Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 111

Thread: Is it me...

  1. #41
    Commercial Operator
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Sussex by the Sea
    Posts
    9,276
    Rep Power
    15

    Re: Is it me...

    Quote Originally Posted by frodo View Post
    Timing, anchoring, footwork etc. None of them on their own seem to fundamentally divide WCS from jive.
    Timing is what divides WCS from Modern Jive. Specifically, it's the timing of weight changes in the footwork that differentiate the two dances.

  2. #42
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Cruden Bay (Aberde
    Posts
    7,053
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Is it me...

    I think that the opportunities to 'play' with the music are more predictable within WCS; in MJ they are more varied.

    In WCS the follower expects to be led within a specific timing framework and within a specific spatial direction - this level of predictability allows both partners to take advantage of 'gaps' where they know what (should be) happening, and to signal that the 'gaps' are changing.

    In MJ the lead is constant and the follower expects only to be transferring weight from one foot to the other. With no real framework to predict what's happening, if the follower wants to take advantage of the music, they have to either wait for the lead to give them a 'gap' or take the initiative themselves (and hope that the lead can compensate.)


    I think that crossing between the two dances the followers will find themselves on the 'wrong foot' half the time: MJ is based on marching (R-L-R-L) weight changes and WCS puts in triple steps now & again (R-L-RLR). Only the best followers can compensate for being led off the wrong foot or change during the lead.
    (Personally this is my main dislike of trying to take WCS into MJ - all these skippity steps that the follower does outwith my lead which means that their weight is not where I led it.)


    Hmmm.... is WCS footwork the opposite of Tango footwork? From watching youtube clips, WCS dancers take lots of little steps, never fully committing their weight to either foot. AT dancers in contrast seem to place each foot and commit everything. Are they the 'yin and yang' of MJ? ()

  3. #43
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    681
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: Is it me...

    Quote Originally Posted by Gadget View Post
    I WCS dancers take lots of little steps, never fully committing their weight to either foot. ()
    Sorry Gadget, the above is incorrect. Each step is a full weight transfer even though the triple steps are done that much quicker.

  4. #44
    Commercial Operator
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Sussex by the Sea
    Posts
    9,276
    Rep Power
    15

    Re: Is it me...

    Quote Originally Posted by Gadget View Post
    Hmmm.... is WCS footwork the opposite of Tango footwork? From watching youtube clips, WCS dancers take lots of little steps, never fully committing their weight to either foot. AT dancers in contrast seem to place each foot and commit everything. Are they the 'yin and yang' of MJ? ()
    This is pure Gadget

    WCS dancers commit their weight to one foot. How else could they move the other foot?

  5. #45
    Registered User frodo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    1,156
    Rep Power
    11

    Re: Is it me...

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry View Post
    Frodo
    Could you please answer NZ Monkeys question as the following quote really doesn't elaborate enough

    "Timing, anchoring, footwork etc."
    NZ Monkeys question was what ARE the fundamental differences - not what ARE NOT the fundamental differences. So I'd consider it answered.

    I think why these others are not is mostly covered within this thread, but I'll certainly try and summarise/expand or clarify it later.

  6. #46
    Formerly known as DavidJames David Bailey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Norf Lundin
    Posts
    17,001
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: Is it me...

    Quote Originally Posted by Gadget View Post
    Hmmm.... is WCS footwork the opposite of Tango footwork? From watching youtube clips, WCS dancers take lots of little steps, never fully committing their weight to either foot.
    That's a neat trick

    Quote Originally Posted by Gadget View Post
    AT dancers in contrast seem to place each foot and commit everything. Are they the 'yin and yang' of MJ? ()
    I think it's more that each step in AT is separately led - if there's no distinct lead in AT the follower should do nothing (well, nothing that involves weight transfer). Whereas it sounds like if there's no distinct lead in WCS, the follower can use that and play with it more.

  7. #47
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Oxford
    Posts
    677
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: Is it me...

    Quote Originally Posted by Gadget View Post
    I think that crossing between the two dances the followers will find themselves on the 'wrong foot' half the time: MJ is based on marching (R-L-R-L) weight changes and WCS puts in triple steps now & again (R-L-RLR).
    To my knowledge, WCS doesn't ever use the R-L-RLR as a four count basic pattern. The patterns I've been taught have always been 6 or 8 counts. So if you're trying to lead a new pattern after the fourth beat, then you will be breaking the pattern. In short: it's the lead's error, not the follow's. Unless you're deliberately leading a variation, but from your description above, you're just leading a beat too early (then blaming the follower).

    In terms of which dance has more people doing moves that aren't led, I really don't think MJ - as it is taught to the vast majority of people - should criticise another dance for that particular sin...

  8. #48
    Commercial Operator
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Sussex by the Sea
    Posts
    9,276
    Rep Power
    15

    Re: Is it me...

    Quote Originally Posted by geoff332 View Post
    In terms of which dance has more people doing moves that aren't led, I really don't think MJ - as it is taught to the vast majority of people - should criticise another dance for that particular sin...
    MJ is a dance. It can't criticise another dance any more than football can criticse another ball game

  9. #49
    Formerly known as DavidJames David Bailey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Norf Lundin
    Posts
    17,001
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: Is it me...

    Quote Originally Posted by geoff332 View Post
    In terms of which dance has more people doing moves that aren't led, I really don't think MJ - as it is taught to the vast majority of people - should criticise another dance for that particular sin...
    My almost non-existent knowledge of WCS is that "playing" for the follower is an integral part of the dance - it's not a flaw for the follower to do movements independently, it's part of the dance style.

    So "criticizing" doesn't make sense in that context. It's like criticizing London Buses for being redder than London taxis.

  10. #50
    Forum Bombshell - Our Queen! Lory's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    North London
    Posts
    9,918
    Blog Entries
    2
    Rep Power
    17

    Re: Is it me...

    Quote Originally Posted by David Bailey View Post
    My almost non-existent knowledge of WCS is that "playing" for the follower is an integral part of the dance - it's not a flaw for the follower to do movements independently, it's part of the dance style.
    Just to clarify..

    In WCS, once the move has been initiated and the 'route' to get the end of the slot indicated, the follower has control, until she builds the 'tension' again, thus allowing the leader to know 'she's ready' to be lead again.

    Unlike in MJ, where I'd say, anything that isn't led, is some form of sabotage, even if its not effecting the timing
    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

  11. #51
    Registered User frodo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    1,156
    Rep Power
    11

    Re: Is it me...

    Quote Originally Posted by alinp View Post
    This point goes to the heart of the thread and I couldn't disagree with you more.

    MJ is an evolving dance and WCS has had an influence with many dancing a slotted style that works on the principal that the follower once moved, keeps moving in the same direction until re-directed or reaching the end of the leads arm (i.e. the end of the slot).
    Well that is certainly key, if you're saying that is part of modern jive.

    As you add more features similar to the other dance at some point you go from dancing modern jive to west coast swing (or the other way around).

    So far it seems reasonably obvious to me that the dance crosses over to essentially WCS once the principle you've detailed is applied by the follower.

  12. #52
    Formerly known as DavidJames David Bailey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Norf Lundin
    Posts
    17,001
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: Is it me...

    Quote Originally Posted by Lory View Post
    In WCS, once the move has been initiated and the 'route' to get the end of the slot indicated, the follower has control, until she builds the 'tension' again, thus allowing the leader to know 'she's ready' to be lead again.
    Yeah, that sounds like what I was trying to say

    Quote Originally Posted by Lory View Post
    Unlike in MJ, where I'd say, anything that isn't led, is some form of sabotage, even if its not effecting the timing
    Well, I'm not sure. I mean, that's the way I approach the dance, certainly, but I'm not sure if this has ever been actually codified... if you dance a "WCS-y style" MJ, whatever that means, wouldn't that allow more interpretation for the follower?

    Either way, it's silly to compare WCS and MJ in this way, when the lead/follow conventions are so markedly different.

    So I'm sticking with my Bus vs Taxi analogy.

  13. #53
    Formerly known as DavidJames David Bailey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Norf Lundin
    Posts
    17,001
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: Is it me...

    Quote Originally Posted by frodo View Post
    Well that is certainly key, if you're saying that is part of modern jive.
    WCS is not part of Modern Jive.

    • Some people dance Modern Jive with a WCS "accent". But it's still Modern Jive.
    • Some people dance Modern Jive with a Tango "accent". But it's still Modern Jive.
    • Some people dance Modern Jive with Latin "accent". But it's still Modern Jive.
    • And some people dance Modern Jive with a Modern Jive "accent". And guess what, that's still Modern Jive too.


    Quote Originally Posted by frodo View Post
    As you add more features similar to the other dance at some point you go from dancing modern jive to west coast swing (or the other way around).

    So far it seems reasonably obvious to me that the dance crosses over to essentially WCS once the principle you've detailed is applied by the follower.
    No, any more than a salsa accent would turn into salsa - because the timing is simply different.

    To use another analogy, if you're speaking English, then progressively start speaking with a stronger and stronger French accent, then no matter how much of a French accent you put on, you're still speaking English.

    You don't suddenly start speaking French, even if you bung on a beret and start rioting in the streets.
    Last edited by David Bailey; 19th-October-2010 at 08:21 PM.

  14. #54
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Bracknell, United
    Posts
    194
    Rep Power
    8

    Re: Is it me...

    Quote Originally Posted by David Bailey View Post

    • Some people dance Modern Jive with a WCS "accent". But it's still Modern Jive.
    • Some people dance Modern Jive with a Tango "accent". But it's still Modern Jive.
    • Some people dance Modern Jive with Latin "accent". But it's still Modern Jive.
    • And some people dance Modern Jive with a Modern Jive "accent". And guess what, that's still Modern Jive too.


    As I pretty sure has been mentioned in this thread, one of the joys of MJ is the variety within its broad boundaries making it the dance you can do to pretty much any music

  15. #55
    Basically lazy robd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Nr Cambridge
    Posts
    3,696
    Rep Power
    12

    Re: Is it me...

    Quote Originally Posted by alinp View Post
    one of the joys of MJ is the variety within its broad boundaries making it the dance you can do to pretty much any music
    But can that not also be a weakness? One of the things I find (and bear in mind it's just my perception) is that I feel more connected to the music when dancing WCS than when dancing MJ. Is that indicative of my ability in MJ? Probably. Is it indicative of a narrower range of music being played at WCS events? Possibly.

    Going back to the original debate re differences in MJ and WCS - I still think the accordion motion of both partners and the frequent changing of places of leader and follower in MJ differentiate it from WCS.

  16. #56
    Registered User NZ Monkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Auckland, NZ
    Posts
    1,109
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: Is it me...

    Quote Originally Posted by frodo View Post
    I think why these others are not is mostly covered within this thread, but I'll certainly try and summarise/expand or clarify it later.
    I look forward to that, as like Gerry, I'm not particularly satisfied with your answers. In particular with the lack of any arguments to really back them up apart from.....
    Quote Originally Posted by frodo
    Timing, anchoring, footwork etc. None of them on their own seem to fundamentally divide WCS from jive.

    As mentioned before the lady doing stuff (not specifically led) seems to. Specifically attempting to get to the end of the slot.
    .....which, aside from the slot (something different again which fundamentally affects the lead/follow conventions in WCS - the follower being lead to the end of the slot at the beginning of the pattern) seem extremely flimsy to me. And I suspect most of the others contributing to the thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gadget
    From watching youtube clips, WCS dancers take lots of little steps, never fully committing their weight to either foot.

  17. #57
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,781
    Rep Power
    11

    Re: Is it me...

    Quote Originally Posted by frodo View Post
    Playing is not fundamental.
    Is dancing fundamental ? What is the point of moving to a set rythm (hopefully the beat of the track), executing shapes in the very same way everyone does, ignoring anything in the music beside its beat - exercising ?

    Dancing isn't just about marching through moves - it's about the expression of both the music and your own feelings to it. In partner dancing that's done with respect to a set of rules that allow for someone to lead and someone to follow - those rules are just different in WCS and MJ.
    Well that's what dancing is to me, not saying it has to be that for everybody, but if I wanted to march through moves I'll go and do aerobics.

    Quote Originally Posted by frodo View Post
    Timing, anchoring, footwork etc. None of them on their own seem to fundamentally divide WCS from jive.
    I don't think there is any answer to that really ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gadget View Post
    From watching youtube clips, WCS dancers take lots of little steps, never fully committing their weight to either foot.
    Gadget, think about it, how would they move if that was the case ?
    WCS dancers don't have wings (although I sometimes suspect Tat does )

  18. #58
    Commercial Operator
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Sussex by the Sea
    Posts
    9,276
    Rep Power
    15

    Re: Is it me...

    Quote Originally Posted by Caro View Post
    Gadget, think about it, how would they move if that was the case ?
    As I said above, you need to commit your weight to one foot to be able to move the other foot.

    However, dear Caro, you have asked Gadget to "think about it". From his previous posting it seems that Gadget isn't in the business of thinking about dance before he posts with his expert knowledge. It's nice to see Gadget back on here and it's nice to see that some things never change. Sometimes I wonder if Gadget posts his wooly thinking to stimulate debate.

    Quote Originally Posted by Caro View Post
    WCS dancers don't have wings (although I sometimes suspect Tat does )
    Of course all experienced dancers can give themselves a weightless moment of flight where they keep their feet in touch with the floor and it looks like their feet are skating. For example if we stand with our feet apart and spring upwards we can glide our feet together at the same time (it's not something I do very often, but it's easy to explain in writing).

  19. #59
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Crewe, Cheshire
    Posts
    1,681
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: Is it me...

    Quote Originally Posted by robd View Post
    I still think the accordion motion of both partners and the frequent changing of places of leader and follower in MJ differentiate it from WCS.
    It's this change of places that I see creeping into WCS freestyle, ie the lead CONSTANTLY stepping forward (even on basic patterns in their basic form) on beat 1 rather than back.

    Yes, I HAVE been watching peoples FEET!!! Hee hee!!!

  20. #60
    Commercial Operator
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Sussex by the Sea
    Posts
    9,276
    Rep Power
    15

    Re: Is it me...

    Quote Originally Posted by Steven666 View Post
    It's this change of places that I see creeping into WCS freestyle, ie the lead CONSTANTLY stepping forward (even on basic patterns in their basic form) on beat 1 rather than back.

    Yes, I HAVE been watching peoples FEET!!! Hee hee!!!
    In MJ lessons I teach that the lead steps forward slightly on the 1 at the start of the routine - this step forward is very slight and mostly to avoid a step back! Most of the time this step is accompanied by a step to the left to get the guy off the follows line of dance - however, this depends on the move that is going to be led: the lead needs to step off the line if the move is a cross body move or has the follow stepping into their right hand side.

    However, the slight step forward as they get off the line and send the follow back is not restricted to the 1. As MJ moves are not all 4 or 8 beat patterns this step to send the lady back right can come at any time in the bar. However, the "left foot to the left" will usually/always come on a downbeat/odd numbered beat.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

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
  •