A musicality spin-off

[NZ Monkey]

Only thing is that MJ does not have rigid patterns. Knowing the music structure and being able to mark it is basically what musicality is about. However, in MJ you have much more scope to do interesting things and movements because don't need to worry about where you are in a pattern when the accents occur. This is where your dancing ceases being "Ceroc" and becomes "MJ".

Emphasis mine.

The comment this was in relation to was from a musicality class by a WCS teacher at Blaze for those who wish to know the context.

I'd like to hear a little more explanation of the part in bold, and hear other peoples view on the matter. It's not a statement I agree with personally, but because I'm interested in seeing how everyone thinks on the subject (and because I'm moving house this weekend.....) I'll leave it for a while before putting my views down in writing.

So dear forum readers - I leave it in your capable hands!

[gebandemuishond]

Knowing the music structure and being able to mark it is basically what musicality is about...in MJ you have much more scope to do interesting things and movements because don't need to worry about where you are in a pattern when the accents occur

I disagree. I'm guessing the comment is referring to MJ in contrast to other dance forms with more 'fixed patterns'. In my book, worrying about where you are in a pattern (with regards to musicality, accents) is just one, very basic level at which a dance can become musical. Although it's a crucial first step, it's a level which gets far too much attention in discussions of musicality, workshops etc (not that I've been to many decent musicality workshops, so I can't say for certain). When you get good, you don't need to worry about where you are in a pattern relative to the accented beats, whatever the dance style. Or, more accurately, where you are in a pattern relative to the accented beats isn't an issue, isn't not a question that needs answering, the dance just works.

Until then, people may well say things like the above, and it's true, to a certain extent you don't need to worry as much about where you are in a) a pattern and b) the music in order to do interesting thigns. But guys, come on, don't let this be our final goal. Let's try to see a bit beyond the 8 musical phrase - 8 count count pattern mentality, there's so much more to it...

For what it's worth, my inkling is that we should move away from the "Knowing the music structure and being able to mark it is basically what musicality is about" thinking and look at how you can move your body to reflect the layers within a piece of music. It's (relatively) easy to learn to stop at a break (and the rest of the "structure" based musicality), it's much nicer when a hand or a leg picks out a splash cymbal in the crowd of sound.

Dan

[ducasi]

Emphasis mine.

The comment this was in relation to was from a musicality class by a WCS teacher at Blaze for those who wish to know the context.

I'd like to hear a little more explanation of the part in bold, and hear other peoples view on the matter. It's not a statement I agree with personally, but because I'm interested in seeing how everyone thinks on the subject (and because I'm moving house this weekend.....) I'll leave it for a while before putting my views down in writing.

So dear forum readers - I leave it in your capable hands!

I think Gadget's point is simply that in MJ, you don't need to worry about where you are in the "pattern", as you don't need to finish the pattern – at all!

In WCS, every pattern has at the start and end an anchor. In MJ we *normally* have a similar "step back" to build tension, but it is optional, and you can transition though a number of "patterns" without any anchor-like step-back.

This is what gives MJ more scope for interesting musicality.

E.g., in Modern Jive, it is perfectly acceptable to do any number of simple cha-cha steps any time you want – though preferably when the music calls for it! In WCS if you tried that you'd no longer be doing WCS.

Score one point for MJ musicality!

[Lory]

In WCS, every pattern has at the start and end an anchor. In MJ we *normally* have a similar "step back" to build tension, but it is optional, and you can transition though a number of "patterns" without any anchor-like step-back.

1. You don't 'have' to finish a pattern in WCS
2, You can extend a pattern by adding extra beats (always in sets of two) so it finishes on the beat you want
3, you can cut a pattern short i.e the 'cut off whip'
4, there's all sorts of 'fill in' steps, that you can use at any time
5, there's nothing to stop you from holding still at any point during a pattern but you have to remember to create tension again before you start to dance again
6. you can accelerate moves


So nope, I don't agree!

[FoxyFunkster]

1. You don't 'have' to finish a pattern in WCS
2, You can extend a pattern by adding extra beats (always in sets of two) so it finishes on the beat you want
3, you can cut a pattern short i.e the 'cut off whip'
4, there's all sorts of 'fill in' steps, that you can use at any time
5, there's nothing to stop you from holding still at any point during a pattern but you have to remember to create tension again before you start to dance again
6. you can accelerate moves


So nope, I don't agree!

[TA Guy]

I don't think there's much difference in the musicality of MJ and WCS. (Heresy! ).

This is only my personal opinion, but as, finally, my WCS classes start to rack up, every week I am more struck by how similar the two dances are, from the learning moves/patterns at the start, then improvising, then learning musicality etc etc. Both follow a similar pattern, and if you make allowances for the differing shapes of the 'pyramid' (Beginners V Experienced V Pros), the differences between the two dances are far outweighed by there similarities IMO.

This is true... There is even one lady who has been learning both in parallel down with us and who is a relatively a delight to dance with in WCS, but who is struggling somewhat with MJ. Surprizingly, she finds WCS easier. I'm not suggesting that is common, but I.t. j.u.s.t. g.o.e.s. t.o. s.h.o.w.!

Even the connection. There are many threads on here where people are trying to convince us that WCS requires a superior connection. It's Bo||ocks.
I don't believe WCS requires a better connection, if someone thinks that's the case, then they are just not using the connection to the best effect in MJ IMO. Really, to fully get the best from both dances, each requires the best connection you can manage and that's that.

So while I understand Gadgets point, I think it's about WCS being restrained by slots, triple steps and the patterns, in the long run, I think it makes no difference as the more advanced WCS dancers mark those things down in importance anyway in much the same way that certain things (moves etc.) are marked down in importance in MJ by more advanced MJ dancers.

The end result of both is two dances that are incredibly similar in many ways IMO.

[robd]

I agree with a lot of what TA Guy has written.

Every partner dance benefits from a good connection (however we define that).

I am not sure musicality is inherent to a dance style but it may be easier to execute in some than others. Lory's list on a different thread of reasons why WCS dancers aren't just limited to 6 and 8 beat patterns is a good one. Ultimately it's down to the practitioners of the dance style and WCS currently has a head start in this respect given the exposure of the US Pros via You Tube and our good fortune in having Paul W as a UK role model. MJ, in my opinion doesn't yet have people dancing with musicality at the same level as these people but that's not a fault of MJ, it just hasn't developed to that level yet (whether it ever will is another matter for debate)

[ducasi]

So nope, I don't agree!

WCS has rules that MJ doesn't have, therefore MJ has more scope to "do interesting things and movements".

Where Gadget says "because don't need to worry about where you are in a pattern when the accents occur", I'm not as convinced, but there are places in WCS where your options are much more limited – such as the step, step out of an anchor.

[gebandemuishond]

WCS has rules that MJ doesn't have, therefore MJ has more scope to "do interesting things and movements".

Sorry, this argument doesn't work (apologies, I'm in super-academic mode at the moment preparing for exams so I might sound a little nit-picking).

The rules of a form do not constrain the number of things you can do within that form. A trivial example: you could consider breaking a rule to be an interesting thing (many do). WCS, with its "more rules" has more scope for breaking the rules and thus doing more interesting things.

The quote above makes the assumption that interesting things and rules are in direct competition, you can't have one without the other. I don't believe this (hey I might be wrong!)

Dan

[Lory]

WCS has rules that MJ doesn't have, therefore MJ has more scope to "do interesting things and movements".

I'm sorry but yet again I find myself disagreeing with you.

Once you've got to grips with the tripling and such like, you suddenly find the rock step, plod plod, plod plod, steps of MJ more limiting, than the infinite variations of footwork patterns available to you in WCS

[Lou]

Once you've got to grips with the tripling and such like, you suddenly find the rock step, plod plod, plod plod, steps of MJ more limiting,

Only if you've been grounded in the RLRLRLRL "walking" footwork....

[ducasi]

I'm sorry but yet again I find myself disagreeing with you.

Once you've got to grips with the tripling and such like, you suddenly find the rock step, plod plod, plod plod, steps of MJ more limiting, than the infinite variations of footwork patterns available to you in WCS

I didn't need to learn WCS to get beyond "rock step, plod plod, plod plod" in my MJ. I can use as much variety of footwork in MJ as any WCS dancer. And MJ allows stuff that WCS doesn't.

Simple example... How often do you see WCS dancers doing Cha-Cha Manhattans?

[ducasi]

The rules of a form do not constrain the number of things you can do within that form. A trivial example: you could consider breaking a rule to be an interesting thing (many do). WCS, with its "more rules" has more scope for breaking the rules and thus doing more interesting things.

If you are breaking the rules, are you still dancing WCS? Perhaps you've escaped to the freedom of MJ?

[clevedonboy]

I didn't need to learn WCS to get beyond "rock step, plod plod, plod plod" in my MJ. I can use as much variety of footwork in MJ as any WCS dancer. And MJ allows stuff that WCS doesn't.

Simple example... How often do you see WCS dancers doing Cha-Cha Manhattans?

Rarely - they have so many more interesting things to do Oh and any footwork that you can possibly think of has been and will be used in other dance forms that have "Rules" - how often have you seen someone dancing MJ use hop steps for example? A step that is used in Lindy (not by me I'd fall over I expect)

If you are breaking the rules, are you still dancing WCS? Perhaps you've escaped to the freedom of MJ?

That's rather a ner ner ner type of answer. Dances like WCS & Lindy & Salsa have a structure & that's it. All of them also have a concept of not tricking your partner by doing something really odd. Beyond that you can do what you like AS LONG AS YOU CAN LEAD IT

[Lory]

I didn't need to learn WCS to get beyond "rock step, plod plod, plod plod" in my MJ.

Who taught you?

I think you'll find its cos you're very lucky, as you have an extremely good bunch of teachers in Scotland. who're able to teach outside the box!

I can use as much variety of footwork in MJ as any WCS dancer. And MJ allows stuff that WCS doesn't.

Simple example... How often do you see WCS dancers doing Cha-Cha Manhattans?

You can do what you like... there's quite a few recognized Cha Cha based WCS moves and there's loads of Manhattanish stuff you could do.

But, if your competing, you have to keep the essence of the fundamentals of the dance in tact but I think the same is probably true with a Ceroc comp?.. if you came out and did a whole Cha Cha routine, your not exactly dancing MJ either!

But in Social dancing you can mix and match as much as you like.. when I'm dancing with Kev, its a complete mixed bag, I never know what style will be thrown at me next ....we just dance.

[Astro]

I thought this thread was going to be about encouraging folks to use more spinning in their enterpretation of musicality.

While DB's away, the mice will play.

[Astro]

Mmmm

Spinning at different speeds depending on the music.

Spinning the correct number of spins to fit in to the bit of music, before it changes.

Symmetrical spinning of the lead and follow.

Commenz cava vous?

[CheesyRobMan]

Spinning at different speeds depending on the music.

This is something I've really noticed since I started learning to follow - the speed of a spin/turn is important. If you go round too slow you have to either wait another beat to move again, go off the beat and try to recover it, or (worst case) your lead pulls you into another movement before you're ready for it, leading to loss of balance and possible injury. If you go round too fast you're just left standing there like a lemon for half a beat which looks and feels rubbish, and breaks up whatever flow you've achieved until that point.

[Andy McGregor]

Only if you've been grounded in the RLRLRLRL "walking" footwork....

Am I supposed to say something here?

OK, here goes

My assertion, which has yet to be disproved in practice, is that MJ, being a folk dance, is about what folk do in the real world. If you watch any freestyle you will see that 95%, probably more, of the ladies are doing the basic RLRLRLRL footwork while in the open or single hand hold. The 5% are either dancing badly or doing a different dance. Some of the, more experienced, ladies are putting in some funky footwork and MJ being a simple dance, allows that to happen, but they always seem to revert to the RLRLRLRL between their funky moments.

That was not always the case. When I took up MJ in the mid '90s there was a species of the dance that about half of the ladies did which had them stepping back left on beat 1 and then doing a kick right to mark beat 2, then some other stuff and a correction step on the step forward, then some other stuff, etc. Hardly the simple dance MJ claims to be. Nowadays that "back left on beat 1" variant of the dance has, all but, disappeared. It appears in isolated areas like Bristol and is still taught by some of the older LeRoc Federation teachers and examiners. Just like Cha, Cha, Cha is a different dance from MJ as it is danced today, the "back left on beat 1" variant of MJ is a different dance from today's dance. However, it's not so different that people who do both variations can't dance together - which is nice

N.B. What MJ dancers do with their feet in the closed hold and, to some extent holding both hands, is all down to the lead and may or may not be RLRLRLRL.

p.s. Of course, if you live in Bristol then your "folk dance" is whatever you see people doing. I don't live there so I can't comment

[dep]

This is something I've really noticed since I started learning to follow - the speed of a spin/turn is important. If you go round too slow you have to either wait another beat to move again, go off the beat and try to recover it, or (worst case) your lead pulls you into another movement before you're ready for it, leading to loss of balance and possible injury. If you go round too fast you're just left standing there like a lemon for half a beat which looks and feels rubbish, and breaks up whatever flow you've achieved until that point.

I let my partner spin/turn as fast as she wants. If her completion does not coincide with a half beat then we use the pause to effect and start together when it's right.
The biggest problem I have, as a leader, is recognising within the first one eighth of the Followers turn, at what speed she requires me to lead her through the remainder of the turn. Every Follower turns at different speeds and varies their turn speed with the music. I try to "follow" her, by allowing her (in effect leading) to turn at her chosen speed.