Should MJ court the respect of other dances ? (and if so, how?)

[Andy McGregor]

at this stage we'll be married next year.

I don't think two people as stroppy and argumentative as me and Caro should be allowed to breed - that's how lawyers and traffic wardens are created

[Caro]

I don't think two people as stroppy and argumentative as me and Caro should be allowed to breed - that's how lawyers and traffic wardens are created

you're calling ME stroppy??? :fight:

[Terpsichorea]

Out of curiosity, I recently canvassed the opinion of a pair of (well-respected) ballroom teachers on Modern Jive. They'd heard a bit about it, seen some (Advanced (whatever that means!)) practitioners doing it, and their opinions are as follows:

Pros:

It's good because it encourages people to dance

Cons:

Dance Development: The desire to keep things simple to encourage re-attendance creates a situation where 'everyone can have a go, but excellence isn't encouraged.' They cited the fact that you can drift in and out of MJ classes as a negative factor because it doesn't allow dancers to develop in a systematic way. These particular teachers, by the way, have a cut-off point of three weeks for people joining, say a Beginner's/Bronze class in September. After that, you can't join as a complete beginner, simply because you'll slow the pace at which the class progresses, which isn't fair on everyone else.

Quality: After watching some Advanced MJ on YTube (I think it was the Scottish finals - can't remember the year) they were generally pretty critical of what they saw. Sloppy frame, not expressing anything particularly to the music, a lack of crispness and authority on what they did. Apart from citing a general lack of stylistic polish, they also pointed out the absence of footwork as a reason for this. The dancers (in their opinion) looked static. They were dancing with their upper bodies and not engaging their feet (again, you could claim that MJ is an upper-body dance and as it's a distinguishing characteristic, you can't knock it). It was pointed out that teaching footwork to the beginners is the hardest point of the learning curve. Most people give up because it demands real work and application to absorb footwork to the point where it becomes embedded in your memory. We use our hands and arms in a range of complex ways in daily life - we don't have to engage our feet to the same extent.

Anyway, this is the gist of what they told me. They weren't being snobbish, merely pointing out what they saw as deficiencies within MJ, the bottom line being that in making it accessible for everyone, you run the risk of retarding the development of people who want to take it seriously.

[TA Guy]

To those who say MJ is a dance unrespected by the masses in other dances. I say that's rubbish. Your being too sensitive Sure, you can quote individuals who for various reasons bitch about MJ, Some are MJ'ers themselves as shown by this forum Some of them greatly respected in their own different dance, but I don't think I've ever been to a Salsa, Lindy, Blues, WCS, AT or Tango freestyle where there's this great mass of people slagging off MJ. In fact, down here, at a lot of these freestyles, a sometimes not insignificant percentage either migrated from MJ or still dance it themselves.

To say folks from other dance forms disrespect MJ as a generality is wrong IMO.
And those that do, and there are some I agree, mostly, but not always of course, it's born out of envy, insecurity, or ignorance. Hardly something to make me care about whether they respect MJ or not.

[Andy McGregor]

you're calling ME stroppy??? :fight:

More of a lovers tiff

[Lee Bartholomew]

But the people who do want to take it seriously do so and develop foot work etc.

out of the 10,000's people that attend MJ only a very very small handfull take it serious. How many ceroc'er entered the champs? a few hundred if that? very small percentage.

[TA Guy]

snip...
I feel that Modern Jive is essentially an upper body dance - we do use our feet, of course,
...snip

Exactly, so it has footwork. How can you even move without footwork ? LOL. How could you possibly do a return as someone said "step in, return, step out". Sounds like footwork to me.
I will agree that MJ has very little formal footwork, but that's not the same thing is it ?

This just makes me laugh, sorry. Can you imagine an actual dance without footwork ? You'd be on your back or stomach I suppose parts of break dancing might get close to it tho

[ducasi]

While I value respect by others, I'm not going to go out of my way to try and earn it from individuals with whom I have no connection.

I think the same should apply for Modern Jive.

[straycat]

I will agree that MJ has very little formal footwork, but that's not the same thing is it ?

Acutally, it is - 'Footwork' in a dance context means 'formal' footwork pattens - that most MJ teachers don't teach (for Andy's sake, I'll refrain from saying that MJ doesn't have it)

I suppose parts of break dancing might get close to it tho

Breakdancing has an enormous amount of very intricate footwork. (yes, I know what you're referring to, but as an overall danceform, it's pretty footwork-rich)

[Andy McGregor]

Acutally, it is - 'Footwork' in a dance context means 'formal' footwork pattens - that most MJ teachers don't teach (for Andy's sake, I'll refrain from saying that MJ doesn't have it)

Thank you. IMHO, MJ has a very simple basic footwork pattern. It's a walking footwork - and, IMHO, it is formally so. You can vary that basic, leading the variation. But the basic footwork is "formal" it's just a walk to the beat for the ladies (why am I thinking "let's do the TimeWarp again" - is it the the underwear? ).

[TA Guy]

Out of curiosity, I recently canvassed the opinion of a pair of (well-respected) ballroom teachers on Modern Jive. They'd heard a bit about it, seen some (Advanced (whatever that means!)) practitioners doing it, and their opinions are as follows:

Pros:

It's good because it encourages people to dance

Cons:

Dance Development: The desire to keep things simple to encourage re-attendance creates a situation where 'everyone can have a go, but excellence isn't encouraged.' They cited the fact that you can drift in and out of MJ classes as a negative factor because it doesn't allow dancers to develop in a systematic way. These particular teachers, by the way, have a cut-off point of three weeks for people joining, say a Beginner's/Bronze class in September. After that, you can't join as a complete beginner, simply because you'll slow the pace at which the class progresses, which isn't fair on everyone else.

Quality: After watching some Advanced MJ on YTube (I think it was the Scottish finals - can't remember the year) they were generally pretty critical of what they saw. Sloppy frame, not expressing anything particularly to the music, a lack of crispness and authority on what they did. Apart from citing a general lack of stylistic polish, they also pointed out the absence of footwork as a reason for this. The dancers (in their opinion) looked static. They were dancing with their upper bodies and not engaging their feet (again, you could claim that MJ is an upper-body dance and as it's a distinguishing characteristic, you can't knock it). It was pointed out that teaching footwork to the beginners is the hardest point of the learning curve. Most people give up because it demands real work and application to absorb footwork to the point where it becomes embedded in your memory. We use our hands and arms in a range of complex ways in daily life - we don't have to engage our feet to the same extent.

Anyway, this is the gist of what they told me. They weren't being snobbish, merely pointing out what they saw as deficiencies within MJ, the bottom line being that in making it accessible for everyone, you run the risk of retarding the development of people who want to take it seriously.

Yes, but I wouldn't label that as disrespectful. Just some enlightened criticism.

I would also say they hold those opinions partly because there viewing it in the context of their own dance. It's inevitable.
E.G. It's true, MJ is mostly led by the arms by the vast majority of practitioners. There is little frame to speak of, but the assumption here is that frame is a absolute necessity for good dance. Which is absolutely true for their style of dance. I wouldn't quite go that far regarding frame in MJ. Does that make MJ worthy of disrespect, or a lesser dance ? Of course not, just different.

It's a bit like asking the world darts champion to comment on syncronised swimming. "Well, nice smiling, but their form could be improved, certainly some work needed on the beer bellies"
Only not so silly, obviously

[Lee Bartholomew]

Acutally, it is - 'Footwork' in a dance context means 'formal' footwork pattens - that most MJ teachers don't teach (for Andy's sake, I'll refrain from saying that MJ doesn't have it)

I dont know of any teachers that teach footwork as standard. OK some do for some moves but not as part of their teaching.

[TA Guy]

Acutally, it is - 'Footwork' in a dance context means 'formal' footwork pattens - that most MJ teachers don't teach (for Andy's sake, I'll refrain from saying that MJ doesn't have it)

*shrug* It's not taught much. Can't disagree with that.

As to 'footwork' meaning 'formal footwork patterns'. Disagree. 'formal footwork patterns' means 'formal footwork patterns', and 'free form footwork' mean 'free form footwork'. 'Footwork' means 'footwork' and encompasses both.

But that's just semantics anyway Not gonna argue about it.

The point is, could MJ be danced with no foot movement ?
I would argue 'no', therefore it has footwork.
Is "step in, return, step out" not footwork ?
Yes it is.

Ergo, MJ has footwork.

[MartinHarper]

MJ has footwork

In so far as Modern Jivers have feet, and occasionally move them to keep themselves from falling over, then I agree with you that Modern Jive has footwork. Also, tap dance has armwork. I don't think that's a particularly useful definition, since it describes everyone who is standing up.
As you say, that's semantics. Let's move on.

Ignorance. E.G. Saying 'MJ has no footwork', do we not use our legs?

Now that you understand what these critics mean by the term "footwork" (IE, something more than "possessing feet"), do you still feel that they are ignorant?

[TA Guy]

In so far as Modern Jivers have feet, and occasionally move them to keep themselves from falling over, then I agree with you that Modern Jive has footwork. Also, tap dance has armwork. I don't think that's a particularly useful definition, since it describes everyone who is standing up.
As you say, that's semantics. Let's move on.

Now that you understand what these critics mean by the term "footwork" (IE, something more than "possessing feet"), do you still feel that they are ignorant?

OK, you got me there, ignorance isn't the only reason.
I feel someone who says "MJ has no footwork" is like those people who say "MJ isn't a real dance" or "MJ'ers can't dance".
I don't know why this is. I can only assume it's either to put MJ down (envy?), or raise some other dance up on a pedestal (insecurity?). Or maybe just lack of knowledge, or maybe some perfectly valid reason. Who knows?

The point is they are wrong in all those cases.

My footwork in MJ isn't usually triple steps, or rock steps, or whatever. Nonetheless, I have to time my feet movement to coincide with beats, I have to move my feet to be in the right place at the right time. I repeat patterns. I step in when I need to, I step out when I need to. They match phrases (if I'm on the ball ). They lead weight shifts, and sometimes contribute directly or indirectly to frame, compression, tension etc. Footwork is central to balance, not just me, but between my partner and myself as well. It's a fairly important aspect of most lead and follow. From time to time I might throw in a first move columbian, a manhatton, or whatever. Where my feet go exactly is determined by the music, moves and my partner. That is footwork. That is exactly the same as every other dance. Sure, some dances require regular triple steps and the like, sometimes for decoration, sometimes for reason the same as, or similar to, the ones I list above. It's all footwork.

At the basic level, there's nothing fancy, admittedly it's much, much simpler footwork than some other dances, and a lot of it may be described as 'free form', but it is footwork. The point of footwork is not limited to creating pretty patterns with the feet. It has rules. True, they are not (usually) explicitly taught, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

It's also true to say inexperienced dancers may look like there doing little more than 'walking' or sometimes, not even moving much at all, and drawing conclusions from that is to make the elementary mistake of defining aspects of a dance by it's most inexperienced practitioners.



To say there is no footwork in MJ is IMO at best simplistic rubbish.

[hinksfield]

hi....anyone wanting to learn footwork or foot styling to enhance their MJ could try linedancing...its cool i see you saying "what"...lol.....but if you think of it there are not many other dance styles that teach intricate steps and sequences of steps that can be easily crossed over into MJ

[EricD]

It's also true to say inexperienced dancers may look like there doing little more than 'walking' or sometimes, not even moving much at all, and drawing conclusions from that is to make the elementary mistake of defining aspects of a dance by it's most inexperienced practitioners.


To say there is no footwork in MJ is IMO at best simplistic rubbish.

I don't think they mean that our feet don't work : rather that there is no "mandatory footwork" : your feet don't have to do the same as everyone else's !

I disagree with your equation of walking with inexperience. Watch Teachers, Demos and Taxis dancing. Certainly all the beginner moves are taught with alternating feet.

The teachers won't tell people that's what they do, and if you ask them they will probably deny it !!!

I don't know if 'Ceroc Essentials' exists north of the border:
here in Central England, we teach a couple of minutes of 'right back, right forward, left back, left forward' footwork before the lesson. It's really funny watching people trying actually to do Ceroc moves with that footwork. Most that try never come back again ! Few people notice that we don't dance 'Left, Left, Right, Right', but 'Left, Right, Left, Right'.

I am probably breaking rules as a Taxi (or ex-Taxi this week ) when I suggest that people try just walking. It is amazing how much they instantly improve, and even say 'Why weren't we told before?'.

The only variable left is whether to walk at the speed of the beat or at half-speed, as in the Slow Comb, and Arm Jive.

The only intermediate move (worth doing) that requires the leader to change step (twice) is the "Basket Steps". I have come across another move (in an Intermediate Workshop) that had changes of tempo (frequency) as well as step (phase) - I don't think anyone actually managed it in practice! Triple-step moves work because you change step twice, leaving you in-step again at the end.

One thing worth considering : how to define what is 'good' ?
I think 'simple' and 'easy-to-learn' are good !

Walking makes the dance predictable, and ensures that you can lead without wrong-footing your partner. It keeps you and your partner working together, even without a rigid 'frame'. It is consistent with most Latin and Ballroom dance, helping us to make 'converts'. Walking is natural - we all do it without thinking - frees the mind to learn the moves.
In fact some of the people that struggle most to learn Ceroc are Real Jivers, Rock Jivers, WCSers, Lindy-Hoppers and 'International-style' Ballroom Jivers ! I think they are secretly miffed at having wasted time learning (and unlearning) lots of unnecessary footwork, so dismiss it as not 'real dancing' ...

If everyone has to learn specific, irregular footwork for every beat (or half-beat !) of every move, that makes it much harder to learn, and more likely to go wrong in practice.

I think the best thing about Ceroc is that a good leader can teach an absolute beginner to follow in 30 seconds and then instantly lead them in full intermediate freestyle.

I think that is our 'Unique Selling Point' and it would be a shame to lose it,
even if we don't admit it, or even exploit it 'to the max'.

Eric, a 'plodder'
(PS Disappointed to see Scots being dismissive of folk-dance )

[TA Guy]

I disagree with your equation of walking with inexperience. Watch Teachers, Demos and Taxis dancing. Certainly all the beginner moves are taught with alternating feet.

I write some drivel at times, my fingers get carried away

When I wrote that, I was prolly more thinking about it relative to some latiny hip movement or something. Just that little extra optional stuff that can be added to spice up the walk, if someone is that way inclined. Nothing to do with the footwork really. I don't know why, I'm not exactly blessed with latiny hips or anything... maybe because I admire dancers who add that sort of stuff. So anyway, yup, your right.

I don't think they mean that our feet don't work : rather that there is no "mandatory footwork" : your feet don't have to do the same as everyone else's !

Maybe, "mandatory patterns" is prolly what I think of as "formal footwork", which is why I've said previously (like lots of people), 'MJ doesn't require formal footwork'.

But I don't think it's correct to think of footwork as just a shortened version of 'mandatory footwork', or 'footwork patterns'. 'As in MJ has no patterns, so it has no footwork' or 'MJ has no mandatory footwork, so it has no footwork'.

Dum de dum, I'm going to look it up......
"Footwork refers to dance technique aspects related to feet: foot position and foot action"
No mention of anything vaguely mandatory, or patterns. So unless you think MJ has no foot action whatsoever and MJ can be danced with both feet above your head (I.E. the foot position is irrelevent), it has footwork
Footwork (dance) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[ducasi]

(PS Disappointed to see Scots being dismissive of folk-dance )

Where was that?

[Andy McGregor]

I don't think they mean that our feet don't work : rather that there is no "mandatory footwork" : your feet don't have to do the same as everyone else's !

I disagree with your equation of walking with inexperience. Watch Teachers, Demos and Taxis dancing. Certainly all the beginner moves are taught with alternating feet.

The teachers won't tell people that's what they do, and if you ask them they will probably deny it !!!

I don't know if 'Ceroc Essentials' exists north of the border:
here in Central England, we teach a couple of minutes of 'right back, right forward, left back, left forward' footwork before the lesson. It's really funny watching people trying actually to do Ceroc moves with that footwork. Most that try never come back again ! Few people notice that we don't dance 'Left, Left, Right, Right', but 'Left, Right, Left, Right'.

I am probably breaking rules as a Taxi (or ex-Taxi this week ) when I suggest that people try just walking. It is amazing how much they instantly improve, and even say 'Why weren't we told before?'.

The only variable left is whether to walk at the speed of the beat or at half-speed, as in the Slow Comb, and Arm Jive.

The only intermediate move (worth doing) that requires the leader to change step (twice) is the "Basket Steps". I have come across another move (in an Intermediate Workshop) that had changes of tempo (frequency) as well as step (phase) - I don't think anyone actually managed it in practice! Triple-step moves work because you change step twice, leaving you in-step again at the end.

One thing worth considering : how to define what is 'good' ?
I think 'simple' and 'easy-to-learn' are good !

Walking makes the dance predictable, and ensures that you can lead without wrong-footing your partner. It keeps you and your partner working together, even without a rigid 'frame'. It is consistent with most Latin and Ballroom dance, helping us to make 'converts'. Walking is natural - we all do it without thinking - frees the mind to learn the moves.
In fact some of the people that struggle most to learn Ceroc are Real Jivers, Rock Jivers, WCSers, Lindy-Hoppers and 'International-style' Ballroom Jivers ! I think they are secretly miffed at having wasted time learning (and unlearning) lots of unnecessary footwork, so dismiss it as not 'real dancing' ...

If everyone has to learn specific, irregular footwork for every beat (or half-beat !) of every move, that makes it much harder to learn, and more likely to go wrong in practice.

I think the best thing about Ceroc is that a good leader can teach an absolute beginner to follow in 30 seconds and then instantly lead them in full intermediate freestyle.

I think that is our 'Unique Selling Point' and it would be a shame to lose it,
even if we don't admit it, or even exploit it 'to the max'.

Eric, a 'plodder'
(PS Disappointed to see Scots being dismissive of folk-dance )

Eric has seen the light. And that light is walking footwork. And, once you realise this you will also realise there is a correct foot for each beat in the bar. One day all Ceroc Taxi (or ex-taxi) dancers will be so enlightened