Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Structure - just what is it and do we need it anyway?

  1. #1
    Registered User NZ Monkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Auckland, NZ
    Posts
    1,109
    Rep Power
    9

    Structure - just what is it and do we need it anyway?

    Quote Originally Posted by Franck
    Each dance have developed a set of rules to fit its origins, but is ultimately limited by the original rules. MJ is fairly unique in having no rules and still being in early development, it offers the opportunity and as Lory says, the potential to become an Uber dance with all encompassing technique.
    This has been culled from another thread but it highlights something that I've been pondering for the last six months or so. I thought it was finally time to start a thread on the matter.

    MJ has no real rules to the dance. This is deliberate in order to make it as easy as possible for beginners.

    The predominant view is that this is a good thing - allowing for complete freedom of expression and the introduction of different styles to fit the music.

    I think it's worth noting that most (if not all) the dances that are renowned for their expressive or interpretive nature have strong conventions associated with them. Franck says here that these conventions limit them, and for what it's worth I think he is correct in the strictest sense.

    I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that I think the ability to be very expressive comes from the adoption of these conventions. They provide some reassurance that I know what my partner will be doing, or at least have a pretty good idea of where they will be and in which direction they'll be facing in a few beats time. Because of these reassurances I have more freedom, as a leader, to play with the music myself.

    I find WCS ( you didn't really expect me to go a whole post without mentioning that did you? ) to be mush easier to phrase, much easier to play with accents, timing and breaks, and easier to cope with lady play with compared to MJ.

    Perhaps this is simply a reflection of my own ability, but I find it difficult to be as expressive as I can be in MJ, simply because I lack the same structure to work with. Instead I find that I usually have to stick with leading my partner though moves in a (hopefully) expressive way and that my own opportunities to play are much more limited*

    I know that many of the top names in the competition circuit impose a certain type of structure to their dancing to make it look (and usually feel) nicer. I strongly suspect many of the purely social dancers with a lot of experience do the same, even if it isn't always deliberately.

    MJ is helped in the short term by its lack of structure as in the early stages when only moves and a bit of timing matter these are a hindrance to getting on the dance floor. Is this lack of structure helpful in the long run from the perspective of the development of the dance?

    Discuss

    *Except where my partner adopts the same conventions I like to dance to. i.e. some ground rules are implicitly agreed upon.

  2. #2
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,781
    Rep Power
    11

    Re: Structure - just what is it and do we need it anyway?

    interesting thread NZM...

    Quote Originally Posted by NZ Monkey View Post
    The predominant view is that this is a good thing - allowing for complete freedom of expression and the introduction of different styles to fit the music.
    ...
    I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that I think the ability to be very expressive comes from the adoption of these conventions. They provide some reassurance that I know what my partner will be doing, or at least have a pretty good idea of where they will be and in which direction they'll be facing in a few beats time. Because of these reassurances I have more freedom, as a leader, to play with the music myself.
    Indeed I too think that having a set of clear rules actually allows you more freedom in the long run - once you've past the stage where you have to learn them and feel like they are limiting you (which, let's be honest, can take a looooong time...)

    Personally, I still have my best and most expressive dances in an MJ/blues context (I just don't advertise it a lot )... but ONLY with a handful of leaders. There are very, very few leads that are extremely attentive and willing to actually follow me in my digressions, and with whom I have a great connection that will allow that. And I think this could be both due to the fact that MJ doesn't teach enough lead / follow / follow (the repeat follow is intentional ) and doesn't provide a clear set of expected behaviours (i.e., rules), and a reflection of my own journey and limitations in my dancing and my ability to communicate with the lead.

    However I tend to have more very good (and expressive) wcs dances than MJ ones, and this is enabled by the structure of wcs - and in particular the anchor that defines the end of a pattern. And I can only see that potential for very expressive dances growing with experience of the dance.

  3. #3
    Registered User spindr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Brizzle
    Posts
    1,617
    Rep Power
    11

    Re: Structure - just what is it and do we need it anyway?

    Quote Originally Posted by NZ Monkey View Post
    I find WCS ( you didn't really expect me to go a whole post without mentioning that did you? ) to be mush easier to phrase, much easier to play with accents, timing and breaks, and easier to cope with lady play with compared to MJ.
    Could this be because the range of "WCS music" is more limited than that for MJ? That is, music that you consider suitable for WCS already has large hints, such as strong percussion every second beat, making it easier to fit a two beat piece of footwork into? Or at a limited tempo range?
    SpinDr

  4. #4
    Registered User NZ Monkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Auckland, NZ
    Posts
    1,109
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: Structure - just what is it and do we need it anyway?

    Quote Originally Posted by spindr View Post
    Could this be because the range of "WCS music" is more limited than that for MJ? That is, music that you consider suitable for WCS already has large hints, such as strong percussion every second beat, making it easier to fit a two beat piece of footwork into? Or at a limited tempo range?
    SpinDr
    No, I don't. In fact I could be dancing WCS and MJ to the very same tracks and find exactly the same. It's the dance rather than the music.

    I actually think that WCS has a wider range of music it can be easily danced to than MJ as well. The bpm occupies a lower range but it's just as wide and covers at least as many styles of music.

  5. #5
    Commercial Operator
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Sussex by the Sea
    Posts
    9,276
    Rep Power
    15

    Re: Structure - just what is it and do we need it anyway?

    I think that MJ is a swing dance and has a similar set of rules to all the other swing dances. There are differences, and that is what makes MJ what it is and not WCS or Lindy or any other swing dance - and the differeces are a sub-set of rules.

    What I think a lot people are saying when they say "there are no rules in MJ" is that they think you can break the rules. And, to some exetent I agree with this. In MJ you can still dance when when you are breaking the rules, in more complex dances you really are in trouble if you don't stick to the rules.

  6. #6
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Sunny South Hampshire
    Posts
    873
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Structure - just what is it and do we need it anyway?

    Quote Originally Posted by NZ Monkey View Post
    I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that I think the ability to be very expressive comes from the adoption of these conventions. They provide some reassurance that I know what my partner will be doing, or at least have a pretty good idea of where they will be and in which direction they'll be facing in a few beats time. Because of these reassurances I have more freedom, as a leader, to play with the music myself.
    Interesting point.
    I would say in the end it always comes down to the skill of the leader and follower.

    Since you mention WCS taking the slot as an example, if the follower always has to end up in a predetermined place, it must restrict improvisation by definition. Rules always do.
    On the other hand, that predetermined knowledge does allow more confidence as you say. Confidence is virtually a prerequisite of improvisation.

    However, being blunt, as you said, on the personal level you could view that as hiding a weakness rather than being a strength.

    Taking Jordan and Tatiana, they obviously know the WCS conventions inside out, and I've seen clips of them dancing some intriguing 'pure' WCS. Gotta say their best and most improvisational routines tend to be those where they more or less wave goodbye to those 'conventions' you are talking about tho

  7. #7
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Buckinghamshire
    Posts
    164
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: Structure - just what is it and do we need it anyway?

    I would guess it is a bit like poetry. Every kid at school is asked at some point to write some free verse poetry. It is usually dreadful. But most enjoy writing it. Then the rules of metre, rhythm, and rhyme are introduced. These rules force a poet to expand their vocabulary, start thinking laterally, stretch those little grey cells reaching for not just a good word but the perfect word, whose measure and meaning both fit. The great poets transcend the constraints of this discipline to create art. The rest of us write doggerel! So, in my metaphor, muggles jig around in amateur free verse, and MJ dancers adopt a simple pattern, (rhyming couplets, perhaps?). Doggerel can be very enjoyable, but usually more so for those who produce it, rather than the audience who see the results! (That would be beginner to intermediate MJ, for those of you who haven't gone to TPBM thread by now ) Perhaps they move on to the Iambic Pentameter of West Coast Swing, or the Haiku of ArgentineTango. But some dancers choose to progress with MJ, borrowing from other dances if they wish. And like e e cummings or W H Auden, raise their free verse to an art. <o:p></o:p>
    <o:p> </o:p>

  8. #8
    Registered User KatieR's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Somewhere dark
    Posts
    1,271
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Structure - just what is it and do we need it anyway?

    Quote Originally Posted by Caro View Post
    interesting thread NZM...
    Personally, I still have my best and most expressive dances in an MJ/blues context (I just don't advertise it a lot )... but ONLY with a handful of leaders. There are very, very few leads that are extremely attentive and willing to actually follow me in my digressions, ...
    .
    I totally agree, there are only a handful of MJ leads that I get an absolute thrill out of dancing them, and I have to say that out of everyone I danced with while in the UK, Spice and Easy (don't hear from him much on here any more) was probably one of the best in terms of expression, fun and fulfillment. I always walked off the floor a bit shaky!

    The majority of MJ leads that I have come across, don't hear the music the same way I do and don't interpret it the same way. So it ends up more of a struggle and a fight to do what we want than a synergetic dance. West Coast swing is the only dance where, even with lower level leads, I still find a satisfaction in the dance.

    Quote Originally Posted by spindr View Post
    Could this be because the range of "WCS music" is more limited than that for MJ? That is, music that you consider suitable for WCS already has large hints, such as strong percussion every second beat, making it easier to fit a two beat piece of footwork into? Or at a limited tempo range?
    SpinDr
    You'd be surprised at how many people still don't find those large hits. I still find myself fighting with a lot of leads as I will hear a break coming up and prepare for it and they are just blindly marching on through it. It happens in WCS too.

  9. #9
    Registered User Ghost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Astral
    Posts
    3,209
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Structure - just what is it and do we need it anyway?

    I'd say the strength of MJ is that it allows each person to individually tailor a specific structure unique to themselves. The weakness is that there isn't a lot of guidance on how to do this well.

    So potentially I think MJ can probably give greater degrees of expression in the long run, but only if you can work out how to actually do it in the first place.

  10. #10
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Worcester, UK
    Posts
    4,157
    Rep Power
    12

    Re: Structure - just what is it and do we need it anyway?

    Rules make it possible to lead things that are unleadable without those rules, and make it easy to lead things that are difficult without those rules. That's why they're there.

    Quote Originally Posted by TA Guy View Post
    improvisational routines
    Contradiction in terms.

  11. #11
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Sunny South Hampshire
    Posts
    873
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Structure - just what is it and do we need it anyway?

    Quote Originally Posted by MartinHarper View Post
    improvisational routines

    Contradiction in terms.
    IMO 'Routine' in a dance sense just means a number of moves/segment of dance, nothing more. I don't see a contradiction. I might talk about a 'choreographed routine' or a 'set routine' if I wished to imply more.

  12. #12
    Registered User Beowulf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    The Beoverse
    Posts
    7,985
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Structure - just what is it and do we need it anyway?

    Quote Originally Posted by JCB View Post
    I would guess it is a bit like poetry.

    muggles jig around in amateur free verse, and MJ dancers adopt a simple pattern, (rhyming couplets, perhaps?).

    Perhaps they move on to the Iambic Pentameter of West Coast Swing, or the Haiku of ArgentineTango.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ghost View Post
    I'd say the strength of MJ is that it allows each person to individually tailor a specific structure unique to themselves. The weakness is that there isn't a lot of guidance on how to do this well.


    I have a number of moves
    some I do fairly well
    and I think I'm a gentle lead
    at least as far as I can tell.

    My dancing is just doggerel
    My musicality's even worse
    And I often worry about my partner
    as I lead another verse (sorry)

    To be taught the finer points of poetry
    I think would be rather sweet
    And dance my blues or purple prose
    while not stepping on their feet

    Sorry My dancing and my poetry are just as bad As ghost says we are free to do what we like, but we're not easily taught what is possible. Sure there's loads of workshops , weekenders etc that will take one microscopic aspect of the dance and expand it to fill your perspective then pick it apart and put it back together again better. But in a run of the mill dance class you're given a few nice rhymes (to continue the analogy) and told to put it together yourself. You're not taught about meter, rhythm, stress, intonation or alliteration.. you've been given a rhyming dictionary and been told to make a dance of 3 to 4 minutes in length.

    As I demonstrated above.. the ability to Rhyme (sort of) does not a poet make.. knowing the moves without structure does not a dancer make.. this is why I'm neither a dancer nor a poet..

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •