Ceroc style vs technique vs moves

[DavidB]

It has been interesting reading some of these comments. A few random thoughts:

• What do you mean by style?
• Can you learn style if you ignore technique?
• Do you go to a style workshop to develop your own style, or copy someone else's? (Good luck to anyone who can copy Victor & Lydia!!)
• The emphasis in Modern Jive is almost exclusively on doing moves. Contrast this to the emphasis in Ballroom dancing, where the emphasis is on technique, and Lindy (I'm told) & West Coast Swing, where it is on musical interpretation. So can Modern Jive style be defined as how well you make a complicated move look?
• I always think that Modern Jive feels better than it looks. I'm still trying to work out why.
• Are there any Modern Jive couples you would stop dancing so you could watch?

David
PS I didn't go to Victor & Lydia's workshop - it was a bit far... I have seen them dance, and like their style - even if I could never dance like that. I'm not criticising their workshop - I'm more interested in what people think about style, and were expecting from the workshop.

[Gus]

The emphasis in Modern Jive is almost exclusively on doing moves. Contrast this to the emphasis in Ballroom dancing, where the emphasis is on technique, and Lindy (I'm told) & West Coast Swing, where it is on musical interpretation. So can Modern Jive style be defined as how well you make a complicated move look?

For once I may have to disagree (slightly) with Dave. Having had the pleasure of hosting Viktor and Lydia a number of times I would say is that both male and female dancers can learn a hell of a lot about style .... and that doesn'y necessarily mean copying THEIR style.

What V&L have very succesfully shown that even so called 'simple' moves can be made to look something special. I've been dancing longer than I care to remember and have now hit that halcyon level of having forgotten more moves than I know (OK ... partly due to the fact that I have the memory of a small goldfish).. BUT, my best move is now First Move, based on the syle I've picked up from the likes of Viktor and Roger Chin.

Again ... the ladies at our club (Nantwich, Cheshire) made major steps forward in stylish interprestation of the Ceroc moves from following Lydia's lead in making more of their body movement ... and Lydia has body movement that really increases your interest in style .... sorry have to lie down for a moment:sorry

Anyway ... though I apreciate some of the comments made, me and the rest of the North West are eagerly looking forward to V&L's next visit to Cheshire on 27th July. The workshop is already a sell-out and I look forward to seeing the passion for dance increased once more.

[DavidB]

Originally posted by Gus
For once I may have to disagree (slightly) with Dave.

Don't worry about that. Most people disagree with me. Even I don't necessarily agree with myself all the time.

The comment about moves was one made to me by a teacher at Camber last year. He wanted to start teaching something different (he said style and technique), but the pressure from his regular dancers was just to keep teaching moves. If you take Camber as being a good cross-section of dancers from around the country, his situation was not unique. Most people just wanted to learn one move after another, and the flashier the better.

I don't see anything wrong with this (for intermediate dancers). People dance to have fun, and Jive is one of the most enjoyable forms of dancing I know. All you need to do is know a few moves, and you can dance as often as you like, and it feels great. The more moves you know, the more fun you can have.

But if you aspire to being an advanced dancer, you need to know more than moves. You need to understand how to dance, how to move, how to lead/follow etc. You need to understand the music. And you want it to look good. Style is all about how your dancing looks to other people.

Everyone has their own style - it is simply the way you dance. You are the only person who can think, move, feel, act etc the way you do. But there are very few people who naturally have good style - ie who think, move, feel, act etc and make it look good without even thinking about it. Everyone else has to learn.

I think style workshops are a very good idea. Having someone say "I think this looks good. This is how you do it", or "This doesn't look good, so don't do it" can save you a lot of time. You will never dance like the teacher, but they will never dance like you. And it is worth it - you are on the way to being an advanced dancer, not just another intermediate dancer who knows a lot of moves.

To answer my own question - can Modern Jive style be defined as how well you make a complicated move look?
For an intermediate dancer - yes. But for an advanced dancer, style is making a simple move look good, and a complicated move look simple.
(For me - I don't know any complicated moves, and I can't make the simple moves look the way I want them to. So I'm probably a beginner.)

From the sound of it, Gus and Franck should be congratulated for encouraging their dancers to learn more than just another move. And Viktor and Lydia should be congratulated for teaching it, and improving the standard of dancing around the country.

David

[Franck]

Originally posted by DavidB

What do you mean by style?

Style is what makes the dance look good to anyone watching. It is not as clear-cut as that though, as what looks good (especially to your partner) also influences how the dance feels. So looks and feel are inter-mingled.

Can you learn style if you ignore technique?

Of course! The simplest style things you can add to your dance have nothing to do with technique: smiling / eye contact / fun / awareness of the music and musical interpretation will all give you style even if your technique is poor or non-existent (the French are masters in this art: the triumph of confidence over ability!)

Do you go to a style workshop to develop your own style, or copy someone else's? (Good luck to anyone who can copy Victor & Lydia!!)

Initially to copy someone elseÕs style, but it is not a simple matter of dancing like V&L as on their style workshops they teach many different techniques and style points that you can pick and choose from to eventually build your own style based on your current level of ability, personal preference and even body shape!

The emphasis in Modern Jive is almost exclusively on doing moves. Contrast this to the emphasis in Ballroom dancing, where the emphasis is on technique, and Lindy (I'm told) & West Coast Swing, where it is on musical interpretation. So can Modern Jive style be defined as how well you make a complicated move look?

I partially disagree on this point. While we do indeed teach over 500 moves, the emphasis is on getting complete beginners to dance on their first night, and from then on to get them to progress and enjoy themselves very quickly. The emphasis is on simplifying the moves to remove the technical and styles barriers which prevent so many people from even trying to dance!
It is easier to add technique / style once you have the enthusiasm / passion for dancing than the other way. Most people (Beginners) typically give up dance classes where they are taught techniques and style points that are aimed at competition level, from the first class!

I always think that Modern Jive feels better than it looks. I'm still trying to work out why.

Well, that is important, how it feels should be the determining factor above all others. Dancing is a fun and very rewarding experience. What you share with your partner on the dance floor is unique and often magical.
However, saying it feels better than it looks is misleading. Modern Jive can and does look great. I have lost count of how many times beginners who have been learning only a few weeks said they had been to a wedding / party / function or other and ended up the centre of attention with rounds of applause after practising a few basic Ceroc moves... It is possible that your view is jaded by experience, the more you know about dancing, the more you expect!
I find nothing more rewarding than a new couple discovering the joys of a simple routine in Freestyle and grinning all the way, and yes, they look great.

Are there any Modern Jive couples you would stop dancing so you could watch?

Many, as demonstrated recently at the Champs... I do not know all their names, but I have often stopped just to watch and be inspired.

I hope the above makes sense (despite the length of the post). All the questions you raise are really interesting and I would be interested in more views...

Franck.

[Franck]

Originally posted by DavidB
Most people just wanted to learn one move after another, and the flashier the better.

This is true unfortunately (mostly men). It is a constant battle to remind the men that more is not necessarily better. In a rush to learn as many moves as possible, a lot of men will not learn any of them properly, taking the time to explore the many possibilities each move offers. Women on the whole agree that they would rather have fewer moves better lead than a string of moves with little leading / technique.
Flashier and intricate do not always cut it either. The right pause at the right time will do much more to impress / please your partner than the Òaccordion comb pull crab recurringÒ...

Originally posted by DavidB
But if you aspire to being an advanced dancer, you need to know more than moves. You need to understand how to dance, how to move, how to lead/follow etc. You need to understand the music. And you want it to look good. Style is all about how your dancing looks to other people.

Agreed, though I do not like the term ÒadvancedÓ dancer. I reckon you never reach that stage, and if anyone feel they have, then they should look again. Dancing is a lifelong journey, and there is always more / better round the corner. Never rest on your laurels.
There is always something I want to improve / learn, and I know that Viktor and Lydiay work very hard at learning new techniques etc... That is what makes them such good dancers and teachers.

Originally posted by DavidB
I think style workshops are a very good idea. Having someone say "I think this looks good. This is how you do it", or "This doesn't look good, so don't do it" can save you a lot of time. You will never dance like the teacher, but they will never dance like you. And it is worth it - you are on the way to being an advanced dancer, not just another intermediate dancer who knows a lot of moves.

I totally agree, Style workshops (any workshops in fact) are the best way to improve. The Style workshop I teach is based on the original Style workshop initially taught by Viktor and Lydia + some style points taught by Janie Cronin. I have adapted it and spent time devising extra exercises to teach basic footwork variations, and style points to add to the Beginners move.
My reasoning being that the only way to learn (add) new style techniques is to practise them on a move that you are already familiar (and confident) with. Style is not all footwork though, you should be stylish from the moment you ask your partner for a dance to the end of the track when you thank her.
A lot of the workshop is dedicated to making dancers aware of what they do and how they can improve simple things to make a big difference, without the need for drops / seducers and intricate move combinations.

I am currently working on new Style workshops which will be much more specific and targeted, as I have found that one general ÒStyleÓ Workshop had just too much material to fit in one day! The first one, will be a ÓSpins and turnsÒ workshop, which has to be one of the most asked about feature. I am hoping to offer this workshop in September.
I am also planning a Òfootwork and walksÒ workshop to follow...

I have a few more ideas after that, but if anyone has any further suggestions, do not hesitate!

As mentionned in another thread, I am also in the process of booking a guest teacher for a couple of really good ÒStyleÓ workshops, so watch this space!

Cheers,

Franck.

[DavidB]

Originally posted by Franck

Can you learn style if you ignore technique?

Of course! The simplest style things you can add to your dance have nothing to do with technique: smiling / eye contact / fun / awareness of the music and musical interpretation will all give you style even if your technique is poor or non-existent (the French are masters in this art: the triumph of confidence over ability!)

Originally posted by Franck
I am currently working on new Style workshops which will be much more specific and targeted, as I have found that one general ÒStyleÓ Workshop had just too much material to fit in one day! The first one, will be a ÓSpins and turnsÒ workshop, which has to be one of the most asked about feature. I am hoping to offer this workshop in September.
I am also planning a Òfootwork and walksÒ workshop to follow...

I think we have different ideas on what is technique and what is style - I would call your workshops 'technique workshops'. For me technique is what you have to do to dance. Style is anything you add onto that to give it your own personal look. You can have good technique and bad style, and visa versa.The difference is you can add or remove style, and it won't affect the way the dance feels. But if you add or remove technique, it will affect the dance.

Leading and following is technique. Spinning and turning is technique. Timing is technique. Body motion is technique. (By body motion I mean how you move your body around the floor, eg when stepping back)

But body action is style. (By body action, I mean anything from hip movement to body popping) The way you finish a spin is style. Musical interpretation is style. Using your arms is style. Smiling is style.

But I don't really care if you call it technique or style - you are teaching something that needs to be taught, and people will dance better as a result.

Originally posted by Franck
I do not like the term ÒadvancedÓ dancer.

I like the term as something to aspire to. I also like to make a distinction between 'Advanced dancers' and 'advanced intermediates' or 'advanced jivers', who are intermediate dancers who know a few more moves. I have seen true advanced dancers in other styles. I don't think there is anyone I've seen doing Jive that can compare to these people, or even come close.

What annoys me is when people who do other styles start saying Modern Jive is not worth being considered, because no-one is at this standard. There is nothing about Modern Jive that prevents someone from getting to this level. It is just that no-one has really pushed the boundaries of what can be done.

For what it is worth, this is a list of who I would stop dancing for...

Lindy - Ryan & Jenny, Skye Humphries
Ballroom - Marcus & Karen Hilton
WCS - Kyle Redd & Sarah Van Drake, Robert Cordoba & Deborah Szeleky, Jordan Frisbee & Tatiana Mollman
Hustle - Arte Phillips, Angel Figueroa
Salsa - Salomon and Sandra Rivera
Cabaret - David Howland & Vivienne Ramsey, David & Leslie Elkin

David

[jiveoholic]

This has been one of the best threads on the subject I have read! I do hope Frank can find a way of archiving threads like this.

I was glad that Frank introduced the idea of the "feel". For me a good dance is one that "feels" good with my partner. Having said this, how she portrays her body, looks at me, uses her hands in a flourish makes is just perfect...and for those watching too.

The difference between style and technique has been addressed. What I would like to introduce is the idea that true style is that which differs from person to person but comes from that particular persons interpretation of the music. yes - the music.

I complain that I have no style but far too many moves. My girlfriend insisted last night that I "wiggle-danced" in front of her to show my (in)ability to "feel the music". I had to shut my eyes and the experience is not one I wish to repeat. However, to blues music I did survive the ordeal with some dignity.

I think that style is physological. It is the real artform. It is the expression of how the music and the dance are affecting you.

I would like to appload the idea of the "technique" workshops Frank is offering. I only wish I did not live in Basingstoke! I would love to attend. I have been trying to add exercises on technique at www.jiveoholic.org.uk. I quickly realised that all I could do is help people get out of their ruts and try difference ideas and decide which were for them and which were not, which worked and which did not.

[Gus]

Have to agree an excelenet thread ... with so many angles to it some bright chappie (or chappess) could write a whole paper about it.

Quick digression first,

I only wish I did not live in Basingstoke! I would love to attend.

... got to say with respect to many of the excellent dancers across the country ... got to say that anyone wanting to see real style has got to dance around the Southern circuit There is an embaressment of riches. Not all the styles would be your taste but I'm sure there is bound to be something to catch your eye.

Back to the main thread. I think teaching style is an extremely thing to convey. This requires skills that I would assocaite with profesional dance teachers. Its also a very subjective thing. Style is a function of many things including your build, body dynamics and what 'beat' you feel good with. I would love to know how 'profesional' dance teachers teach style because its something etremely difficuly to get across.

Re the people that David B mentioned as being good enough to stop and watch ... I'm envious of his range of dance styles to pick from.

My own list is short (and predictable) by compasrion;

Lindy: Andy and Rena (well, I'd watch Rena even if she was just crossing the room ) Ann and Graeme

Blues: Nigel and Nina

Modern Jive: Viktor and Lydia (as per Rena), Heather, Dan Slape (probably the most exiting new dancer on the scene), Roger and Ann

In my own region there's probably only half a dozen dancers that are really 'out there' ... BUT, theres a whole range of dancers who are fun to dance with .... and isn't that what most of all the fuss is about?

[DavidB]

Originally posted by Gus
theres a whole range of dancers who are fun to dance with .... and isn't that what most of all the fuss is about? [/B]

My favourite partner is my wife (and I'm not just saying that to stop her beating me up).
I also like dancing with some of the really good ladies out there - eg Rena, Heather, Karmel, Sing Lim, Janie Cronin. (I've never danced with Lydia or Nina.) But I don't want to dance with the best dancers all night. You get very lazy - they look good no matter what you do. You don't have to lead well, because they are so good at improvising. And I don't want to ruin their night.

But I really like dancing with ladies that are just going from beginners to intermediate. They know enough to keep in time, and to follow a lead, but aren't desperately trying to recognise each move and remember what they are 'supposed' to do. It means that I have to do everything to the best of my abilities.

There is only one person who's opinion really counts in dancing - your partner. You can have the most abysmal style, but if he/she enjoys dancing with you - who cares?

David

[Franck]

Originally posted by jiveoholic
This has been one of the best threads on the subject I have read! I do hope Frank can find a way of archiving threads like this.

At the moment, I have no plan to delete any of the threads, I have loads of hosting space, and should be able to keep them all available online for a while to come... While the threads might not appear on the main forum page view, you can use the search facility to seek out old threads...

Originally posted by jiveoholic
The difference between style and technique has been addressed. What I would like to introduce is the idea that true style is that which differs from person to person but comes from that particular persons interpretation of the music. yes - the music.

The music indeed, interpretation of the music and ability to adapt your style to the many tracks played on the night make a huge difference.
I reckon that a lot of people who say they do not like a particular style of music, do so because they only feel comfortable (confident?) dancing to a particular style (be it Blues / pop / techno / etc...). I find I really enjoy dancing to many different types of music and my style varies greatly between tracks, but all of them deeply enjoyable and fun.

Franck.

[John S]

There's quite a good 2-page article in the Weekend section of The Times today, about the growth of social dance in the UK. Ceroc gets only the merest mention in passing, but the article contained a quote from Martha Graham that rang true with me and I think is worth repeating:

Great dancers are not great because of their technique, they are great because of their passion.

Obviously great dancers will have technique as well, but I reckon what makes them "great" is the passion that they have for the dance, and how they convey it to each other and to those watching.

[Ronde!]

Have to agree with that quote, I think passion's vital. I've seen beginners do the Octopus with heaps of style because they enjoy it, to the extent that intermediate dancers go up to them and ask "What was that move?"

Style begins as a physical demonstration the dancer's interaction with their partner, the audience, and the music - a smile, a hand, a pause. Confidence makes it look good. Passion magnifies it into something dazzling.

On analysis, I have two separate styles, a smooth competition style (make all the moves look easy and flowing) and an Funk/Urban/Dance style (high energy/extreme - but only to the audience, not my partner!).

Anyone else find they have more than one distinct "style"?

Live passionately,
Leo

[DavidB]

Originally posted by Ronde!
Anyone else find they have more than one distinct "style"?

There are plenty of dancers that have different styles when they do different dances, but I can't think of many people who have more than one style of doing Modern Jive. (I used to think I did, but I was just doing the same moves, in the same way, with the same leads, etc to different music. I might interpret parts of the music differently, but overall I was dancing in my one style.)

I have tended to watch people a lot more since starting this thread. There tends to be 5 styles around in London:

Ceroc style - Big leads, bouncy movement, always fully extended, ladies always overturning. It is not quite staccatto, but there is an emphasis on each beat.

Smooth - Smaller leads, no bounce, and more variation in the distance. The movement is more continuous, with two or three steps flowing into each other

Lindy - Jive moves done with a Lindy style - eg posture, a twist-twist for the ladies

Latin - Lots of hip action, and the occasional bit of salsa, merangue or even tango thrown in. A lot more attitude.

Hip-hop/funk - More contemporary individual movement from the man and the lady.

Of course these are generalisations, and a few people have their own unique styles. There are teachers I know who are very good at explaining each of these styles. What I haven't seen yet is anyone explaining what stays the same, and what changes, between each style. That (to me) would be the start of developing a range of styles for individual dancers.

I haven't included 'passion', or 'enjoyment', or 'smiling', etc. These are important enough to be discussed separately from style or technique. But they have one big difference - they can't be taught. You can learn technique. You can learn style (ie incorporate parts of someone else's style into your own.) But no matter how good the teacher or the student - you can't be taught to have fun.

David

[TheTramp]

Hmmmmm.....

I don't know if I agree with that David. I'd like to think that my style changes depending on the music that's being played, and the person I'm dancing with. I can certainly identify with most of the styles that you've listed to a greater (hip hop/funk) or lesser (lindy) degree.

I'm sure that there are any number of people who do the same.

Steve

[DavidB]

This was something I heard at the weekend. They were showing some ballroom dancing on TV. It was a Latin competition, and the comentator was saying that each dance should have a distinct style. Unfortunately it looked like each couple was actually dancing the same style, just at different speeds. If you turned the sound off, you couldn't guess what sort of music was playing unless you knew the steps.

I think this is very much the same in Jive. If you played a 'club' track, then a latin track, then a swing track, you would be pushed to tell any difference in the way people dance. It might feel different if you are actually dancing with them, but it doesn't look different.

The best way I can describe it is interpretation of the type of music, but not the individual song. There are people who have very distinctive styles that really suit particular types of music. So there is obviously room in Jive for this sort of interpretation. But no-one seems to have fundamentally different styles depending on the music. We all seem to have our one personal style, and can only make slight changes to it.

Do people try to develop separate styles? Or is it more useful to incorporate elements of other styles into your own single personal one.

David

[TheTramp]

Sorry David

Just re-read my post, and I think I sounded harsher than I wanted to.

I agree that if you look at many people dancing jive, you probably could substitute any style of track which runs at the same speed, and their dancing wouldn't change. (But as long as they are having fun, who cares).

But I think that there are a lot of decent dancers of jive who will change their style depending on the music being played too. Maybe I'm just an optimist though. There's nothing I like more than dancing to a nice latin type song, and trying to wiggle my hips more, and put in some salsa style, followed up by a fastish hip hop type track, the moving on to some smooth bluesy music. Dancing with the same style to every track would get boring (for me) after a very short space of time

Steve

[kingo]

For me, style is about the shape dancers make.
If one is clubbing it, (and I don't often) then there are some (small) shapes and moves that are safe. i.e they look OK on almost everyone so long as they are done broadly right and in time to the music.
Once you move out of these safe moves into bigger more dramatic moves there is an ever decreasing margin between looking fantastic and looking plain silly. In street locking, the difference between looking like a super cool dude and Mr Bean in electrick shock may be something as small as a slight hunch in the back or a little lean, and both the good and bad feel OK. You won't know how well you are doing unless you look in a mirror or ask people.

I think to a much lesser extent, the same is true for Ceroc. All the moves look great when done adequately by anyone. If you do something slightly different to the accepted norm then that stands out as 'your stlye' - be it good , bad or mixed.
By example, I used to have great difficulty with the train move- which I enjoyed dancing but knew didn't look particularly good when I did it. In a workshop a teacher took me through several footwork options until one worked for me. I don't think this could have been done in a lesson format - it needed some one to say 'noooo not like that, better , OK , Awful, ah now that works - do that again but this time try a little ..'

[Aleks]

Originally posted by Gus
I would love to know how 'profesional' dance teachers teach style because its something etremely difficuly to get across.

My mum's a ballet mistress and I also used to teach classical ballet.

The "style" she and other teachers I know in her area (Nottm) use what Chris would all "kinetic imagery" - putting a feeling/sensation into words and the convey it with movement. For example "opening a gate" when opening the arm, "stroke the ceiling/floor with your fingertips/toes". These words mean something different to each person you teach and so their interpretation and style will reflect that. I suppose the technique that enables a teacher/coach/choreographer to convey this "style" is finding the right words to inspire the pupil.

[Bill]

In terms of style.........yep the first 'problem' is defining the term then trying to define your own style.

I've said a number of times that the two men who have influenced me most are Viktor and Nigel - mainly because I like the way they dance and becuase I've been to several of their workshops. They have different styles though but both spend some time on style especially the last couple of workshops of Viktor's I've been to. Adam spent time on style and interpretation as well the last time he was up here.

I agree entirely with the comments about good dancers making simple moves look good and with the number of men who want to do lots of 'flashy' moves. I think the latter is true becuase the big moves get attention and are often what gets dancers noticed at competitions whereas newer men will probably not recognise a more subtle or 'quiet' style.

A relative beginner might not notice Viktor, DavidB, our own Gilbert on a packed floor but they will notice men who like drops and more 'flashy' moves. Steve does a lot of drops and likes aerials and executes them very well and is very safe so he and other similar dancers are much more likely to be noticed. We have different styles and the great thing is they can all be wonderful but new men will see the bigger moves and want to emulate them despite the fact that Lorna and Lisa constantly tell men that women would much prefer simple moves done well than lots of complicated moves (done well or badly).

I don't know enough dancers to say who apart from the regular nominees I'd stop to watch but of those I have seen the only ones I'd really stop dancing to look at would be N & N, V & L ( or V and a n other), David & Lily and up here in Scotland young James & Mel.

Still haven't really answered the question on what is style. It's what I like and want to aspire to have

[Yogi_Bear]

What an interesting thread. As usual, most of what I might have written is already out there. I find myself nodding in agreement with virtually all that David B has contributed here, and like him I seem to spend a lot more time watching than dancing at times, whether it is to look at how well or indeed how badly people are interpreting the music and wheter their style seems right. The following really rings true as well:
----------------
DavidB wrote:

But I don't want to dance with the best dancers all night. You get very lazy - they look good no matter what you do. You don't have to lead well, because they are so good at improvising. And I don't want to ruin their night.

But I really like dancing with ladies that are just going from beginners to intermediate. They know enough to keep in time, and to follow a lead, but aren't desperately trying to recognise each move and remember what they are 'supposed' to do. It means that I have to do everything to the best of my abilities.

There is only one person who's opinion really counts in dancing - your partner. You can have the most abysmal style, but if he/she enjoys dancing with you - who cares?
------------------
I like to approach each dance as the unique experience that it is - I will never dance the same moves, to that music, in these circumstances, with the same partner again - there lies the essence. Interpretation of the music, the confidence to improvise, connecting with your partner - these are the basics.