Do you use Moves?

[gebandemuishond]

PS I'm looking at this from a beginners/intermediate perspective and not an advance dancer that doesn't use moves.

Advanced dancers do use moves. They just don't like to think so.

Do you use moves or not? If not, could you elaborate on what you do instead? If possible, are there any links to YouTube clips of MJ dancers dancing MJ and not using moves (or claiming not to)? Is this thread too similar to the What are your core moves thread?

I'm aware this could get into a nitty gritty about what a move is. I don't know if this is a good thing or not.

Personally, I think I do use MJ moves, most of the time. Often I'll make up a move either spontaneously or (yes I'm a geek) by having thought it through previously. I'd also say that I don't tend to do moves as I've been taught them, e.g. mucking around with the timing and stuff, but I think what I dance could generally be described as 'using moves'.

Is this something which will disappear when I eventually trancend into a higher state of consciouness and become an Advanced Dancer?

Dan

[David Bailey]

Do you use moves or not? If not, could you elaborate on what you do instead?

Depends on the situation. For slow music, and with good followers, I do more moveless dancing - either AT or just kind of messing-around.

For more traditional MJ-y music and situations, I certainly use moves - just not very many of them, and not all the time.

Is this something which will disappear when I eventually trancend into a higher state of consciouness and become an Advanced Dancer?

Who knows? We don't have any advanced MJ dancers.

[Dreadful Scathe]

For more traditional MJ-y music and situations, I certainly use moves - just not very many of them, and not all the time.

It would be impossible to watch even the best MJ dancer and not be able to pick out moves they are doing now and again i would think, but in between the moves there'll be lots of moving about beautifully in time with the music

[Gav]

If possible, are there any links to YouTube clips of MJ dancers dancing MJ and not using moves (or claiming not to)?

Surely if someone isn't doing moves, they're not dancing MJ?
Isn't that called 'just dancing'?
Maybe they're 'just dancing' in an MJ environment?

[Gus]

It would be impossible to watch even the best MJ dancer and not be able to pick out moves they are doing now and again i would think, but in between the moves there'll be lots of moving about beautifully in time with the music

I think some of the best examples of this I've seen up in Scottyland ... the likes of : Freudian Hips, Caro, Azande, Lil Monkey, The Hancock, Jennifer oh, and Groovy Dancer (temporary import ) etc ..... just playing around beautifully ... no focus on just doing moves but just letting the beat (and the alcohol in Hancock's case) wherever it will ......

[MartinHarper]

This is moveless dancing in a Modern Jive context:



Ok, now mostly that's because Noel sabotaged the heck out of the dance (yeay for male follows!) rather than because of Jamie's leading style, but there you are. There's nothing that looks like a move. If there is, it's by accident, not design.

More commonly, I think moveless dancing is a feature of the leader's head. For example, sometimes I think "I'll lead a Travelling American Spin". Other times I think "I want my partner to come past me then spin just there". The end result is the same, but in the first case it's a move-based thought process and in the second case it's a movement-based thought process.

Occasionally I'll lead a series of octopus-inspired movements: each being either left side or right side, and either man-wrap or woman-wrap. I'm not dancing a octopus-entry into a reverse-octopus-entry into an octopus-middle into a reverse-octopus-exit into a octopus-exit, though you could think of it that way. I'm just dancing 20 beats of octopus-ish stuff. That's arguably moveless.

[straycat]

Do you use moves or not? If not, could you elaborate on what you do instead? If possible, are there any links to YouTube clips of MJ dancers dancing MJ and not using moves (or claiming not to)? Is this thread too similar to the What are your core moves thread?

I do and I don't. I've quite honestly forgotten most of the MJ moves I've ever learned, and I doubt there's a single one of the remainder that I do 'by the book' (for a start, leading returns is something of a rarity for me) - so what I tend to do is lead a mishmash of invented moves, bits and pieces of the few MJ moves I do remember, and bits and pieces of Lindy moves, or anything else that comes to mind, or try out odd bits of footwork... and a lot depends on my follower and how well she copes with what I'm doing. Sometimes I'll do a dance which doesn't have a single 'standard' MJ move in - but there's likely lots of bits & pieces of MJ moves in there.

I do have a video of myself doing bluesy 'moveless' MJ - but I'm debating whether I should put it online. (Partly as I'm not dancing that well in it )

[Jamie]

Noel is the only person I've ever seen do "moveless" MJ. As you saw in the video above, he just isn't a move person, it's one of the reasons I love dancing with him. I prefer following Noel, he gives me so much inspiration, but he does ask me to lead him a lot and I can tell you no two dances with Noel are ever the same!

[straycat]

Surely if someone isn't doing moves, they're not dancing MJ?

Quite possibly not. I just call it MJ for convenience. Where's that "what is MJ?" thread again?

[robd]

This is moveless dancing in a Modern Jive context:

Well, just watching the first minute or so I see a basket, a step across and a left hand - right hand pivot (not sure this has a ceroc name but it's a common WCS pattern). Admittedly, none of them are exactly as you would see them taught in a standard class but I recognise them as those moves nonetheless.

Noel is without doubt one of the more freeform MJ dancers around but I still wouldn't say that his style is moveless dancing. Paul F is perhaps the person I see most often that I would class as nearest to moveless dancing.

[Brian Doolan]

I do the moves I've been taught in classes (mostly by Frank and Marie), have fun, enjoy myself and dance to the ability of my partner (who will often be better than me),

I think moveless dancing is simply dancing for yourself, I see examples of it up here in Scotland where dancers often don't give their partners any more consideration than they would a pole or a broom handle; they do tend to be the more "advanced" dancers.

[Gadget]

I use "moves" all the time, but they are either a lot shorter than you would conseder a normal 'move' (ie a movement) or a lot longer (ie one move going between elements in the music)

I use a lot of recognisable movements, basically because that's what is taught - I know how to lead them and my partners are not too out of their depth following them. In putting them together I don't use a 'bumper book of moves' I simply dance and make it up as I go. {you never would know it }

[martingold]

I do the moves I've been taught in classes , have fun, enjoy myself and dance to the ability of my partner (who will often be better than me),

same here as there are in excess of 600 mj moves i would think it would be very difficult to dance with no moves whatsoever even if what you are doing is a lazy version of a move for example a yoyo without lifting the hand up to the elbow block etc

I think moveless dancing is simply dancing for yourself, I see examples of it up here in Scotland where dancers often don't give their partners any more consideration than they would a pole or a broom handle; they do tend to be the more "advanced" dancers.

[Steven666]

Well, just watching the first minute or so I see a basket, a step across and a left hand - right hand pivot (not sure this has a ceroc name but it's a common WCS pattern). Admittedly, none of them are exactly as you would see them taught in a standard class but I recognise them as those moves nonetheless.

I've seen this video before and I have to agree. The "moves" may not be uniform to what is taught but are taught moves restricted to only be done in that way. Is a person's innovation not aloud to change the "core basics" of the move to alter it. But even if altered from the norm, they are still moves.

For example, a simple travelling return, will a hell of a lot of wriggling and fannying about in the middle covering twenty beats or so will still be a travelling return regardless, hence still a move.

Even if some "so called" non moves are say parts taken from longer moves, mashed together with other part moves that fit, then it still overall a move in my eyes. The sequence may not have been officially name by Ceroc but it will contains known movements from other moves.

For me if you use no moves at all, your merely just feet shifting like some peeps do in a nightclub or, god forbid, disco. Stand on one foot. Shift weight to other foot. Reverse. Repeat. If someone does that in MJ then I would class that dancing as moveless but otherwise, for me, moveless MJ does not exist.

[Dreadful Scathe]

Well, just watching the first minute or so I see a basket, a step across and a left hand - right hand pivot (not sure this has a ceroc name but it's a common WCS pattern).

to be fair to MH he did say...

This is moveless dancing in a Modern Jive context

And "in context" he is right, there are, as you say yourself, none that are "exactly as you would see them taught in a standard class".

There's nothing that looks like a move. If there is, it's by accident, not design.

I wouldn't quite agree with this, as there are variations of common moves in there, so they do "look like" moves. I would agree with the "by accident" quote to some degree though, simply because at the stage those 2 are at they are thinking about the best movement to make next, not the best move


for as MH has already said, which I'm not sure anyone read

The end result is the same, but in the first case it's a move-based thought process and in the second case it's a movement-based thought process.

Occasionally I'll lead a series of octopus-inspired movements: each being either left side or right side, and either man-wrap or woman-wrap. I'm not dancing a octopus-entry into a reverse-octopus-entry into an octopus-middle into a reverse-octopus-exit into a octopus-exit, though you could think of it that way. I'm just dancing 20 beats of octopus-ish stuff. That's arguably moveless.

so, moveless does not mean "literally" moveless - just "not using moves one after the other as taught in a standard class".

I think moveless dancing is simply dancing for yourself, I see examples of it up here in Scotland

Even if it was possible to do completely unique movements so that they are never recognisable as individual MJ moves , it would not make it selfish dancing if you are still leading your partner and they can follow it. How would you define "moveless" ?

For example, a simple travelling return, will a hell of a lot of wriggling and fannying about in the middle covering twenty beats or so will still be a travelling return regardless, hence still a move.

Of course it is, but is the move important or is it the movement that happens to look like a move ? Also, I'm not sure some of the real quality dancers would care for your opinion that a variation is "fannying about" I mean literally, they wouldn't care

[David Bailey]

I think moveless dancing is simply dancing for yourself, I see examples of it up here in Scotland where dancers often don't give their partners any more consideration than they would a pole or a broom handle; [I]they do tend to be the more "advanced" dancers.

That's not moveless dancing, that's solo dancing.

To me, moveless dancing is "dancing without moves" - i.e. no preplanned sequences. So the dance would be broken down into atomic step-based components, each of which are dependent on the music and the partnership.

Stand on one foot. Shift weight to other foot. Reverse. Repeat. .

Sounds like a typical tango class to me

[Ghost]

That's not moveless dancing, that's solo dancing.

To me, moveless dancing is "dancing without moves" - i.e. no preplanned sequences. So the dance would be broken down into atomic step-based components, each of which are dependent on the music and the partnership.

My own description is

In move dancing the moves are very defined, you can clearly see them, their beginning and end etc, eg leading a first move then an underarm exit then manhattens etc

"Moveless" is where the elements just flow together. It's the wonderful point where a movement simply blossoms naturally in that moment and becomes whatever comes next without needing to be "finished / correct etc" It's what we're doing with the elements that's important.

It's the difference in intention that's important. Both dancers may end up actually doing a first move. But the move based dancer actually intended leading a first move from the get-go. The moveless dancer just led what felt right at each beat and it happened to fit together to form a first move - which makes sense, a lot of Ceroc moves are based on "what would naturally flow from this position?". or put another way if you asked them both what they just led the move dancer would say "A first move", the moveless dancer would say "a step back".

[Lory]

..the likes of : Freudian Hips, Caro, Azande, Lil Monkey, The Hancock, Jennifer oh, and Groovy Dancer (temporary import ) etc ..... just playing around beautifully ...

Noel is the only person I've ever seen do "moveless" MJ.

I think I can safely say that Marc Forster doesn't use moves either.. he completely free's his mind of any constraints and just does what he feels, (even if it means bouncing off the nearest wall, swinging round a pillar or grabbing a chair to add to the mix) I don't even think 'he' knows what he's going to do next..

He also feeds off of his partner.. picking up on their interpretation and following, as much as leading.

Its hard to explain to someone who hasn't danced with him

I suspect it could possibly feel slightly intimidating and 'too free' for someone who's not so inspired by/intune with the music and needs some form of structure but I'm sure he's very good at picking up on whether someone's going to enjoy that kind of dance and easily switch to a structured, more move based dance

edit.. not when he's had a drink and deep in the zone though!

[David Bailey]

I suspect it could possibly feel slightly intimidating and 'too free' for someone who's not so inspired by/intune with the music and needs some form of structure but I'm sure he's very good at picking up on whether someone's going to enjoy that kind of dance and easily switch to a structured, more move based dance

edit.. not when he's had a drink and deep in the zone though!

Must resist re-opening can of worms...

[MartinHarper]

Stand on one foot. Shift weight to other foot. Reverse. Repeat.

That would be the move commonly known as a "Blues Basic" in Modern Jive. It has other names in other dances.

Just watching the first minute or so I see a basket, a step across and a ... WCS pattern.

Funny, I thought the "basket" was much more like a nameless Lindy pattern I was taught around August of last year. Perhaps Jamie and Noel are dancing move-based Modern Jive that is based on moves in a dance they don't actually know? Kudos!

In all seriousness, feel free to find or upload a purer example.

----

There are a lot of dances in the world, and a lot of moves in each dance. No matter what I do, it will share similarities with fifty odd moves in a dozen different dances, and it will contain movements that are also contained in a few hundred odd moves in dozens of different dances. Everything has been done. If "moveless" dancing was dancing in a way that never resembled any move in any dance, then it would be impossible and inconceivable.

In order to avoid any further semantic confusion on the subject, I propose the following terms:

* "moveless dancing": for the real thing I and others discuss in this thread.
* "unicorn herding": for the imaginary thing that only exists in Steven666's head.