.. sometimes or often tells me what I should be doing with my feet.
.. never tells me what my feet should be doing.
.. says "there is no footwork".
Yes, But if you are leading with your arms like it's done in jive, it doesn't matter if you step back on your left, right or not at all. All the lead is in the arms, not the body.
Of course if you are in tension and step backwards then that will happen, but how many MJ'ers have WCS style tension???
A guitarist does not keep time with his feet. Timing is kept mentally. It's the mental timing that makes the feet move. Would you not keep stationary during a 4 beat break?
I can't comment for Tango. MJ has no defined footwork. All the other dances I have done (Salsa, nc2s, WCS ect) this has been the case.
When I teach jive it's how I teach it, but I have only ever seen body lead taught once before in MJ and that was by Franck. In all the years and classes I have danced at and in, I have never heard body lead mentioned.
It seems to me that we always have two main arguments when talking about prescribed footwork patterns. Broadly speaking, these are:
- Footwork doesn’t matter, it’s the body and the lead that are important. This argument is true.
- Footwork is important to getting the shape and feel of the dance right and makes the moves easier. This argument is also true.
In my opinion, there is a fair bit of talking at cross-purposes going on here. I’m of the opinion that experienced (measured in actual ability rather than years.....) dancers are likely capable of changing their footwork for whatever reason on the fly without it significantly effecting their lead or follow. I’m also of the opinion that most of the people who advocate that approach aren’t able to do it themselves, and would be better off following prescribed footwork until they are.
I strongly advocate a stepping pattern being taught in MJ. Specific foot placement aside it’s just stepping once per beat and starting on the correct foot, which is easy to keep going once freestyle starts. Any detail beyond that can be bought up in class as and when required as its importance largely depends on the move in question. My experience is that people who have been taught this tend to hit a higher ceiling before they need to put real effort into getting better.
I accept that it’s not the only way, but there’s a good reason why footwork is emphasised in other dances, and a good reason why they all have larger numbers of better dancers than MJ does. Footwork doesn’t need to be onerous, and although not everybody will pick it up it’s very helpful for those that do.
All MHO as usual.
I think this confuses numerical beat counts and something people like to call dancing counts. I think that we dance to the beat and should count the beats as they happen. Each one of Lou's &s is a beat. Therefore her 2 is acutally beat 3 and her beat 3 is beat 5. Why use numbers when they don't make numerical sense? What those people who say 5&6&7&8& are doing is marking the beat with a noise - it is confusing if that noise is a number that bears no relationship to anything - for example the "8" marks beat 7
In MJ the turns on the spot are done in one beat. That is one musical beat. The turn is followed by a weight transefer on the next beat to the foot that was unweighted in the turn and the step back on the next beat is done on the foot that was weighted in the turn.
When I talk about beats I'm not remotely ambiguous. I mean the beats as written by the person who composed the music. I don't mean some count where the mumbers are nonsense that bears no relationship to numeracy and are separated by ampersands that, again, mean nothing and are just noises.
Or is Lou saying that sometimes MJ has people stepping twice on each beat?
Last edited by Andy McGregor; 2nd-June-2010 at 12:52 AM.
This is completely incorrect. MJ has clearly defined footwork. In fact, it's got 2 versions of clearly defined footwork and is probably 2 different dances.
The 2 different dances are what Lou and I are debating. I'm still not sure what dance Lou has been taught. But I'm sure it's a dance and I'm sure I don't do it or teach it.
Is this normal MJ footwork? As in stipulating which foot one steps back on? I have never been to a Ceroc class where that was taught. Unless they've started in the last couple of years.
We were always given the impression as beginners that as you picked up the movement your feet would follow more or less correctly. That's what happened to me anyway. But then I am not normal
#
WCS,Salsa, Ballrom, NC2S have clearly defined basic footwork patterns. Footwork patterns that all teachers teach (sometimes with a little variation). Footwork patterns that help define the dance.
MJ does not have that. There might be one or two teachers like yourself who teach footwork, but many do not. If you were to ask 100 average dancers what the correct footwork is for MJ, most, if not all, would look at you puzzled and tell you "There is no footwork".
Personally, I would like to see correct footwork taught in MJ and if Andy is teaching it and teaching it correctly, good luck to him.
I think there are 3 types of footwork which can be led in MJ.
1 Choreographed routines
2 Visual leading
3 Body leading
Choreographed routines are taught in classes. However more time than is available needs to be devoted to the techniques involved. As Rocky said in the current Blues thread, if the technique can be taught within the context of a routine this can be very effective. Otherwise this type of learning stands on its own.
I think visual leading has two basic forms.
Where the leader does some form of walking pattern and this is copied or mirrored by the follower. Again this type of leading generally stands on its own and I think is taught in MJ classes.
And a lead visually though the movement of the leaders chest with the follower aligning her chest to the leader so they synchronise their movement. This type of leading can be a lead on its own. I think its application in its own right is limited but can be an enjoyable part of a MJ dance. I have not come across this type of leading in regular classes but have done so in workshop situations, such as Franck and Sheena's connection workshops and The Tramps DVD features this.
I think body leading is appropriate for MJ as it is fully improvised dance and this allows whatever footwork the music dictates at the time to be led. For this I feel the following needs to be taught:
a Maintaining a frame
b Using the body through the frame to lead a step
c Leaders and followers maintaining chest to chest alignment during the sequence being led.
I think this is only taught to a very limited extent in classes, from a technique point of view, during the Mambo step.
Finally I wonder if weight changes on the spot would be considered footwork?
For beginners maybe, holding onto that idea is surely what causes the bounciness that Lee Bartholomew loves so much
Normal classes? where?
Does it involve work for the feet ?Finally I wonder if weight changes on the spot would be considered footwork?
Good footwork technique is part and parcel with good upper body motion. In a nutshell, your body drives your footwork. It doesn't help to think of it as seperating them. Especially when you're talking about...
Lindy follows a similar principle, but to get this effect, you need extremely good footwork technique. Without that, it ain't going to work.
If you can only arm-lead, you're probably far less aware of the effect that footwork has on your lead.... but that effect is definitely there.
Absolutely, yes.
Nope. You were right first time. I was using MJ counts (which are 2 beats, as you full well know*, Mr McGregor ), as I'm talking about dancing MJ. Hope this helps!
*And if you don't - just listen to the count in at the start of a move in class, and if you know a teacher who says the counts during moves - some Ceroc teachers still do. (Or have you taken to doing an ultra quick 5,6,7,8 down in Brighton these days?)
I do "full well know" what Lou was talking about. I just don't agree with it. And I don't think there's any agreed "MJ count".
As I've said before, the 5&6&7&8& is really confusing to students: I think teachers do it because other teachers do it - but they haven't really considered what nonsense it is. Consider the scenario where I say to a student "in this track the break is on the 1": it would be really confusing if I then counted them in using the 5&.. count as I would be saying "5" when the break came in. It would be even more confusing if the break was on the 5 as it would come in when I when I said "7".
I think it is far better to instruct the students in what they should actually be doing and fit the cadence of those instructions to the beat of the music. Therefore I count people in by saying "left and right and left and right and". Of course this only instructs the guys, however I get around this in two ways; firstly I say "most of my instructions will be to the guys because they are leading" and secondly I say "ladies, when I say 'right' you should step to the left and vice versa. I'm sure you won't have a problem with this a ladies usually seem completely comfortable with doing the opposite of what I've asked". These instructions place the guy's weight on his right foot and the ladies weight on her left foot on the 8 of the musical phrase ready to step on the correct foot on the 1 of the next 8 count.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks