Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 101

Thread: Musicality

  1. #61
    Forum Bombshell - Our Queen! Lory's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    North London
    Posts
    9,918
    Blog Entries
    2
    Rep Power
    17

    Re: Musicality

    Quote Originally Posted by Gadget View Post
    Yes, there is cooperation. Yes, there is sharing. Yes, you have a partner. But it is a lead and follow dance. The roles are not the same. The lead is dominant. The lead creates the picture and the follower colours it in.
    I'm sure that there could be a dance form where the roles are truly shared, equally; but it's not any form of partner dance I know of.
    Exactly!

    which is why, understanding the rules, is so important.

    If you have an idea in your head, you need to convey that in a 'common language' to enable your partner to understand what your wanting from her.

    The rules allow you to do this
    MODERATOR AT YOUR SERVICE
    "If you're going to do something tonight, that you know you'll be sorry for in the morning, plan a lie in." Lorraine

  2. #62
    Forum Bombshell - Our Queen! Lory's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    North London
    Posts
    9,918
    Blog Entries
    2
    Rep Power
    17

    Re: Musicality

    Quote Originally Posted by Lory View Post

    The rules allow you to do this
    An example of this..

    The first 'proper' lessons I had, I learnt Cha cha. The teacher explained, that when one comes out of a spin, one should go into compression and push away.
    After that, I applied that to 'all' my dancing, not realizing hat this rule only applies to 'latin' styled dances (it might apply to others?)

    But recently, I had a lesson with Robert Royston, on WCS, he picked up on this immediately and commented on my "latin' styling... of which I was oblivious

    The he said that the 'default' when coming out of a spin in WCS, is to come into 'leverage' (stretch, as he called it) until that moment, I was ignorant to that.

    It makes perfect sense 'now' and of course, now I'm playing by those rules, it makes me a more predictable follow and much easier to lead (I hope )

    Different dance - different rules
    Last edited by Lory; 26th-May-2008 at 03:05 PM. Reason: added a bit
    MODERATOR AT YOUR SERVICE
    "If you're going to do something tonight, that you know you'll be sorry for in the morning, plan a lie in." Lorraine

  3. #63
    Registered User Lost Leader's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Towcester
    Posts
    1,274
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: Musicality

    Quote Originally Posted by Lory View Post
    I had a lesson with Robert Royston, on WCS, he picked up on this immediately and commented on my "latin' styling...
    Maybe he just meant you were looking "hot 'n' sexy Shakira style"

  4. #64
    Registered User NZ Monkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Auckland, NZ
    Posts
    1,109
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: Musicality

    Quote Originally Posted by Lory View Post
    It makes perfect sense 'now' and of course, now I'm playing by those rules, it makes me a more predictable follow and much easier to lead (I hope )

    Different dance - different rules

    Different rules make for different dances, but the important point is that these dances have rules that enable partners to communicate efficiently.

    The problem I have with MJ in this respect is that despite being a lead/follow dance, there is very little specific information given as to the actual mechanics of lead and follow. To make it even more frustrating, those few places where attention is placed on these aspects are often very inconsistant with each other.

    As in Lory's example - it's one thing to simply say "spin the lady", compared to saying "spin the lady, and make sure you're in compression so you can lead them back after the spin" or "spin the lady and let youself settle back so they can come into leverage".

    The first option is vague enough that anyone can do it on close to their first try, but it costs in precision which is vital for learning to lead or follow to a higher standard.....which in turn is vital to dance musically in a partnership.

    Unfortunately, this is the point where I have to stand on my soapbox and say something that isn't likely to be popular: Until you've learned from someone who teaches leading and following in a precise manner for a dance with well-defined lead and follow conventions, and danced with people from a similar background, you really can't appreciate just what a difference it makes and just how many avenues it opens up.

  5. #65
    Lovely Moderator ducasi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Glasgow
    Posts
    10,015
    Rep Power
    14

    Re: Musicality

    Quote Originally Posted by Lory View Post
    which is why, understanding the rules, is so important.

    If you have an idea in your head, you need to convey that in a 'common language' to enable your partner to understand what your wanting from her.

    The rules allow you to do this
    And Modern Jive has rules too – enough to allow us all to dance very well. What makes the WCS rules special?
    Let your mind go and your body will follow. – Steve Martin, LA Story

  6. #66
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    St Neots, Cambs
    Posts
    699
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: Musicality

    Quote Originally Posted by ducasi View Post
    And Modern Jive has rules too – enough to allow us all to dance very well. What makes the WCS rules special?
    Don't think that Lory is saying the WCS rules are special, she's just used them as an example.

    What does seem to be coming through in a couple of threads is that WCS might focus on teaching these rules from an early stage (speaking from what I read - I don't yet WCS) whereas my experience of many Ceroc/MJ venues is similar to NZ Monkey's, and I find that often the teachers are too busy banging out moves to have time to help people understand some of the basic principles on which the moves are constructed. Hence we could get a sort of Ceroc/MJ anarchy where both partners might actually be practicing their own brand of musicality without being able to communicate this to each other - the result is going to be messy!

    I've not experienced any more formal dance lessons but I am lucky to have learned at my local venue from a couple of people that do concentrate on lead/follow techniques. I agree with what NZ Monkey's suggestion about this opening up possibilities because it forms the basis for the communication running through this thread. Until people get this sorted I'm not sure that any of the rather complicated discussions of patterns and structures in the music, or imaginative descriptions about painting on a blank canvas, will do them any good.

    Some people will also never get it, 'musicality' clearly comes easier to some than others. Of course, that would never apply to anyone on the forum

  7. #67
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    bedford
    Posts
    4,899
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Musicality

    Quote Originally Posted by Agente Secreto View Post
    ... or imaginative descriptions about painting on a blank canvas, will do them any good...
    We could all communicate by using a paint package, writing longhand with a mouse. It would be time consuming to write like that, and sometimes impossible to read. Having the rules imposed by a keyboard enables most of us to communicate much more effectively most of the time.

    Having a just a blank sheet of paper and a pencil does not give us the total freedom to express ourselves. If we really want to communicate "square" a ruler or a stencil is almost essential.

  8. #68
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Cruden Bay (Aberde
    Posts
    7,053
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Musicality

    Quote Originally Posted by NZ Monkey View Post
    Unfortunately, this is the point where I have to stand on my soapbox and say something that isn't likely to be popular: Until you've learned from someone who teaches leading and following in a precise manner for a dance with well-defined lead and follow conventions, and danced with people from a similar background, you really can't appreciate just what a difference it makes and just how many avenues it opens up.
    I agree. Which is why we have specific "Focus" workshops, dedicated workshops about lead, follow, musicality, timing, spinning, connection, movement, etc. We have 'guest' teachers invited to teach principles of dancing rather than "moves".

    A regular class is not the place to spend an hour working on how to put weight onto one foot or how to lead from the core or how to follow from any contact point or any of the millions of things you can teach/learn about lead and follow. It's there to get people dancing. If the teacher imparts gems of wisdom about lead/follow/musicality along the way, then - but it's not necessary to be able to simply go out there and shake your booty on the dance floor.

  9. #69
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Sunny South Hampshire
    Posts
    873
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Musicality

    Quote Originally Posted by NZ Monkey View Post
    Different rules make for different dances, but the important point is that these dances have rules that enable partners to communicate efficiently.
    An intriguing thought. I always assumed it was the connection and my partner and I's skill (or lack of it ) in lead/follow that enabled efficient communication.

    The rules can make certain things easier (or harder), the example being in this thread how a rule about anchoring could make musicality easier, but rules in dance tend not to effect communication that much for one simple reason....

    ...Turns out there are no rules, just guidelines, which, using WCS as an example, even tho you may have a rule saying stay in a slot, or anchor here, or triple there, all those rules can be broken so any assist to communication perceived above the beginner level is actually non-existant because the rules are not hard and fast.

    I suppose you could argue that a dance like Tango, where the rules seem to stipulate a completely different emphasis on frame etc. might effect communication, but I don't think that difference is big enough between WCS and MJ to make that claim.

    MJ has a rule like the anchor rule. Only it's one beat, not two. Enough time to do a handbounce, or click, or hip wriggle in MJ That MJ rule can be overridden, much like the WCS anchor rule can be overridden. The WCS rule makes musicality easier because it is longer, two beats rather than one, not because that WCS rule somehow magically makes WCS communication more efficient than the MJ one beat 'anchor'.

    I'd be interested to hear exactly what rules give this increase in communication effciency and how ?

    Quote Originally Posted by NZ Monkey View Post
    As in Lory's example - it's one thing to simply say "spin the lady", compared to saying "spin the lady, and make sure you're in compression so you can lead them back after the spin" or "spin the lady and let youself settle back so they can come into leverage".
    Firstly, Lory learn't that in a private if I am reading her post correctly. I am sure had anyone attended one of Franck's MJ privates, or your local equivalent, the same result would have happened. So I'm not sure what point is being made here except 'privates are good'

    On the point about compression/leverage after a spin. I can only say as a lead I've lost count of the number of times I've heard 'step in, spin the lady, step back' in an MJ lesson. Admittedly, that's for the lead, but what is that but instructions to compress and leverage ?

    Quote Originally Posted by NZ Monkey View Post
    Unfortunately, this is the point where I have to stand on my soapbox and say something that isn't likely to be popular: Until you've learned from someone who teaches leading and following in a precise manner for a dance with well-defined lead and follow conventions, and danced with people from a similar background, you really can't appreciate just what a difference it makes and just how many avenues it opens up.
    I agree. I apply these conventions to my MJ all the time (and my WCS of course). As do many other peeps.
    You only have to stick your head in a weekender COZ room and you can see both MJ'ers and WCS'ers applying these conventions equally and producing some great musicality an' stuff.



    I get the feeling that certain WCS dancers, having taken oddles of WCS 'privates', and attended WCS workshops are expecting to have learn't this stuff in their weekly MJ dancing. I have to agree with Gadget here, that's not the place.
    Last edited by TA Guy; 27th-May-2008 at 12:38 PM.

  10. #70
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    St Neots, Cambs
    Posts
    699
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: Musicality

    Quote Originally Posted by Gadget View Post
    A regular class is not the place to spend an hour working on how to put weight onto one foot or how to lead from the core or how to follow from any contact point or any of the millions of things you can teach/learn about lead and follow. It's there to get people dancing. If the teacher imparts gems of wisdom about lead/follow/musicality along the way, then - but it's not necessary to be able to simply go out there and shake your booty on the dance floor.
    A regular class is the only way to target the vast bulk of people dancing MJ/Ceroc, so I don't agree that imparting gems of wisdom on lead/follow techniques is somehow supplementary to the main class. I'd say that in the average 30 mins beginner class there is nothing wrong with every teacher spending the first 5 minutes at the start of the lesson on one simple theme for the week before moving on to the moves. Addressing the basics would improve people far quicker than giving them a bunch of moves and might reduce the number of posts talking about poor leads/follows, the problems of backleading etc. Maybe the topic for another thread if it's not already been debated to death.

    I agree that getting over all of the key concepts of musicality itself are outside the time (and arguably knowledge) available to the average teacher on class nights and this is far better imparted on 'focus' sessions. During normal nights we could only really cover the basics of the conventions of course - all deeper stuff would still absolutely have to be covered in proper workshops, however even this would give people a far better chance of dancing musically with others.

    I'm not arguing for longer lessons by the way, I like us doing the 2 x 30 minutes teaching slots and using the rest for freestyle. I do note however how much quicker I've been picking up the basic conventions at the Salsa class my wife has 'persuaded' me to attend and I put this down to the fact that in the hour long class we simply cover more of the fundamentals (although we separate beginners and intermediates quite carefully to do so).

  11. #71
    Registered User NZ Monkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Auckland, NZ
    Posts
    1,109
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: Musicality

    Quote Originally Posted by Gadget View Post
    I agree. Which is why we have specific "Focus" workshops, dedicated workshops about lead, follow, musicality, timing, spinning, connection, movement, etc. We have 'guest' teachers invited to teach principles of dancing rather than "moves".
    From what I can gather, Franck is pretty much at the forefront on this approach which is great for the Scots. That said, it's hardly representative of the rest of the UK, let alone Australia and NZ.

    At least a couple of the Australian companies put more emphasis on the same issues, but in a slightly different way than Franck does. Consequently, they dance slightly differently as well*.

    A regular class is not the place to spend an hour working on how to put weight onto one foot or how to lead from the core or how to follow from any contact point or any of the millions of things you can teach/learn about lead and follow. It's there to get people dancing. If the teacher imparts gems of wisdom about lead/follow/musicality along the way, then - but it's not necessary to be able to simply go out there and shake your booty on the dance floor.
    Musicality isn't necessary to get out and shake your booty either for the record....

    That said, while an hour is clearly overkill I strongly disagree with the opinion that you can't teach technique in a regular class. As far as I can tell that's something only considered true in MJ circles. I've experienced differently with WCS, but I'm sure you'll find plenty of other examples (As per Agente Secreto's last post for instance) where the same is true in other dances.

    Quote Originally Posted by TA Guy
    An intriguing thought. I always assumed it was the connection and my partner and I's skill (or lack of it ) in lead/follow that enabled efficient communication.
    Connection is dependent on the dance you're doing. If that were not the case AT would feel just the same as MJ, and Salsa, and the Waltz, and.....

    The long and the short of it is that you're right, but only if you and your partner are always on the same page or, to continue the well used analogy, speaking the same language in the first place.

    all those rules can be broken so any assist to communication perceived above the beginner level is actually non-existant because the rules are not hard and fast.
    I'm not convinced that this is an argument with much merit sorry. The rules can be broken because they are there in the first place. Breaking out from the slot for instance is much more dramatic and deliberate because of the presence of the slot in the first place. It'd be nothing special if WCS dancers circled each other at random all the time anyway.

    I'd compare it to driving. We drive on one side of the road because then everyone on the road is following a predictable pattern. I can drive on the wrong side of the road occasionally when I'm overtaking somebody, but that doesn't invalidate the "keep to the left side" rule for everyone all the time.

    I'd be interested to hear exactly what rules give this increase in communication effciency and how ?
    It's all be said before in this and it's companion thread. Rehashing it would seem pointless.

    Firstly, Lory learn't that in a private if I am reading her post correctly. I am sure had anyone attended one of Franck's MJ privates, or your local equivalent, the same result would have happened. So I'm not sure what point is being made here except 'privates are good'
    The point, which I had hoped was obvious, is that there is more than one way to interprit a simple instruction. In this case, both the examples are specifically taught as standard in different dances, and influence the connection and lead/follow technique of each dance.

    The point is that to most effectively use lead/follow - everybody needs to understand what is expected of them, in detail.

    On the point about compression/leverage after a spin. I can only say as a lead I've lost count of the number of times I've heard 'step in, spin the lady, step back' in an MJ lesson. Admittedly, that's for the lead, but what is that but instructions to compress and leverage ?
    I notice that at no point in that phrase is leading the move even mentioned. Both the examples Lory suggested fit the description 'step in, spin the lady, step back' perfectly and yet are very different in look and feel.

    I know from experience and a number of comments in this forum that the step back in practice is often automatic with no connection required at all. In fact, in many cases it becomes a complete disconnect.

    I get the feeling that certain WCS dancers, having taken oddles of WCS 'privates', and attended WCS workshops are expecting to have learn't this stuff in their weekly MJ dancing. I have to agree with Gadget here, that's not the place.
    I think you'll find the majority of WCS posters here have learned the majority of what they know from their regular weeknight teachers. I for one, have been a a grand total of two private lessons in my life (only one of which I was the subject for) and two weekender workshops.

    Perhaps I'm the strange one though... who knows


    *Incidentally, more heavily influenced by WCS via J&T and your very own Paul and Cat.....

  12. #72
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,781
    Rep Power
    11

    Re: Musicality

    Quote Originally Posted by ducasi View Post
    And Modern Jive has rules too – enough to allow us all to dance very well. What makes the WCS rules special?
    I think the point most westies are making, is that there are more rules in WCS (don't think anybody is denying that), which, paradoxically, allow for more expression.

    It's like having more words in a language, or in the case of rule breaking, using the same words with different meanings. When you learn that new language, that double or triple use of a word just seems very confusing, and when you are more experienced, you realise that it in fact allows for more subtle and creative communication.

    Quote Originally Posted by TA Guy View Post
    An intriguing thought. I always assumed it was the connection and my partner and I's skill (or lack of it ) in lead/follow that enabled efficient communication.
    It is, provided you speak the same language, i.e. have a common set of rules. A common MJ implicit 'rule', as NZM said, is that there is a set back, step in, in between every move, which often has little or no connection. If as a follow I give compression before the step back to allow the lead to lead me backwards, I usually get: until they realise that's my language and they adapt theirs, and lead the step back. The skill in that case is to be able to pick up on those rules and adapt your connection as a result. It doesn't just happen out of nowhere, even if it's rarely that conscious.

    Quote Originally Posted by TA Guy View Post
    MJ has a rule like the anchor rule. Only it's one beat, not two. Enough time to do a handbounce, or click, or hip wriggle in MJ That MJ rule can be overridden, much like the WCS anchor rule can be overridden. The WCS rule makes musicality easier because it is longer, two beats rather than one, not because that WCS rule somehow magically makes WCS communication more efficient than the MJ one beat 'anchor'.
    That is very true. That's one of the rules of WCS that creates more space and time within the dance, which allows you to do things musically more easily (i.e. you won't disturb the flow of the dance, since that time is there to be used, vs in MJ you're 'always on the move to somewhere', and it's harder then to add footwork and body movement without disturbing the dance - note it's harder, not at all less possible).
    That last point would suggest that it would actually take more skill to dance MJ musically...

    Quote Originally Posted by NZ Monkey View Post
    At least a couple of the Australian companies put more emphasis on the same issues, but in a slightly different way than Franck does. Consequently, they dance slightly differently as well*.
    That's the trouble with MJ, isn't it ? Because there are less agreed hard rules, people have different interpretations and end up borrowing techniques from different dances to allow them more creativity. In fact in MJ we're all suckers for more rules and anything that will allow us to communicate better ! By becoming more acquainted with many rules from different dance styles, we become better at recognising them during a dance with a new partner, i.e. at switching the language that we use to communicate.

    Don't get me wrong there are a lot of different interpretations of the main WCS hard rules, (how many times have you read about headaches we get when US pros come over and teach stuff slightly differently from each other?!) but at least they all acknowledge that there is a (comparatively) large set of hard rules.

    Quote Originally Posted by NZ Monkey View Post
    I'm not convinced that this is an argument with much merit sorry. The rules can be broken because they are there in the first place. Breaking out from the slot for instance is much more dramatic and deliberate because of the presence of the slot in the first place. It'd be nothing special if WCS dancers circled each other at random all the time anyway.

    The point is that to most effectively use lead/follow - everybody needs to understand what is expected of them, in detail.

    I know from experience and a number of comments in this forum that the step back in practice is often automatic with no connection required at all. In fact, in many cases it becomes a complete disconnect.

  13. #73
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Sunny South Hampshire
    Posts
    873
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Musicality

    Quote Originally Posted by NZ Monkey View Post
    I'm not convinced that this is an argument with much merit sorry. The rules can be broken because they are there in the first place. Breaking out from the slot for instance is much more dramatic and deliberate because of the presence of the slot in the first place. It'd be nothing special if WCS dancers circled each other at random all the time anyway.

    I'd compare it to driving. We drive on one side of the road because then everyone on the road is following a predictable pattern. I can drive on the wrong side of the road occasionally when I'm overtaking somebody, but that doesn't invalidate the "keep to the left side" rule for everyone all the time.
    I don't disagree with that, but I dont see how that is relevent to whether rules increase communication efficiency as you claim...

    In terms of lead/follow and the connection. It doesn't matter how rare, or how dramatic a rule is, if the rule can be legitimately broken, then your lead/follow/connection must be prepared for that and any connection communication advantage accrued by making assumptions due to the 'rule' are pretty much rendered null and void. There is no extra communication efficiency gained from 'rules' unless they are totally unbreakable.
    Last edited by TA Guy; 27th-May-2008 at 11:50 PM.

  14. #74
    Lovely Moderator ducasi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Glasgow
    Posts
    10,015
    Rep Power
    14

    Re: Musicality

    Quote Originally Posted by Caro View Post
    I think the point most westies are making, is that there are more rules in WCS (don't think anybody is denying that), which, paradoxically, allow for more expression.

    It's like having more words in a language, or in the case of rule breaking, using the same words with different meanings. When you learn that new language, that double or triple use of a word just seems very confusing, and when you are more experienced, you realise that it in fact allows for more subtle and creative communication.
    So MJ is a simpler language, and allows easier communication at a basic level.

    However, like spoken languages, MJ can borrow words, create new words or even look back into its history and revive words long forgotten.

    And the funny thing is, just so long as these "new" words make sense in the context they are used it doesn't take long to figure out what they mean.

    So when dancing MJ, I can add a rule/"new word" that we will dance in a slotted fashion.* Generally, it doesn't take long for a follower who knows MJ to understand this at some level. This gives me, dancing in MJ the same power that WCS dancers have.

    However, I could also go into a tango-style hold and do a few tango steps. A good MJ follower will adapt to the new rule and it'll work. How easy is it to add new rules to WCS on the fly like that?

    Modern Jive is like a universal language, in that it can accept rules/"words" from lots of other dances.


    A fair bit of the discussion on these threads seems to be comparing the musicality of experienced WCS dancers who know how to break the rules with how Ceroc teach their beginners. Hardly a fair comparison, is it?

    Modern Jive could be taught like WCS, but then they'd probably be as many MJ dancers in the UK as there are WCS dancers – i.e. not that many.

    (I agree though, that it'd be nice if Ceroc taught a bit more musicality and technique in their normal classes.)

    Anyway, I believe that Modern Jive, when danced by the best can be as musical as WCS – and if you think it's missing the rules to make that possible, they're easy to add.

    Do you think a couple like Jordan and Tatiana couldn't be as musical dancing a MJ routine as they are when doing one of their WCS routines? If in doubt, they can bring all the WCS rules they like to break with them.


    * Other rules I sometimes add include dancing in phrases of 4 or 8 beats, using "anchor"-like steps, and triple-stepping.
    Let your mind go and your body will follow. – Steve Martin, LA Story

  15. #75
    Registered User NZ Monkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Auckland, NZ
    Posts
    1,109
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: Musicality

    Quote Originally Posted by TA Guy View Post
    I don't disagree with that, but I dont see how that is relevent to whether rules increase communication efficiency as you claim...

    In terms of lead/follow and the connection. It doesn't matter how rare, or how dramatic a rule is, if the rule can be legitimately broken, then your lead/follow/connection must be prepared for that and any connection communication advantage accrued by making assumptions due to the 'rule' are pretty much rendered null and void. There is no extra communication efficiency gained from 'rules' unless they are unbreakable.
    Firstly, I think you may perhaps be getting confused as to my exact meaning here:

    Point1:
    Having rules enables me to lead something one way without having to worry about my partners understanding too much. We’re on the same page because we’re following the same rules. This is more efficient than leading something and then spending extra effort trying to block off all the other interpretations that my partner may have. I know this may sound odd when you consider that WCS gives the follower a huge amount of freedom, but that’s built into the rest of the structure of the dance as well and I’m not talking about WCS in particular when I make this statement.



    Point2:
    If you are going to break the rules of the dance for whatever reason, you obviously have to set it up in the lead. The advantage to having the rules here is that anything outside the normal conventions in lead and follow stands out like a sore thumb. When you get something that’s different you know it’s deliberately different and can run with that, flaunting the rules as it were. Granted, it takes some experience and confidence to do this – it isn’t as if you’re a beginner one day and a top dancer the next. I think the rules being in place in the first place make such a transition much more achievable though.

    Point 2 has nothing to do with efficiency in and of itself, but the two are related because they are both influenced by the rules of the dance. Both points in my opinion have desireable results in their own right.

    Does this make more sense?

  16. #76
    Registered User NZ Monkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Auckland, NZ
    Posts
    1,109
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: Musicality

    Quote Originally Posted by ducasi View Post
    So when dancing MJ, I can add a rule/"new word" that we will dance in a slotted fashion.* Generally, it doesn't take long for a follower who knows MJ to understand this at some level. This gives me, dancing in MJ the same power that WCS dancers have.
    Only if the follower really has picked up that you’re dancing in a slot, and even then you’ve only got that power with a single partner, all by introducing a rule that you’re both sticking to.

    However, I could also go into a tango-style hold and do a few tango steps. A good MJ follower will adapt to the new rule and it'll work. How easy is it to add new rules to WCS on the fly like that?
    Sure you can steal steps from other dances – that isn’t the point. Assuming you can lead tango of course, you can do a lot more with that tango hold with someone who knows how to tango as well than with a typical MJ’er. You can communicate on one level but because of the lack of common understanding of the dynamics many other possibilities are out of reach.

    Modern Jive is like a universal language, in that it can accept rules/"words" from lots of other dances.
    And as soon as you introduce them are you still dancing MJ?

    To be fair, plenty of fixed (probably mostly competition) partnerships come up with their own dialect either deliberately or not. Peter and Amy look connected in a very different way from Victor and [insert current/most recent partner here] for instance. As a social dance I wouldn’t consider that a strength of MJ though, with respect to the development of musicality as a partnership.


    Anyway, I believe that Modern Jive, when danced by the best can be as musical as WCS – and if you think it's missing the rules to make that possible, they're easy to add.

    Do you think a couple like Jordan and Tatiana couldn't be as musical dancing a MJ routine as they are when doing one of their WCS routines? If in doubt, they can bring all the WCS rules they like to break with them.
    So you’re suggesting an exercise in rebranding then?

    For the record, I very much doubt that J&T could dance a MJ routine as musically as a WCS one without being accused of dancing WCS instead. I know this because, while they were in Sydney last year Jordan even said something to the effect of “We don’t have any tricky footwork to deal with, everything is single time…… so why do I find it so hard?!” when discussing dancing MJ. When Patti and Martin were in New Zealand earlier this year they came along to a Ceroc night freestyle in Auckland as well. Patti wasn’t game to try it out but Martin did, and didn’t look too comfortable despite grinning like a madman…..

  17. #77
    Registered User David Franklin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,426
    Rep Power
    14

    Re: Musicality

    Quote Originally Posted by TA Guy View Post
    There is no extra communication efficiency gained from 'rules' unless they are totally unbreakable.
    I disagree.

    The typical way this goes is something like:

    95% of the time, you're following the rule, and everything works swimmingly.

    5% of the time, you want to break the rule. The compromise here is that you need a 'bigger' lead to indicate "yes, I really do mean to break this rule". But if you want to intentionally break a rule, you usually want to do so in an obvious fashion, so the 'bigger' lead is usually no real hardship.

    Whether you gain efficiency depends on whether you want to break the rule rarely (in which case you probably do), or frequently (in which case you may not). Of course, this is why it makes sense to choose a sensible set of rules. How difficult it is to lead a "rule break" is also a factor, of course.

    (As I posted elsewhere, there are a lot of parallels with data compression algorithms, where it's not uncommon to see solutions that explicitly do "99% of the time, we follow rule A, and 1% of the time, we use a special signal to say 'actually, rule A doesn't work here, we'll use rule B'").

  18. #78
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Worcester, UK
    Posts
    4,157
    Rep Power
    12

    Re: Musicality

    Quote Originally Posted by NZ Monkey View Post
    To be fair, plenty of fixed (probably mostly competition) partnerships come up with their own dialect either deliberately or not. Peter and Amy look connected in a very different way from Victor and [insert current/most recent partner here] for instance. As a social dance I wouldn’t consider that a strength of MJ though, with respect to the development of musicality as a partnership.
    Yeah, advanced fixed couples in all dances do all kinds of crazy non-standard stuff, up to and including verbal leads, choreographed mini-routines, and masonic hand signals. So in terms of competition dancing, I'd agree that all dances are similar in how much scope they provide for musicality. Heck, I've seen musical competition polka. The only remaining difference is how much weight the judges place on musicality, which is to do with the dance culture rather than the dance itself.

  19. #79
    Registered User David Franklin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,426
    Rep Power
    14

    Re: Musicality

    Quote Originally Posted by ducasi View Post
    So when dancing MJ, I can add a rule/"new word" that we will dance in a slotted fashion.* Generally, it doesn't take long for a follower who knows MJ to understand this at some level. This gives me, dancing in MJ the same power that WCS dancers have.
    Not really. That's like saying introducing the idea that i^2 = -1 to a bunch of A-level maths students gives them the same power as someone who's studied contour integration.

    A fair bit of the discussion on these threads seems to be comparing the musicality of experienced WCS dancers who know how to break the rules with how Ceroc teach their beginners. Hardly a fair comparison, is it?
    The problem is that it's not just the beginners. Looking on youtube, there are vanishingly few freestyle MJ performances by anyone you could call honestly call musical by WCS standards. (I accept there are many potential reasons other than the inherent musicality of MJ).

    [As a slight aside, and intending no insult to anyone: having discussed musicality with some pretty good MJ dancers, it's pretty obvious that most people are a lot less musical than they think they are. Or at least, they might be acknowledging all kinds of accents etc. in their imagination, but it's completely invisible to an outside observer].

    Modern Jive could be taught like WCS, but then they'd probably be as many MJ dancers in the UK as there are WCS dancers – i.e. not that many.
    True. And a consequence of this is that MJ has a much bigger 'tail' of not-very-good dancers (who would have given up if learning WCS). So it's not surprising the average standard is lower. But even amongst the open competitors, I don't see a great deal of musicality.

    Anyway, I believe that Modern Jive, when danced by the best can be as musical as WCS – and if you think it's missing the rules to make that possible, they're easy to add.
    I don't think "can be" is relevant here. By the same token, a couple who'd never taken a dance lesson in their lives "can be" as musical as a top WCS couple: it's just very unlikely that it's going to happen.

    I think you have to judge by actual results. MJ is much more popular than WCS in this country: there's a much deeper pool of dancers, and it's been going for 20 years, whereas the WCS scene was tiny up until about 5 years ago. And yet the top dancers in our WCS scene are, to my eyes, noticably more musical than the MJ dancers. (The only MJ dancers I think come close study WCS as well).

    Is MJ getting more musical and catching up? Absolutely. But it's also starting to look very like WCS.

    In many ways, this doesn't actually matter at all. But it does make the repeated posts saying "I went to a WCS workshop and I've concluded that WCS is more limited musically than MJ" look a bit silly. (Particularly when the posts generally contain gross misunderstandings of how WCS actually works).

  20. #80
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Sunny South Hampshire
    Posts
    873
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Musicality

    Quote Originally Posted by NZ Monkey View Post
    Point2:
    If you are going to break the rules of the dance for whatever reason, you obviously have to set it up in the lead. The advantage to having the rules here is that anything outside the normal conventions in lead and follow stands out like a sore thumb. When you get something that’s different you know it’s deliberately different and can run with that, flaunting the rules as it were. Granted, it takes some experience and confidence to do this – it isn’t as if you’re a beginner one day and a top dancer the next. I think the rules being in place in the first place make such a transition much more achievable though.
    Quote Originally Posted by David Franklin View Post
    I disagree.

    The typical way this goes is something like:

    95% of the time, you're following the rule, and everything works swimmingly.

    5% of the time, you want to break the rule. The compromise here is that you need a 'bigger' lead to indicate "yes, I really do mean to break this rule". But if you want to intentionally break a rule, you usually want to do so in an obvious fashion, so the 'bigger' lead is usually no real hardship.

    Whether you gain efficiency depends on whether you want to break the rule rarely (in which case you probably do), or frequently (in which case you may not). Of course, this is why it makes sense to choose a sensible set of rules. How difficult it is to lead a "rule break" is also a factor, of course.

    (As I posted elsewhere, there are a lot of parallels with data compression algorithms, where it's not uncommon to see solutions that explicitly do "99% of the time, we follow rule A, and 1% of the time, we use a special signal to say 'actually, rule A doesn't work here, we'll use rule B'").
    Actually the data compression thing is a good example

    If the rule was unbreakable, you could drop rule B and all communication related to it and produce a more efficient communication/computer because it's always rule A !!!

    Unfort tho, the rule is breakable, only 1% chance; but thats a 1% chance that rule B might be called into action, in this case no matter whether you follow rule A or rule B, your computer must be prepared to run either. You can't make the darned computer more efficient by dropping all communications related to rule B 'just because it doesn't happen as often'.

    Similarly with dance, you might follow your bog standard rule, or you might 'break the rule', both dancers need to be prepared for either eventuality.

    This need to be prepared for either eventuality negates any communication efficiency gain from making assumptions derived from a rule that is breakable. (IMO).

    Just because something is unlikely doesn't mean you shouldn't be prepared for it to happen.
    If your unprepared, I don't care how obvious or loud the lead shouts, you'll still end up with your ass in a sling




    P.S. I would also dispute the assumption you both made that this 'breaking the rule' is necessarily a loud or obvious thing. It could be quite subtle, not all rule breaks are 'in yer face'

    Jeez, what am I still doing up?
    Last edited by TA Guy; 28th-May-2008 at 01:46 AM.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Can you ever have too much musicality?
    By Cornish Pixie in forum Intermediate Corner
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 4th-January-2008, 01:25 PM
  2. Musicality backwards
    By Ghost in forum Intermediate Corner
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 21st-October-2007, 12:03 AM
  3. What is musicality to you how did you achieve it?
    By Mr Cool in forum Intermediate Corner
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 5th-March-2007, 09:45 PM
  4. Musicality - The Difference it Makes
    By Andy McGregor in forum Let's talk about dance
    Replies: 65
    Last Post: 28th-November-2004, 11:59 PM

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
  •