'd be surprised if he suddenly starts teaching it differently at weekenders. Certainly Nigel's class at Hipsters in the early days was huge, and AFAIK Viktor gets quite a few on the south coast - maybe he can confirm.

Andy McGregor
21st-February-2006, 04:12 PM
loads of stuff saying it doesn't matter what foot you move first

Anyway, history apart, we now have the illustrious trio of Nigel, Amir, and Viktor who all teach right foot back for the girls.

Does anyone see a pattern here? :whistle:In the one corner we have Ceroc and in the other we have Viktor, Amir and Nigel (and ChrisA and me, but we'd need to be punching above our weight in this company)


Yes. They all teach (probably) fairly small, independent classes.It depends on what you call fairly small. Viktor teachers a beginners lesson in Hove every Friday night - gets about 60 people, with another 40 or so joining for the intermediate. Last Thursday in Shoreham Nigel taught a beginners lesson as my guest teacher to 80 for the beginners 120 for the intermediate. And yes, Nigel did teach the first move - guess which foot he said the ladies should step back with :whistle:

N.B. This thread is about the need for a formal structure in MJ. I think it proves that there is a need for a formal structure in MJ. And I think it proves that Ceroc is unlikely to come up with anything that could be described as formal. After all, how formal is "do what you like it, doesn't really matter so long as you're having fun and giving me £7" :devil:

ChrisA
21st-February-2006, 04:20 PM
In the one corner we have Ceroc and in the other we have Viktor, Amir and Nigel (and ChrisA and me, but we'd need to be punching above our weight in this company)

...Viktor teachers a beginners lesson in Hove every Friday night - gets about 60 people ... Nigel taught a beginners lesson to 80 for the beginners ...and yes, Nigel did teach the first move - guess which foot he said the ladies should step back with :whistle:


Left or right, I reckon the "it doesn't matter" lot are on the back foot, now.. :devil:

ChrisA
21st-February-2006, 04:25 PM
Joking apart, I do think talking ONLY about whether left or right back is best, in the context of making things easier, is very shortsighted.

I commented here (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/showpost.php?p=205560&postcount=126) on the complicated footwork beginners often have to invent for themselves when they step forward again.

Any discussion of what makes the dance more accessible to beginners should include this - the step back is just the beginning. If they then have to work extra hard to get to the right place a few counts later, I would contend that any alleged advantage in getting them to step back is completely negated when they have to skip and jump to get to - for instance - the turn out in the first move.

El Salsero Gringo
21st-February-2006, 04:26 PM
It depends on what you call fairly small. Viktor teachers a beginners lesson in Hove every Friday night - gets about 60 people, with another 40 or so joining for the intermediate. Last Thursday in Shoreham Nigel taught a beginners lesson as my guest teacher to 80 for the beginners 120 for the intermediate. And yes, Nigel did teach the first move - guess which foot he said the ladies should step back with :whistle:I could equally well point out that Nigel's last class at Hipsters was tiny - was that because of footwork? Who knows. But guest spots at other venues don't really prove anything.
N.B. This thread is about the need for a formal structure in MJ. I think it proves that there is a need for a formal structure in MJ.And how do you draw that astonishing conclusion from this thread? All this thread proves is that you and ChrisA think that. It doesn't indicate - let alone prove - anything else at all.
And I think it proves that Ceroc is unlikely to come up with anything that could be described as formal. After all, how formal is "do what you like it, doesn't really matter so long as you're having fun and giving me £7" :devil:You forgot to say "please".

stewart38
21st-February-2006, 04:34 PM
mmm ... are they all members of the GB 4 man bobsleigh team?

This has taken a slipery slope for the worse

Anyway why does formal structure mean footwork

How about classes starting and finishing on Time thats a good structure to keep to

What percentage of people who start 'jive' still do it after a year against Tango /Salsa etc Now that would be interesting

TheTramp
21st-February-2006, 04:38 PM
How about classes starting and finishing on Time thats a good structure to keep to

:yeah:

Definitely one of the things that really bugs me. More structure I say!! :respect:

Donna
21st-February-2006, 04:43 PM
How about classes starting and finishing on Time thats a good structure to keep to

Hey if you get frustrated with classes not starting and finishing on time...you should come to mine. :mad: He tells everyone it starts at 7.45...7.45, he's still far ting about with the gear. Class doesn't actually start until 8.00 and then by the time he starts the intermediate (which he tries to make up on the spur of the moment :angry: ) it means finishing late and then NOT MUCH FREESTYLE!!!! :tears:

TheTramp
21st-February-2006, 04:46 PM
Indeed.

I wonder how many people would prefer less class, and more freestyle.... :rolleyes:

Tessalicious
21st-February-2006, 04:49 PM
I wonder how many people would prefer less classAnd I dread to think what the world would come to if Trampy had even less class...

David Bailey
21st-February-2006, 04:50 PM
Anyway, history apart, we now have the illustrious trio of Nigel, Amir, and Viktor who all teach right foot back for the girls.

Does anyone see a pattern here? :whistle:
They've all got an "i" in their name? :innocent:

El Salsero Gringo
21st-February-2006, 04:50 PM
Anyway why does formal structure mean footworkThat was Viktor's example in the opening post of the thread. What else would you formalise? There's that and medal tests.

Donna
21st-February-2006, 04:52 PM
Indeed.

I wonder how many people would prefer less class, and more freestyle.... :rolleyes:


I'm the first to put my hand up to that. Or how about..dance nights should run for longer. Not finish at 10.30 but 11.30 instead. I'm sure a lot of people would choose to stay longer as well. At least they have a choice as to whether to stay late or leave the usual time.

Andy McGregor
21st-February-2006, 05:04 PM
And how do you draw that astonishing conclusion from this thread?Sorry, I wasn't clear. What this thread proves is that currently there is no formal structure in MJ. It's proved to me that one is needed but it might not have proved it to the people who could do something about it.

stewart38
21st-February-2006, 05:08 PM
That was Viktor's example in the opening post of the thread. What else would you formalise? There's that and medal tests.

Uniformed start times as mentioned

Donna
21st-February-2006, 05:11 PM
Sorry, I wasn't clear. What this thread proves is that currently there is no formal structure in MJ. It's proved to me that one is needed but it might not have proved it to the people who could do something about it.

It think it will in a few years time...if the WCS stays as popular as it is amongst MJers at the moment.

Andy McGregor
21st-February-2006, 05:11 PM
I'm the first to put my hand up to that. Or how about..dance nights should run for longer. Not finish at 10.30 but 11.30 instead. I'm sure a lot of people would choose to stay longer as well. At least they have a choice as to whether to stay late or leave the usual time.About a month ago we changed the finish time at Shoreham to 11.30pm. The first week we only had twenty or so stay to the end. Last week we still had about 60 people at the end of the night. That meant that more than 50% left before the end :tears: As the organiser it was a bit scary to see so many people leaving early so I asked them why - most people cited an early start the next day rather than anything wrong with our night :phew:

Donna
21st-February-2006, 05:14 PM
About a month ago we changed the finish time at Shoreham to 11.30pm. The first week we only had twenty or so stay to the end. Last week we still had about 60 people at the end of the night. That meant that more than 50% left before the end :tears: As the organiser it was a bit scary to see so many people leaving early so I asked them why - most people cited an early start the next day rather than anything wrong with our night :phew:

What about finishing at 11? Or you could start the class a bit earlier and then finish a bit later to add that extra 1/2 freestyle. I'm sure you won't get more thatn 50% people leaving then surely?

TheTramp
21st-February-2006, 05:18 PM
And I dread to think what the world would come to if Trampy had even less class...

Hey. No fair. I did a class a week last Saturday*.... :rolleyes:






*Yes, I chose to deliberately misunderstand what it was that you were saying. And to think that I gave you rep recently too! :tears:

Andy McGregor
21st-February-2006, 05:20 PM
What about finishing at 11? Or you could start the class a bit earlier and then finish a bit later to add that extra 1/2 freestyle. I'm sure you won't get more thatn 50% people leaving then surely?We've always finished at 11pm. To give people a 3 hour night and finish at 10.30 pm would require a 7.30 start. As so many of our dancers commute we need to start at 8pm to ensure everyone is there on time to start the lesson. On the subject of lesson start times, I ALWAYS start on time. Once you let the start time slip you're on a slippery slope. There is a tempatation to start later, especially if you've still got people coming in the door. The result is that people start to get there late because you start late. And then you start later, so they get there even later. Who knows where it would end?

On the subject of finishing at 11.30pm, we're going to keep this up. The main reason is that it gives me a chance to have more freestyle. So long as there's partners for me I'm going to keep the doors open and the music playing.

stewart38
21st-February-2006, 05:21 PM
Sorry, I wasn't clear. What this thread proves is that currently there is no formal structure in MJ. It's proved to me that one is needed but it might not have proved it to the people who could do something about it.


What re lack of foot work ?

Ceroc with its national regimented presence has a lot formal structure

Walk into any ceroc venue in the country and you would know what it is

Now my limited exposure to Salsa with their 4 different classes all at the same time and not hearing what was being said has a lot less

Dreadful Scathe
21st-February-2006, 05:23 PM
that your feet are rather attached to your body, and one way or another, will follow what you're doing - no need to think about them too hard or watch them intently to ensure that they do as they are told.

nonsense. The ability to direct your feet without looking at them is clearly related to the skill and/or attractiveness of your dance partner and/or the number of triple vodkas you've had ;)

Donna
21st-February-2006, 05:25 PM
nonsense. The ability to direct your feet without looking at them is clearly related to the skill and/or attractiveness of your dance partner and/or the number of triple vodkas you've had ;)

:rofl:

Andy McGregor
21st-February-2006, 05:27 PM
Walk into any ceroc venue in the country and you would know what it is
And they wouldn't mind which one of your feet came across their threshold first. However, the question was about a formal structure in MJ. We know Ceroc has a structure. However, that structure is more about the way the night is run. In my experience the actual dance they teach has less structure than the dance taught at most independent nights. Ceroc is the only place I've heard those immortal words "it doesn't matter which foot".

Donna
21st-February-2006, 05:28 PM
And they wouldn't mind which one of your feet came across their threshold first. However, the question was about a formal structure in MJ. We know Ceroc has a structure. However, that structure is more about the way the night is run. In my experience the actual dance they teach has less structure than the dance taught at most independent nights. Ceroc is the only place I've heard those immortal words "it doesn't matter which foot".


I've heard those words too many times too.

Dreadful Scathe
21st-February-2006, 05:35 PM
I've heard those words too many times too.
not as many times as "put your hand on her WAIST! Its lower down!!"

Donna
21st-February-2006, 05:47 PM
not as many times as "put your hand on her WAIST! Its lower down!!"


Yeah! Some of these men don't know the difference between a womens waist and arse. :rolleyes:

Andy McGregor
21st-February-2006, 06:16 PM
Yeah! Some of these men don't know the difference between a womens waist and arse. :rolleyes:When the female Smurf is considered, this is quite a difficult job. Even more so as it's quite difficult to tell the male and female of the species apart. One method is to feel their beard. The beard of the female smurf is softer than the male - the arses of male and female smurfs are the same and difficut to avoid as 72.9% of the surface area of a smurf is, in fact, arse :innocent:

Andy McGregor
21st-February-2006, 06:22 PM
I thought it was time for a poll on the "it doesn't matter which foot" debate. Here (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7818) it is.

Donna
21st-February-2006, 06:25 PM
When the female Smurf is considered, this is quite a difficult job. Even more so as it's quite difficult to tell the male and female of the species apart. One method is to feel their beard. The beard of the female smurf is softer than the male - the arses of male and female smurfs are the same and difficut to avoid as 72.9% of the surface area of a smurf is, in fact, arse :innocent:


:rofl:

Robin
22nd-February-2006, 01:31 PM
I thought it was time for a poll on the "it doesn't matter which foot" debate. Here (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7818) it is.

And the current results show what exactly ?

A third of people think it doesn't matter,
another third think it should be the right foot
a sixth think its the left foot
and the last sixth have a sense of humour

Yet another poll that demonstrates the clear unified opinion of dancers!

Andy McGregor
22nd-February-2006, 03:56 PM
And the current results show what exactly ?

A third of people think it doesn't matter,
another third think it should be the right foot
a sixth think its the left foot
and the last sixth have a sense of humour

Yet another poll that demonstrates the clear unified opinion of dancers!The poll shows that those who think the followers should step back right are in the majority. It also shows that a minority, albeit a large one, think that it doesn't matter which foot. But this is far too democratic for the dictatorship that is Ceroc so it's probably up to us independents to introduce a formal structure into MJ. But is it worth bothering when Ceroc won't play ball? Did someone say LeRoc Federation? They're a typical committee, IMHO. It's unlikely they'll agree to anything, anytime soon.

Robin
22nd-February-2006, 04:33 PM
The poll shows that those who think the followers should step back right are in the majority. It also shows that a minority, albeit a large one, think that it doesn't matter which foot. But this is far too democratic for the dictatorship that is Ceroc so it's probably up to us independents to introduce a formal structure into MJ.

I would have said that 4 votes hardly constitutes a majority . However, you've mentioned dictatorship ..... isn't that why people start their independant nights - so they can do what they like ? Or because they think they can do it better ?

Methinks you can do what you like - as can most Ceroc Franchisees ... they have the same choices as any businessperson has with regards to running their business - along with guidelines and help asssistance in getting things going - which as an independant you don't.

Ceroc can help setting up a new business in a previously untried area and have more chance of making it work - independants to a large degree, rely on word of mouth and contacts within the existing dance market - as created by others.

David Bailey
22nd-February-2006, 04:39 PM
I would have said that 4 votes hardly constitutes a majority .
"One is a majority", as the saying goes. But so what? This forum is hardly representative of anything except itself.


Methinks you can do what you like - as can most Ceroc Franchisees ... they have the same choices as any businessperson has with regards to running their business - along with guidelines and help asssistance in getting things going - which as an independant you don't.

Ceroc can help setting up a new business in a previously untried area and have more chance of making it work
Ooh, I'm almost tempted to become a franchisee myself now :na:


independants to a large degree, rely on word of mouth and contacts within the existing dance market - as created by others.
Yeah, independents are Evil Parasites. Especially the ones in West London, burning's too good for them. :whistle:

ChrisA
22nd-February-2006, 04:42 PM
However, you've mentioned dictatorship ..... isn't that why people start their independant nights - so they can do what they like ? Or because they think they can do it better ?

But this is far too democratic for the dictatorship that is Ceroc

Please let's not let loose language provoke a degeneration of a good discussion into a Ceroc vs The Independents slanging match.

Robin
22nd-February-2006, 05:24 PM
Please let's not let loose language provoke a degeneration of a good discussion into a Ceroc vs The Independents slanging match.

Damn !!! ... rumbled!

Donna
22nd-February-2006, 06:25 PM
Ooh, I'm almost tempted to become a franchisee myself now :na:


I'm sure you would do it really well too. Gotta have a few grand to start off with!

David Bailey
22nd-February-2006, 07:28 PM
I'm sure you would do it really well too. Gotta have a few grand to start off with!
It's not the money, it's the Submission To The Will Of The Collective that would stop me.
Oh, and being really lazy, of course.
And not really fancying it.
And... :innocent:

Andy McGregor
22nd-February-2006, 07:35 PM
I would have said that 4 votes hardly constitutes a majority In the world of first past the post it does. Also, more than 50% means an overall majority. But, as I said, Ceroc is not a Democracy so voting makes no difference - especially when the voting panel is a self-selected group of people who are completely unrepresentative of the dancing population at large. All we can say is that an overall majority of people who responded to the survey think that followers should step back with their right foot at the start of the first move. Oh and that 4 out of 10 of them/us think it doesn't matter which foot you step back with.

Now, does anyone know how the first move got its name?

Donna
22nd-February-2006, 07:37 PM
It's not the money, it's the Submission To The Will Of The Collective that would stop me.
Oh, and being really lazy, of course.
And not really fancying it.
And... :innocent:

Oh well. There's a lot of money involved in it though. Especially if you independant.:what:

Andy McGregor
22nd-February-2006, 07:40 PM
It's not the money, it's the Submission To The Will Of The Collective that would stop me.
Oh, and being really lazy, of course.
And not really fancying it.
And... :innocent:I think you only need to pretend that you've submitted - at least until the ink on the contract is dry. If you can sleep with a garlic necklace for the rest of your life you can probably avoid assimilation and do pretty much what you like. Some Ceroc franchisees are actually quite nice. For example, Annalisa, the Ceroc Surrey franchisee, has even agreed to be the mother of my next child :whistle:

Of couse it could be some kind of trap :sick:

Donna
22nd-February-2006, 07:42 PM
I think you only need to pretend that you've submitted - at least until the ink on the contract is dry. If you can sleep with a garlic necklace for the rest of your life you can probably avoid assimilation and do pretty much what you like. Some Ceroc franchisees are actually quite nice. For example, Annalisa, the Ceroc Surrey franchisee, has even agreed to be the mother of my next child :whistle:

Of couse it could be some kind of trap :sick:


:eek:

David Bailey
22nd-February-2006, 09:50 PM
Oh well. There's a lot of money involved in it though. Especially if you independant.:what:
:rofl: That reminds me of an interview I did a few weeks back - the guy (interviewee, mind - someone looking for a job from us...) was trying to persuade us (a very successful software company) to change business and go into e-learning, despite our having zero experience in that field. "There's a lot of money in e-learning, you know", he assured us.

There's a lot of money in any business, yes, strangely enough. But for some reason, everyone else wants it, and they don't want to give it to me, awkward so-and-sos that they are.

I'll say what I said to the interviewee - I'll stick with what I know, thanks, it works for me.

I'm not convinced that there's a vast amount of money in the MJ dancing business; I reckon there are less than 10 people in the UK making a good fulltime living out of it - and those people are probably the ones who are entrepeneurial enough to make money out of anything they put their hands to. For 99% of the others, it's either a supplementary income, or voluntary work with lots of fringe benefits.


Some Ceroc franchisees are actually quite nice. For example, Annalisa, the Ceroc Surrey franchisee, has even agreed to be the mother of my next child :whistle:
Well, that is, err, nice. Thanks for sharing that.

Andy McGregor
22nd-February-2006, 10:03 PM
Well, that is, err, nice. Thanks for sharing that.Sorry David, I should have broken the news to you more subtly. Just because Annalisa and I are going to try for a baby doesn't mean we can't try too. Just don't tell Annalisa, I told her she was the only one :whistle:

bigdjiver
22nd-February-2006, 11:40 PM
This thread has me thinking about how MJ is taught. What extra is needed? What can be dropped? I have danced with over 100 ladies that have never had any experience of MJ. I had no problem leading any of them through 14 different moves in their first ever MJ dance. No speeches on which foot to step back on. No mention that it is a lead follow dance, we just got on with it. I like whirl-arounds. About 80% of the time I ask the lady to lift her right leg she has lifted her left leg instead. I have attended a few beginners classes where the teacher was out of their depth. The class nevertheless performed the moves. I have been in an intermediate class where the teacher has told us to do something naming the wrong hand whilst performing the move correctly. Those that were listening got it wrong, those that were watching got it right.
The point to all of this is that I suspect that MJ is mostly learnt via non-verbal communication. People are learning more by watching the teachers and the other class members and from contact with their partners that know more. If I am right, then the teacher giving more instructions will be counter-productive. It is possible that we could make teaching more effective by making sure that beginners are separated and stationed between more experienced dancers, and positioned so that they can see the teacher clearly. Maybe we do not need to teach so much, just make sure that the class can see and copy.

El Salsero Gringo
23rd-February-2006, 12:29 AM
the voting panel is a self-selected group of people who are completely unrepresentative of the dancing population at large.You can't deny though that they all look better than you do in a lace and pearl g-string.

Andy McGregor
23rd-February-2006, 01:15 AM
You can't deny though that they all look better than you do in a lace and pearl g-string.Those pearls were sooo uncomfortable while we were waiting for our kebabs - I was thinking that I might have a new use for chilli sauce :devil:

David Bailey
23rd-February-2006, 10:07 AM
If I am right, then the teacher giving more instructions will be counter-productive. It is possible that we could make teaching more effective by making sure that beginners are separated and stationed between more experienced dancers, and positioned so that they can see the teacher clearly. Maybe we do not need to teach so much, just make sure that the class can see and copy.
That's an interesting point - how much of MJ dance teaching is verbal (listening to the teacher), how much is visual (looking at the teacher) and how much is gained from your partner?

My learning is almost all visual - I don't generally listen much to what the teacher's saying, mainly because I'm trying to think about how / if I can use the relevant move. Exceptions are where the move is clearly style-oriented, and the teacher talks about technique - but these are very much the exception.

In addition, the whole "long rows" approach clearly disadvantages those who stay at the back of the rows permanently - and typically, these are the ones who need the most instruction. Hmmm... salsa classes are typically taught in circles - but you're generally talking about much smaller classes, so I don't think these would physically work for Ceroc-sized classes...

El Salsero Gringo
23rd-February-2006, 10:09 AM
Those pearls were sooo uncomfortable while we were waiting for our kebabs - I was thinking that I might have a new use for chilli sauce :devil:That's just 'yeuch'.

stewart38
23rd-February-2006, 10:49 AM
The point to all of this is that I suspect that MJ is mostly learnt via non-verbal communication.

Wasnt much verbal communication re this recent Salsa class :sad:

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


More apologies are in order, to those 20-30 students who turned up at The Rising Sun last Sunday. Unfortunately, due to circumstances beyond our control, the team who were due to be there were unable to make it at the last minute. Our apologies once again and we will make it up to you over the next few weeks.

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

Andy McGregor
23rd-February-2006, 01:48 PM
That's just 'yeuch'.It was your pearls of wisdom that started it ...

Donna
23rd-February-2006, 02:00 PM
I'm not convinced that there's a vast amount of money in the MJ dancing business; I reckon there are less than 10 people in the UK making a good fulltime living out of it - and those people are probably the ones who are entrepeneurial enough to make money out of anything they put their hands to. For 99% of the others, it's either a supplementary income, or voluntary work with lots of fringe benefits.


I know one guy who is a franchisee and runs his own business. He makes loads from both! Must be a very happy man!

El Salsero Gringo
23rd-February-2006, 02:38 PM
It was your pearls of wisdom that started it ......and it just 'snowballed?'

David Bailey
23rd-February-2006, 04:54 PM
I know one guy who is a franchisee and runs his own business. He makes loads from both! Must be a very happy man!
OK, that's one. I can name, ooh, 7 people who I know for a fact make serious cash from it, but they're mainly at the top of the food chain, or large franchise owners... OK, let's be generous and assume there are 20 people then. Still a tiny percentage, however.

El Salsero Gringo
23rd-February-2006, 04:58 PM
Tiny percentage of what, though?

How wide are you casting the net?

David Bailey
23rd-February-2006, 05:01 PM
Tiny percentage of what, though?
My arbitrarily-defined Big Number, of course. Where "Big" = "Big enough to win the argument", naturally. Duh.

Managers of lovely North London Thursday nights are excepted, of course.

LMC
23rd-February-2006, 05:09 PM
Note the careful placement of the word lovely.

It *is* rather a nice venue, looking forward to actually dancing there tonight. And of course introducing basic lead and follow principles to a few unfortunate unsuspecting beginners, even though I won't be in uniform :devil:

Rhythm King
23rd-February-2006, 05:31 PM
Note the careful placement of the word lovely.

It *is* rather a nice venue, looking forward to actually dancing there tonight. And of course introducing basic lead and follow principles to a few unfortunate unsuspecting beginners, even though I won't be in uniform :devil:

Well I didn't realise it was a School Disco Night at Muswell Hill :whistle:

El Salsero Gringo
23rd-February-2006, 05:35 PM
Well I didn't realise it was a School Disco Night at Muswell Hill :whistle:Now there's a thought.

Donna
23rd-February-2006, 05:36 PM
OK, that's one. I can name, ooh, 7 people who I know for a fact make serious cash from it, but they're mainly at the top of the food chain, or large franchise owners... OK, let's be generous and assume there are 20 people then. Still a tiny percentage, however.


I think that depends on what area they are in as to how successful they are at earning loads of cash from it. In a city, I'm sure that's where all the money is. Even in a quiet area where there is not enough dance classes - (and of course, after Strictly Come Dancing,look at the amounts of people now who are looking to try some form of dance) would also be a success.

It's possible that those who don't make much out of it, is those who have a venue where there are also other venues nearby.

LMC
23rd-February-2006, 05:41 PM
Well I didn't realise it was a School Disco Night at Muswell Hill :whistle:
It wasn't school uniform I was talking about :whistle: :devil:

Rhythm King
23rd-February-2006, 05:53 PM
It wasn't school uniform I was talking about :whistle: :devil:
Aw, shucks

David Bailey
23rd-February-2006, 06:10 PM
I think that depends on what area they are in as to how successful they are at earning loads of cash from it. In a city, I'm sure that's where all the money is. Even in a quiet area where there is not enough dance classes - (and of course, after Strictly Come Dancing,look at the amounts of people now who are looking to try some form of dance) would also be a success.

It's possible that those who don't make much out of it, is those who have a venue where there are also other venues nearby.
Sorry, I know I'm diverting the thread here, but it just narks me when people think it's easy to make serious money, by being involved in the MJ dance world as an organiser.

It's a shedload of work, there are a lot of expenses and administration involved, it's a thankless task, and it takes up a vast amount of time, including boring paperwork.

You've got to do marketing, finance, administration, people management, and liaise with everyone from tempramental dance teachers to jobsworth council officers. You've got to compete with both neighbouring franchisees and local independents. You've got to recruit and inspire staff.

In short, you've got to do all the things you need to do with any new business startup, with all the associated risks. Plus, you have to sacrifice your leisure time to do it.

TheTramp
23rd-February-2006, 06:13 PM
Sorry, I know I'm diverting the thread here, but it just narks me when people think it's easy to make serious money, by being involved in the MJ dance world as an organiser.
Nononono.

Surely you just book a hall, and turn up 15 mins before your first class, everything falls into place, and you've made your first million within 12 weeks :rolleyes:

David Bailey
23rd-February-2006, 06:18 PM
Nononono.

Surely you just book a hall, and turn up 15 mins before your first class, everything falls into place, and you've made your first million within 12 weeks :rolleyes:
Indeed - there's a lot of money in that, you know. :innocent:

Donna
23rd-February-2006, 06:22 PM
Sorry, I know I'm diverting the thread here, but it just narks me when people think it's easy to make serious money, by being involved in the MJ dance world as an organiser.

It's a shedload of work, there are a lot of expenses and administration involved, it's a thankless task, and it takes up a vast amount of time, including boring paperwork.

You've got to do marketing, finance, administration, people management, and liaise with everyone from tempramental dance teachers to jobsworth council officers. You've got to compete with both neighbouring franchisees and local independents. You've got to recruit and inspire staff.

In short, you've got to do all the things you need to do with any new business startup, with all the associated risks. Plus, you have to sacrifice your leisure time to do it.


Hmmm..where do you think the word 'busy' comes from. 'Busi-ness :wink:

bigdjiver
24th-February-2006, 06:45 PM
That's an interesting point - how much of MJ dance teaching is verbal (listening to the teacher), how much is visual (looking at the teacher) and how much is gained from your partner?

My learning is almost all visual - I don't generally listen much to what the teacher's saying, mainly because I'm trying to think about how / if I can use the relevant move. Exceptions are where the move is clearly style-oriented, and the teacher talks about technique - but these are very much the exception.

In addition, the whole "long rows" approach clearly disadvantages those who stay at the back of the rows permanently - and typically, these are the ones who need the most instruction. ... I believe that the non-verbal learning may be the dominant mode. When the teacher says "It does not matter which foot ...." I now believe that most newbies will copy teacher or the person next to them. So, in fact, the beginners learn to do it right whilst being reassured that it does not matter if they get it wrong, the best of both worlds for a beginner worried about their performance.

bigdjiver
24th-February-2006, 07:07 PM
I suggested that same sex beginners that come together split up during the class so that they are more likely to have an experienced dancer adjacent that they can learn from. Some beginner guys lose out by hiding at the back of the class where they can neither see the teacher or be seen and corrected (not as an individual). I forget who suggested the remedy, which is to rotate the guys a couple of times during the class so that they all spend some time near the stage. This is especially relevant when footwork is being taught.

Andybroom
24th-February-2006, 08:02 PM
I forget who suggested the remedy, which is to rotate the guys a couple of times during the class so that they all spend some time near the stage. This is especially relevant when footwork is being taught.

Actually that's not a bad idea for all classes. Being stuck at the back not able to see isn't all that much fun regardless of your dancing skills.

Andy

Gadget
24th-February-2006, 09:27 PM
...as long as you remember to rotate each a different number :rolleyes: