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

[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?

[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?

[NZ Monkey]

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

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

I think this is something of an implied restriction to be honest.

Many good MJ dancers insist, quite correctly, that you don't have to step once on every beat, but every class I've seen has taught moves that way if they bother mentioning the footwork at all. It's what the overwhelming majority of MJ dancers (if they're on-beat at all anyway )and teachers do.

In my experience varying from that rhythm tends to distract your partner because you're not doing what they expect. Even if the lead is still fine the whole way if find they tend to worry through the dance rather than just enjoy it. The alternative then is to tone it down and "plod" away in a limited way for your partners benefit, which is limiting if you feel inclined to do something else to the music.

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

I think this is cop out argument.

In one sense it's true in that without any rules to adhere to anything is possible. In a practical sense though I think it's wash. Firstly, there is enough variety in options open within the rule sets of more strictly defined dances that I don't believe the limitations provide a ceiling to musical interpretation for any individual to hit in their lifetime. Secondly, the existence of rules may rule out some moves or techniques - but they also enable others. I can't lead tick-tock footwork on my follower for instance if they don't anchor step with a triple.

In addition to that, despite having the ability to lead anything at all in MJ, the technique from both dancers that is required to do so is in many cases non-existent. Dancers with highly developed lead/follow skills in the MJ world are vanishingly rare and teachers even rarer. Those who do demonstrate that ability have almost invariably learned their skills elsewhere before starting MJ. While it's possible to have good technique and rubbish musical interpretation in a partnered dance, it's very difficult to have good musical interpretation (that makes sense to anyone outside your own mind anyway... ) with rubbish technique.

To be entirely fair that last paragraph isn't a criticism of MJ as a dance form itself - but one of the business model. The catch is that the two are so closely aligned in this case that I don't think it's possible to separate them for practical purposes. In order to reverse the situation* most of the teachers would need to be extensively re-trained or discarded entirely which wouldn't be good for business.

*I'd rather someone started another thread or resurrected an old one if they want to debate about whether we should even want to do so as I think it'll just derail any conversation about musicality. I'm well aware there are good arguments about why people wouldn't want change

[MartinHarper]

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

A number of times you have made statements about West Coast "rules" that contradict my experience of West Coast, and the experience of other West Coast dancers. Typically they are more like guidelines or descriptions of beginner West Coast than actual rules. I think this may be distorting your judgement of the relative freedom of Modern Jive and West Coast.

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!

As Lori explains, I don't have to finish a pattern in West Coast either. In practice, I don't do one-move-dances in either dance.

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.

The same can be done in West Coast. If I lead my follower forwards on the "6" of a six-beat pattern, she should follow that, turning her anchor step into a "back-together-forwards" triple step that transitions directly into the next move, replacing the normal "step step".

there are places in WCS where your options are much more limited – such as the step, step out of an anchor.

There are a several things that I can lead out of an anchor in West Coast, and several things I can choose to do as a follower, depending on the lead. It doesn't have to be step, step. The first alternative I learnt was in a beginner West Coast class - tripling in place for four beats.

----

There are some places I agree with ducasi, to some extent:

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.

I agree that Cha Cha and West Coast are different dances.
On the other hand, Cha Cha and Modern Jive are also different dances.
A clearer example might be rock steps in open. Modern Jive has them, right from the first class. I've not seen them in West Coast at all so far.

I can use as much variety of footwork in MJ as any WCS dancer.

I essentially agree with this from a leader's perspective. As a follower, I find that I have slightly more footwork options in West Coast, as the underlying footwork pattern is slightly more varied.

[Lory]

The same can be done in West Coast. If I lead my follower forwards on the "6" of a six-beat pattern, she should follow that, turning her anchor step into a "back-together-forwards" triple step that transitions directly into the next move, replacing the normal "step step".

Otherwise known as a 'Coaster step'

[mikeyr]

A clearer example might be rock steps in open. Modern Jive has them, right from the first class. I've not seen them in West Coast at all so far.

Its Called a "Rock and Go" in WCS. The simple version: where the follower is led to step back on her right for "1" and then led forward to replace the weight fully on her left on "2" then the rest of the pattern as normal.

There is more complicated version which is used to condence two 6 beat patterns into one 10 beat pattern. I would be happy to demonstrate either for you.