Slow vs Fast...is it a precision thing??

[Gadget]

do you seriously believe that purely through learning MJ, one can become a dancer of comparable skill to any of the Strictly pros?

Yes. If you can pinpoint exactly what you are learning that is: what is "pure" MJ?
If you put in as much dedication, time, training, ... as the Pros have, then why not?

Because there is no-one to teach you? Just because you are learning/dancing MJ, does this mean you have to be taught by MJ teachers?(*) You are not looking to be taught how to dance a specific style like Tango, but that is not to say Tango cannot teach you precision and leading to help you dance MJ: It "borrows" from every other form of dance - the 'skills' used in ballroom of using a frame and moving over the floor - the 'skills' of tap in finding rhythm - the skill in Jazz of embelishing - the 'skills' in balett of turning and balance - ...

(*If you are taught a dance skill by a MJ teacher, then is this now MJ technique?)

As has been said many times before - the chief strength and joy of MJ is its accessibility - but the flipside is that it is not a highly technical dance, and it doesn't teach pure dance skills to any great level.

At the "accessibility" level, correct. Why do you need to know that a turn works better with knees bent, to turn on the ball of your foot, to keep an upright poise, to be balanced arround your core, to have your front foot starting pointing at your partner, to use your connection with your partner and not let it dissrupt your balance, to use 'counter motion' to provide a preperation for it, to finish before stepping, to control the speed of your turn... there are millions of technical details that are not taught from stage as a standard part of the class, but that does not mean they are not there. It is as technical a dance as you want to make it :shrug:

But anyone wanting to really progress beyond a certain level as a dancer will have to look outside of MJ.

Perhaps to learn, but not to actually implement it and dance. That is what makes it such a great dance; someone like Amir can dance MJ with Jo Smith off the street on night 1.
{OK so he would call it "Jango" }

Nonsense: just because I've seen a mess of paint on a paper dosn't imply that someone with tallent and skill can't paint a masterpeice.

What i mean is that Ceroc beginners give you X basic primary colours of move in poster paint format. It's up to you to paint your dance with these so that it looks like the music, using your partner as the brush. As you get better you learn to controll your brush, you get more colours of move in your pallette, you can blend them to find the one you want, you can compose your dance to give a better picture of the music, your partner becomes a more refined brush that can add embelishments of it's own.... What I mean is that just because you started with poster paints daubbing smiley faces and splattering the walls with paint does not mean that you cannot paint beautifully.

[MartinHarper]

You are not looking to be taught how to dance a specific style like Tango, but that is not to say Tango cannot teach you precision and leading to help you dance MJ

My experience is that the easiest way to learn from another dance is to learn another dance. I think I would find it very difficult to learn precision from Tango without learning Tango and dancing Tango with Tango dancers.

[NZ Monkey]

Because there is no-one to teach you? Just because you are learning/dancing MJ, does this mean you have to be taught by MJ teachers?(*) You are not looking to be taught how to dance a specific style like Tango, but that is not to say Tango cannot teach you precision and leading to help you dance MJ: It "borrows" from every other form of dance - the 'skills' used in ballroom of using a frame and moving over the floor - the 'skills' of tap in finding rhythm - the skill in Jazz of embelishing - the 'skills' in balett of turning and balance - ...

(*If you are taught a dance skill by a MJ teacher, then is this now MJ technique?)

Please correct me if I'm wrong here Gadget, but it seems to me that what you're suggesting is that you can find very experienced teachers of other dance styles to help you improve your MJ, because teachers at X level don't exist in MJ itself.

That is exactly Straycats point - you have to look outside MJ to find that experience. In Straycats words - MJ doesn't have nearly the level of technical ability that the SCD pro's have acheived.

Your argument sounds suspiciously like me claiming I can sure cancer. There's almost certainly a possible cure, and someone has to find it. I've got a brain that works just the same as any medical scientists after all. I've even got a degree in science. If I put the time and effort in then I'll find the cure, because the cure is a part of me already. I just can't be bothered looking for it yet.

If I were a gambling man, I wouldn't put a singe cent on the cure for cancer being discovered by me though. Definitely not without a hell of a lot of training by people a lot better than I in the appropriate fields.

Potential is one thing, but there's a world of difference between saying that something has the potential to be great and saying where it's actually at right now. MJ does not have anything near the same technical level of many other dances, and the only way to improve that level at the moment for individual dancers is to look for higher learning elsewhere.

Actually that isn't quite true. We can also refine the techniques ourselves over a long period of time. For the most part however, this is reinventing the wheel. Meanwhile, other dance forms are doing the same, and given their headstart they'll still have a noticably higher level for a very long time to come, and we'll keep on having the same arguments.

The inclusive culture of MJ is a fantastic asset and not something I would wish to see change, but I think it's important to recognise that it's also MJ's biggest limiting factor to the development of technical excellence. Whether you care about technical excellence is another matter entirely of course .

[NZ Monkey]

My experience is that the easiest way to learn from another dance is to learn another dance. I think I would find it very difficult to learn precision from Tango without learning Tango and dancing Tango with Tango dancers.

I'm not sure how you can learn from another style without learning that style in the first place.

[Genevieve]

Good question and a good thread.

I am making a sexist assumption that you are following ?

If I were leading you I would try two things:
To break the concentration I would try to distract you by engaging you in conversation, so that your subconscious 'muscle-memory' would just follow automatically without worrying about what was happening next.
You don't need to concentrate much if well-led.

To avoid anticipation, I would perversely dance even slower - precisely half-speed. That usually means concentration wanders, and there is no need to worry about the next move. After a few moves, switching back to full speed usually results in perfect timing due to relaxed dancing. It feels much better by contrast. Cruel ? Yes, but effective !

Probably not many leaders would do this for you. They might be reading this, though ?

Alcohol can help slow reaction times, but that can adversely affect things when a fast track comes on later.

You have read my mind perfectly.......yes, I am indeed following. Thankfully most of what you have outlined in your response is reflected in the dance's that I am experiencing.....I find that a good giggle in particular takes my mind of things.

Its certainly getting easier as the weeks go by......the freestyles are nowhere near as intimidating as they once were!

[Gadget]

{back to my long rambling posts again sorry...}

My experience is that the easiest way to learn from another dance is to learn another dance. I think I would find it very difficult to learn precision from Tango without learning Tango and dancing Tango with Tango dancers.

I'm not sure how you can learn from another style without learning that style in the first place.

Franck has in the past taken teachers of various styles and asked them to teach to an MJ audience - and not to teach the dance, but to teach techniques used within the dance. { and quite sucessfully IMHO.}
I admit that most will probably find it easier learning from another dance by dancing it, but it depends on the person; what they are wanting to learn, where their weakneses and strengths lie, if they can change elements in their dancing, ...

Personally I try to compare everything new with how I currently do it - movement, timeing, connection, placement, ... If I find it better or can see how it would benifit my dancing, then I will adopt it/practice it/try it. If something new is not working as I think it should then I keep the 'old' untill i can understand the 'new' enough to form an opinion on it.

Am I dancing the new dance? I'm dancing how I dance with the restrictions of that style put in place. I am leading the follower how they expect to be led rather than using every lead technique or changing it to move them where I want. I am using the movements and timeing that the style/music constrains me to.
In short I am moulding my dance into the construct that defines the dance style: faking it. Learning a new style for me is seeing where my dancing falls outside the mould and trimming those bits or filling out to get into the corners in other bits. It's these 'filling out' bits where I am lacking and the 'trimming' bits where I don't have the control/precision. These are the areas I learn in.

Please correct me if I'm wrong here Gadget, but it seems to me that what you're suggesting is that you can find very experienced teachers of other dance styles to help you improve your MJ, because teachers at X level don't exist in MJ itself.

That is exactly Straycats point - you have to look outside MJ to find that experience. In Straycats words - MJ doesn't have nearly the level of technical ability that the SCD pro's have acheived.

The main difficulty I have is defining "X level". What makes them so good? What makes them "better" than a MJ teacher? You mention 'Technical ability'; what does that imply? How do you know that MJ teachers don't have it?

I can think on several teachers that I would like to learn from (in the MJ circuit). Each has their own strengths, and that's what I would like to learn from them. {Most run workshops and are available for privates if you ask, so are accessable.} Each style of dance has things that I think would be cool to learn. What's the difference in seeking out a skill from a MJ teacher and a skill from another dance instructor?

(As another point, "experiance" does not automatically equate to "good" or "talented" )

Your argument sounds suspiciously like me claiming I can sure cancer. ~ Potential is one thing, but there's a world of difference between saying that something has the potential to be great and saying where it's actually at right now.

So people should stop looking for a cure to cancer because they are never going to find one? The potential is there, but there is no point in stretching to reach it? Where something is right now has little bearing - it's taking the next advancement that's important. It's not the destination, it's the journey.

MJ does not have anything near the same technical level of many other dances, and the only way to improve that level at the moment for individual dancers is to look for higher learning elsewhere.

Again: "technical level" - what do you mean by that? There are only three things that make a dancer 'technically' brilliant: timeing, control and precision.

As an individual dancer, do you feel that you can learn no more from your current (MJ) teachers? Have you asked them? Or are you judging all this on MJ Classes that are designed to cater to/for everybody?

[David Bailey]

Franck has in the past taken teachers of various styles and asked them to teach to an MJ audience - and not to teach the dance, but to teach techniques used within the dance. { and quite sucessfully IMHO.}

Mmmm. Not convinced.

Yes, fusion teaching can work - Jango's the obvious example, but people have also taught Latin fusion, Blues fusion, etc.

But these are usually taster classes - or once-offs. To get the proper benefit, you need regular classes, to get technique drilled-in and natural.


Re: professional dancers:

The main difficulty I have is defining "X level". What makes them so good? What makes them "better" than a MJ teacher?

Training. Lots and lots of training. Gus mentioned in the "Best of the best" that some couples are "pulling away" from most of us. Imagine that situation, multiplied by 10.

Professional dance couples do this all the time. They train 40, 50, 60+ hours, each and every week. That's their job. So of course they're better at it than we are. I don't know of any other MJ couples doing that - OK, maybe 1 or 2, but ballroom has hundreds of them.

(As another point, "experiance" does not automatically equate to "good" or "talented" )

No, but 90%+ of it is down to working damn hard at it.

So people should stop looking for a cure to cancer because they are never going to find one?

No - the analogy is "If you want to cure cancer, you should learn oncology, noy (for example) vetinary science".

[Franck]

Franck has in the past taken teachers of various styles and asked them to teach to an MJ audience - and not to teach the dance, but to teach techniques used within the dance. { and quite sucessfully IMHO.}

Mmmm. Not convinced.

Yes, fusion teaching can work - Jango's the obvious example, but people have also taught Latin fusion, Blues fusion, etc.

But these are usually taster classes - or once-offs. To get the proper benefit, you need regular classes, to get technique drilled-in and natural.

Here's the rub, I don't try to have 'Fusion' workshops, I ask the relevant specialists to teach us techniques that I know are relevant and useful to MJ dancing.

For example, I would ask good Tango teachers (like Stefano & Alexandra) to devise workshops about body lead, walking, foot styling, etc... I would ask WCS experts to teach us about connection, follower's hi-jack or slotted dancing. I would ask great Ballroom teachers to teach us about frame, posture, spins & turns, musicality, etc.

The idea is we are learning great skills and techniques from experts who have spent years developing them. We don't need to know their specific dance to apply the above skills in MJ.

[David Bailey]

The idea is we are learning great skills and techniques from experts who have spent years developing them. We don't need to know their specific dance to apply the above skills in MJ.

Sure - but unless those teachers stay teaching, keep on developing, keep on hammering those ideas in, you're better off actually learning those techniques from the dances themselves, simply because they're much more accessible that way.

I won't learn Tango from a Jango class, and that's probably the most well-developed "Dance X technique in MJ format" discipline around. And I definitely won't learn Tango from a typical "Taste of Tango" MJ class.

Personally, if I really want to know the techniques that Tango specialises in, then I need to go to Tango classes, lots of them. And, eventually, my MJ dancing will incorporate those techniques because I'll have them ingrained.

He says...

[NZ Monkey]

{back to my long rambling posts again sorry...}

Franck has in the past taken teachers of various styles and asked them to teach to an MJ audience - and not to teach the dance, but to teach techniques used within the dance.

For example, I would ask good Tango teachers (like Stefano & Alexandra) to devise workshops about body lead, walking, foot styling, etc... I would ask WCS experts to teach us about connection, follower's hi-jack or slotted dancing. I would ask great Ballroom teachers to teach us about frame, posture, spins & turns, musicality, etc.

The idea is we are learning great skills and techniques from experts who have spent years developing them. We don't need to know their specific dance to apply the above skills in MJ.

This is fantastic. I support this sort of arrangement 100%. I'll also note that it's outside the MJ scene that Franck is finding these specialists. If we had people that good in the MJ scene in the first place that wouldn't be necessary.

Franck is developing the dance. He's doing so by taking the experience of more technical dancers and trying to transfer that directly to the students.

In saying that, I also agree with DavidJames when he says

Sure - but unless those teachers stay teaching, keep on developing, keep on hammering those ideas in, you're better off actually learning those techniques from the dances themselves, simply because they're much more accessible that way.

Regular classes are the most important learning environment in any dance IMHO. They are the place where detail can be hammered over and over again by the teachers so that the students have a much better chance of picking it up. This was one of the things I loved about Cat's WCS classes in Twickenham.

The main difficulty I have is defining "X level". What makes them so good? What makes them "better" than a MJ teacher? You mention 'Technical ability'; what does that imply? How do you know that MJ teachers don't have it?

As DavidJames has already pointed out - practice and dedication. And analysis. And the (massive) advantage of being taught by other people who were fantastic, with a lifetime of experience.

Technical ability is the understanding of the way your body works, in conjunction with your partner. It's an understanding of connection, balance, poise, movement and music. It's the detail that the devil hides in.

How do I know that MJ teachers don't have it? I have eyes, and ears. It's obvious once you've seen how good some of the dancers outside the MJ scene really are. This is true at a social level, but especially true at the professional one. Even when teaching the same basic material, there is a world of difference between the insights someone who's professional life has been devoted to exploring and understanding the body mechanics involved in dancing and someone who get's up on a stage once or twice a week to teach a 45 minute MJ class to 200 people on top of their regular job.

I can think on several teachers that I would like to learn from (in the MJ circuit). Each has their own strengths, and that's what I would like to learn from them. {Most run workshops and are available for privates if you ask, so are accessable.} Each style of dance has things that I think would be cool to learn. What's the difference in seeking out a skill from a MJ teacher and a skill from another dance instructor?

Assuming an equal degree of skill, knowledge and understanding - nothing. That's one hell of an assumption most of the time though.

I'm not claiming that all MJ teachers are totally useless. That's daft, and wrong. What I am saying is that even our top people don't have the same overall level of understanding that the top people in most other major dances do. If you're comparing against the very best in both styles, I doubt we come close on any aspects.

(As another point, "experiance" does not automatically equate to "good" or "talented" )

While this is true, sometimes it does. Talented people with more experience are generally better than talented people with less. Talented people with excellent teaching are better still. Talented people with excellent teaching and experience are..... you take my point?

So people should stop looking for a cure to cancer because they are never going to find one? The potential is there, but there is no point in stretching to reach it? Where something is right now has little bearing - it's taking the next advancement that's important. It's not the destination, it's the journey.

DavidJames got the point. There's no point in me trying to find it, since I don't have the understanding required to even get to grips with the problem, let alone solve it.

I'd need a lot of training from people a lot better than my friends and I before I'd even stand a chance. If I were to strike out on my own and try to find it now, I'd not even get close to where people who have had that training are already, and I'd be an old man.

Again: "technical level" - what do you mean by that? There are only three things that make a dancer 'technically' brilliant: timeing, control and precision.

Only..... Those are extremely broad categories Gadget.

As an individual dancer, do you feel that you can learn no more from your current (MJ) teachers? Have you asked them? Or are you judging all this on MJ Classes that are designed to cater to/for everybody?

My current ones? Actually I almost do.

Yes, I've asked them. They told me I needed to use more moves and that my lead was too light. I could certainly learn more moves, but I disagree on the lead issue. That's a difference of opinion and one I personally feel I can back up if I ever needed to.

[Franck]

Sure - but unless those teachers stay teaching, keep on developing, keep on hammering those ideas in, you're better off actually learning those techniques from the dances themselves, simply because they're much more accessible that way.

Well, of course, that would be one way of doing it, but not really practical. It is also limiting, if you choose to focus on Tango, you lose the opportunity to learn all the good technique from other dances (WCS, Ballroom, Lindy, Salsa).

As for continuing development, I make sure I attend the classes myself and encourage all my teachers to do the same so they can learn the techniques and include them in their regular classes and workshops.

My main focus is to improve my MJ dancing (and that of my students), it is the dance I find most versatile, least limiting and most pleasurable. I agree with NZ Monkey that we don't currently have all the answers within our still growing pool of teachers / dancers, but we're getting there.

[Gadget]

This is fantastic. I support this sort of arrangement 100%. I'll also note that it's outside the MJ scene that Franck is finding these specialists. If we had people that good in the MJ scene in the first place that wouldn't be necessary.

how do you think that those teachers you admire got to the top of their game? Who taught them?

~there is a world of difference between the insights someone who's professional life has been devoted to exploring and understanding the body mechanics involved in dancing and someone who get's up on a stage once or twice a week to teach a 45 minute MJ class to 200 people on top of their regular job.

Yes - isn't that what I said? I see no reason that with the same dedication, devotion and time a MJ teacher couldn't equal {or be better than } a "professional".

~ What I am saying is that even our top people don't have the same overall level of understanding that the top people in most other major dances do. If you're comparing against the very best in both styles, I doubt we come close on any aspects.

I think that we exceed them in a few areas: accessability, fun, social networking, music tastes, enjoyment, flexability, ease of learning, flexability of learning,...
Sure; they may be able to stand balanced on one toe for infinity, execute a movement exactly the same each and every time, spin fifteen zillion times, walk and chew gum, but 'we' are learning from them; like the dance, picking the best bits from each.

Yes, I've asked them. They told me I needed to use more moves and that my lead was too light. I could certainly learn more moves, but I disagree on the lead issue. That's a difference of opinion and one I personally feel I can back up if I ever needed to.

I doubt that it's "learning more moves" - i would take that comment to mean that you need some variety and the most obvious way is through more moves. But I'm not the one making the comment, so I could be way off.

The lead issue... I have been accused of being too light as well - if my partner is saying it, then I must agree with them; my lead is how I communicate to them - if they cant hear it properly, if it's too light to them then it's too light. simple. I changed mine slightly (for these partners) to be more precise about orientation and positioning; controlling/directing my partner's momentum a bit and preparing more rather than going with it and sorting out any miss-alignments within the next lead.
This was on my own initative - I try and work out why they would think that and find a way to resolve it: my lead is still as light, but there is more precision and definition to it. {Hey, almost on topic }

...Of course some other followers* prefer a bit of tension constantly so that they can feel positive and negative leads through changes in the tension rather than being guided by positive leads in different directions (which is what a light lead provides)
*normally from a WCS background

[David Bailey]

Yes - isn't that what I said? I see no reason that with the same dedication, devotion and time a MJ teacher couldn't equal {or be better than } a "professional".

With the same dedication, devotion and time, an MJ teacher would be a professional. There's nothing magical about dance professionals, they just do it as their fulltime job and so are much better at it.

[straycat]

how do you think that those teachers you admire got to the top of their game? Who taught them?

They got to the top of their game by learning from others who had reached the top in the same dances. And each successive generation tends to push that dance further. MJ goes through the same process, but has yet to be developed to the same standard.

I think that we exceed them in a few areas: accessability, fun, social networking, music tastes, enjoyment, flexability, ease of learning, flexability of learning,...

Accessibility - absolute, yes,
Fun - too subjective to say,
Social networking - probably,
Music tastes - WAY too subjective.
Enjoyment - see fun
Ease of Learning - see accessibility.

Sure; they may be able to stand balanced on one toe for infinity, execute a movement exactly the same each and every time, spin fifteen zillion times, walk and chew gum, but 'we' are learning from them; like the dance, picking the best bits from each.

The best bits from each? Gadget... without immersing yourself in a particular dance for a long time - sometimes for YEARS - I very much doubt you'll never reach the best bits. It's true of MJ, it's true of Lindy (it took me five years to reach the amazing bits of that, and I'm still not sure I've reached the 'best bits') I'm quite sure it's true of AT (where I have yet to get close to these best bits) and of WCS.... And this is without considering the fact that a huge part of what makes something like AT truly special is so wrapped up in the music / culture and their relationship ... can you really extract this and package it into another dance? I seriously doubt it...

How anyone can expect to pluck these 'best bits' out in a few workshops I have no idea - yes one can get great techniques in this way that can help one's dancing enormously - but the 'best bits'? In your dreams....

[David Bailey]

... And this is without considering the fact that a huge part of what makes something like AT truly special is so wrapped up in the music / culture and their relationship ... can you really extract this and package it into another dance? I seriously doubt it...

Well, I wouldn't put it that strongly. I reckon it's possible to extract it - but it'll take vast amounts of work. I can't imagine how to seriously package salsa techniques into MJ, for example, and I'm quite comfortable with both of those dances.

I think that getting flavours from other dances is extremely valuable - and I think what Franck's doing is great, and it's really kicking the standard of dance in Scotland upwards.

But there will be limitations to that sort of thing. And you only get the real benefit from a regular set of classes - workshops are only useful if their lessons can be reinforced. So the way I see it, you may as well do those classes straight off.

[NZ Monkey]

To add to what Straycat and DavidJames have said already:

I think that we exceed them in a few areas: accessability, fun, social networking, music tastes, enjoyment, flexability, ease of learning, flexability of learning,...

I think the area's you've posted as our stronger ones are all peripheral to the dance itself. Sure, they're important for the social scene - but they're not about the mechanics of the dance.

Where "they're" in a position to teach us something about how to dance, we're only in a position to show them how to go out to a dance night with lots of people.... which in my experience they probably won't enjoy if they're an accomplished dancer. I'll place more value on the first in a teacher personally. Then again, I don't run a business out of MJ

The lead issue... I have been accused of being too light as well - if my partner is saying it, then I must agree with them; my lead is how I communicate to them - if they cant hear it properly, if it's too light to them then it's too light. simple.

Of course. However I've had conflicting feedback on the issue and I have to choose who's opinion I value more highly. In this particular case it isn't my local teacher. I also think there's a difference between a general and a partner-specific issue.

[MartinHarper]

Well, of course, that would be one way of doing it, but not really practical. It is also limiting, if you choose to focus on Tango, you lose the opportunity to learn all the good technique from other dances (WCS, Ballroom, Lindy, Salsa).

I can't speak for Tango. One of the benefits I've gained from focusing on Lindy in addition to Modern Jive is the opportunity to learn technique from dances that Modern Jivers care about as well as technique from dances that Lindy folks care about.