Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 111

Thread: Is it me...

  1. #61
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Cruden Bay (Aberde
    Posts
    7,053
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Is it me...

    Quote Originally Posted by Andy McGregor View Post
    WCS dancers commit their weight to one foot. How else could they move the other foot?
    Am I alone in thinking that a commitment means all the weight is on one foot? Transferral of weight needs to happen to move feet, commitment is optional.

    When your weight is committed to one foot, then the other is free to move at any time - it can be lifted, waggled, kicked, moved... there is no weight on it or being transferred to it.

    Walking is a series of 'controlled falls' where weight is moved before the foot is grounded in place to catch it. You have not committed your weight to the catching foot until it has touched the ground and taken most of the weight - it can still be re-positioned.


    In WCS, if the weight was fully committed to one foot and then the other then the WCS dancer wouldn't look as 'smooth' in the upper body: the weight is distributed between each foot, only transferred enough to move the non-load-bearing foot.

    Quote Originally Posted by geoff332 View Post
    To my knowledge, WCS doesn't ever use the R-L-RLR as a four count basic pattern...
    so I missed the first two counts:
    - MJ (R-L-R-L-R-L) or (R-L-R-L-R-L-R-L)
    - WCS (R-L-R-L-RLR) or (R-L-R-L-R-L-RLR)
    (Except I think I started on the wrong foot... )

    The nett result is the same - MJ follower on a constant foot, the WCS follower on whatever foot the pattern ends on: different feet. A WCS lead trying to lead a MJ follower and a MJ lead trying to lead a WCS follower will both have similar problems.

    [/quote]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...[/QUOTE]But as Caro says - in WCS, the follower carries on down their path until they tell the lead they are done. To me, that's not leading a move: that's signalling which move the follower should do and staying with them until it's done. Not a critique or a sin, just another difference in styles. (..and I would suggest only evident at the highest level.)

    Quote Originally Posted by David Bailey View Post
    Either way, it's silly to compare WCS and MJ in this way, when the lead/follow conventions are so markedly different.
    The conventions are very similar, just the timings are markedly different. (unless that's what you meant?)



    I still think that WCS goes in the opposite direction to Tango when MJ is the starting point.

  2. #62
    Commercial Operator
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Northeastern Parts
    Posts
    5,221
    Rep Power
    14

    Re: Is it me...

    Quote Originally Posted by Gadget View Post
    so I missed the first two counts:
    - MJ (R-L-R-L-R-L) or (R-L-R-L-R-L-R-L)
    - WCS (R-L-R-L-RLR) or (R-L-R-L-R-L-RLR)
    (Except I think I started on the wrong foot... )
    No - you missed out an entire triple (assuming you're referring to the 6 and 8 count basics)

    R-L-RLR-LRL (6 count)
    R-L-RLR-L-R-LRL (8 count)

    Try doing a couple of WCS-gadget-basics in a row. The results would be ... interesting, given that the follow is ending a basic on the same foot with which she needs to start the next one.

  3. #63
    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
    Am I alone in thinking that a commitment means all the weight is on one foot? Transferral of weight needs to happen to move feet, commitment is optional.
    I'm not sure what the difference is. I mean, if one leg is moving, it can't simultaneously be weight-bearing. Can it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gadget View Post
    When your weight is committed to one foot, then the other is free to move at any time - it can be lifted, waggled, kicked, moved... there is no weight on it or being transferred to it.
    Well, yes, that's a key component of AT. But it's mainly relevant when standing still, and you don't do that much in WCS as I understand it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gadget View Post
    Walking is a series of 'controlled falls' where weight is moved before the foot is grounded in place to catch it.
    That's definitely not true in AT. In WCS, I dunno.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gadget View Post
    The conventions are very similar, just the timings are markedly different. (unless that's what you meant?)
    Well, in MJ, I wouldn't expect my partner to do her own thing, just because I've led her down a slot. I'd expect her to follow my continuous lead.

    So that seem different to me.

  4. #64
    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
    Am I alone in thinking that a commitment means all the weight is on one foot? Transferral of weight needs to happen to move feet, commitment is optional.

    When your weight is committed to one foot, then the other is free to move at any time - it can be lifted, waggled, kicked, moved... there is no weight on it or being transferred to it.
    Let's say that someone weight 10 stone. If all 10 stone is being supported on one foot the weight is "committed" to that foot and the other foot is bearing no weight - therefore it can be moved.

    Commit any less than 10 stone to one foot and the remaining wight has to go somewhere. Let's say there's just 8 stone being carried by one foot, where does Gadget think the other 2 stone has gone?

    N.B. While it is appropriate to give correction and rebuke someone if you know they are in error, the vast majority of us have much more productive things to do with our lives than waste them arguing with fools.

  5. #65
    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 Andy McGregor View Post
    For example if we stand with our feet apart and spring upwards...
    ....I get slapped in the face
    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

  6. #66
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Oxford
    Posts
    677
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: Is it me...

    Quote Originally Posted by Gadget View Post
    so I missed the first two counts:
    - MJ (R-L-R-L-R-L) or (R-L-R-L-R-L-R-L)
    - WCS (R-L-R-L-RLR) or (R-L-R-L-R-L-RLR)
    Well, you're still wrong. That might explain a few things...

    WCS is R-L-RLR-LRL; R-L-RLR-L-R-LRL

    Curiously, when the pattern is correct, WCS patterns end on the same foot as the MJ patterns.

    What I've seen from MJ dancers (including myself), is they can get stuck in the basic 4 count pattern of MJ, so there's a tendency to try and lead on the 5th count of a six count pattern. This usually means the follow is on the wrong foot for the lead; but it's not the follow's fault. It also suggests that the lead has not stuck to the pattern either.

  7. #67
    Commercial Operator
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Northeastern Parts
    Posts
    5,221
    Rep Power
    14

    Re: Is it me...

    Quote Originally Posted by Gadget View Post
    In WCS, if the weight was fully committed to one foot and then the other then the WCS dancer wouldn't look as 'smooth' in the upper body: the weight is distributed between each foot, only transferred enough to move the non-load-bearing foot.
    You've stated that you drew these conclusions from watching YouTube clips - so are we to understand from this that the reason you believe the dancers are not committing their weight fully on each step is purely because their upper-body movement is so smooth?

    Admittedly it's near-impossible to tell just from watching YouTube, but I can happily reassure you that it's perfectly possible to get that smooth movement while fully committing your weight on each step. It's simply a matter of technique.

  8. #68
    Registered User Whitebeard's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Cheltenham, Glouce
    Posts
    2,307
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Is it me...

    Quote Originally Posted by David Bailey View Post
    I'm not sure what the difference is. I mean, if one leg is moving, it can't simultaneously be weight-bearing. Can it?
    Yes it can! One of Franck's little exercises in basic technique involves placing a sheet of kitchen towelling beneath each foot. Whilst then dancing, the sheets should stay in place under each foot. Neither foot entirely leaves the floor and, since the sheets of tissue remain in place, each foot must always be weight bearing ..... to however small a degree.

    I had no problem with this exercise, it seemed quite natural to me. The feet sliding, rather than stepping, into place. Weight carried on the balls of the feet and little use of the heels.

  9. #69
    Registered User frodo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    1,156
    Rep Power
    11

    Re: Is it me...

    Quote Originally Posted by David Bailey View Post
    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.



    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.
    It makes nice copy / is good for point scoring, but the analogy doesn't come close to working.

    It would be more accurate to use the example of - American English / Indian English / Australian English / Region English / Scottish English / International English (all being of course English).


    To demonstrate this simply consider the case of dancing with a follower who dances jive and west coast swing.

    If we start dancing clearly modern jive and end up dancing clearly west coast swing at the end of the track (or the other way around) with gradual changes what were we dancing ?


    For comparison with Jive to Salsa or Salsa to Jive I reckon there would need to be a distinct transition. Dancing the first half of the track as one / a clear change and the second half as the other.

  10. #70
    Registered User frodo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    1,156
    Rep Power
    11

    Re: Is it me...

    Quote Originally Posted by Caro View Post
    I don't think there is any answer to that really ?
    I would would hoped you'd be willing to think rather than simply bang your head against the wall.

    Perhaps when you get too deeply into something it clouds the issues.


    Start by considering starting a dance as modern jive and transitioning gradually to west coast swing or the other way around.


    At what point does it become the other dance ?

    • When you start anchoring. No - it is fairly minor section of the dance, and you can put off anchoring for quite a while.


    • When you apply certain footwork. See footwork thread. Footwork is both variable and optional, in both dances.


    • Does timing define the transition.
      This is somewhat bound up in footwork so might be best considered with footwork. However both are based on 2 beat sections, and I don't see a sharply defined transition based on timing.


    • By far the biggest transition for me is when the lady continues to move to the end of the slot without being led.
      The dance then feels very different, and you can then lead (what for me) is a WCS manner - tension builds up - you don't need to lead continuously and moves start working like they should.



    The obvious implication is that forms the fundamental distinction.

    .
    Last edited by frodo; 20th-October-2010 at 08:23 PM. Reason: Formatted to break up a little.

  11. #71
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    681
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: Is it me...

    Quote Originally Posted by frodo View Post
    It makes nice copy / is good for point scoring, but the analogy doesn't come close to working.

    It would be more accurate to use the example of - American English / Indian English / Australian English / Region English / Scottish English / International English (all being of course English).


    To demonstrate this simply consider the case of dancing with a follower who dances jive and west coast swing.

    If we start dancing clearly modern jive and end up dancing clearly west coast swing at the end of the track (or the other way around) with gradual changes what were we dancing ?


    For comparison with Jive to Salsa or Salsa to Jive I reckon there would need to be a distinct transition. Dancing the first half of the track as one / a clear change and the second half as the other.
    Frodo
    I dance Mj probably more than I do WCS.

    My MJ is danced very much in a circular fashion while my WCS is slotted. I am happy to move in and out of these two dances which happened at SP. In both cases the Follower found it very difficult to just change in the middle of the song. It felt that I needed to almost stop, place my partner in front of me before I could start again, I suppose I could have got into a closed position which would have made it easier.

    The followers in WCS will try to keep moving away to produce a stretch. In MJ I find that I keep a very short arm which allows me to keep my follower moving quickly. This same short arm is then causing many problems with my WCS.

    The dances are very different and it does take a bit of work to make WCS moves work in a MJ timing

  12. #72
    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
    My MJ is danced very much in a circular fashion while my WCS is slotted. I am happy to move in and out of these two dances which happened at SP.
    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry View Post
    In MJ I find that I keep a very short arm which allows me to keep my follower moving quickly. This same short arm is then causing many problems with my WCS.
    My modern jive is normally slotted with limited use of concertina motion.

    Modern jive clearly permits wide variations in style.

    For the sake of clarifying the issues I'm taking a slotted type of jive as the starting point.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry View Post
    The followers in WCS will try to keep moving away to produce a stretch.
    Absolutely and exactly what I think IS the important distinction.

  13. #73
    Commercial Operator
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Northeastern Parts
    Posts
    5,221
    Rep Power
    14

    Re: Is it me...

    Quote Originally Posted by frodo View Post
    Absolutely and exactly what I think IS the important distinction.
    Out of interest, and my apologies if I missed this information in an earlier post, but how much WCS have you done?

  14. #74
    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
    Perhaps when you get too deeply into something it clouds the issues.
    Much like being so far away from something means you can't properly distinguish between different objects?


    • When you start anchoring. No - it is fairly minor section of the dance, and you can put off anchoring for quite a while.
    If you think this, I'm wondering just what experience you have. You can put off teaching it for a few weeks while beginners have enough other material to get used to, but without an anchour it is extremely difficult to lead anything other than simple passes and whips, and feels wrong too.

    The anchour is vital to establishing the connection and the lead/follow relationship in WCS in my opinion.

    • Does timing define the transition.
      This is somewhat bound up in footwork so might be best considered with footwork. However both are based on 2 beat sections, and I don't see a sharply defined transition based on timing.
    What you can comfortably do in those two beats is of course the difference.

    Footwork is both variable and optional, in both dances.
    This is, in my opinion, a common misconception.

    First of all, just because you may vary the basic footwork patterns in a dance form doesn't mean you can ignore them completely. There is a significant difference between somebody with years of professional experience in dance "ignoring" their basic patterns after thousands of repetitions giving them the muscle memory and understanding of the dance to do so, and someone who (probably) comes from a MJ and thinks "Yay, the footwork is optional! One less thing to worry about". The second category are, in my experience, considerably poorer for their decision.

    Secondly, even in MJ the footwork is only "optional" up to a point. Even if the specifics are ignored in classes you still need to move to the right places in the right ways to pull off moves well. Ignoring the footwork in MJ completely, although it can get you on the dance floor reasonably quickly, also puts a severe limit on your ability.

  15. #75
    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
    I would would hoped you'd be willing to think rather than simply bang your head against the wall.
    I am banging my head because if you don't think timing, anchoring and footwork are key differences between the dances, even after NZM's generous explanations (that man has the patient of a Saint ), you either have achieved an understanding of both dances neither of us has, or haven't got a clue what WCS is about.

    Thankfully you clarified which of the above it was when you said:


    Quote Originally Posted by frodo View Post

    • When you start anchoring. No - it is fairly minor section of the dance, and you can put off anchoring for quite a while.
    What's the point of me adding anything to that, you're clearly not taking in anything that is being said on the subject ? Anchoring affects the timing, the connection and the footwork of the dance... I guess it is a matter of opinion as to deciding if this is key in your dancing.

    Quote Originally Posted by frodo View Post

    Perhaps when you get too deeply into something it clouds the issues.
    It doesn't when you understand the deep parts...

    I really don't know how to put this in a nicer way (well I've never been good at that ), but may be if you danced more WCS, you'd understand what we're on about ?

  16. #76
    Senior Member Minnie M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Hove Actually
    Posts
    7,924
    Rep Power
    14

    Re: Is it me...

    Quote Originally Posted by Caro View Post
    I am banging my head because if you don't think timing, anchoring and footwork are key differences between the dances, even after NZM's generous explanations (that man has the patient of a Saint ), you either have achieved an understanding of both dances neither of us has, or haven't got a clue what WCS is about........


    --ooOoo--
    Age is a question of mind over matter, if you don't mind, it doesn't matter
    Leroy (Satchel) Paige (1906-1982)

    Mickey Mouse's girlfriend, Minnie, made her film debut, along with Mickey, in "Steamboat Willie" on November 18, 1928.
    That date is recognized as her official birthday.

  17. #77
    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
    It would be more accurate to use the example of - American English / Indian English / Australian English / Region English / Scottish English / International English (all being of course English).
    No, I don't think that analogy works. Different dance forms are different languages, they're not different dialects.

    Different styles within dance forms are the "dialects". For example, Vals / Milonga / Nuevo / Salon / Finnish Tango are some "dialects" of AT.

    Quote Originally Posted by frodo View Post
    To demonstrate this simply consider the case of dancing with a follower who dances jive and west coast swing.

    If we start dancing clearly modern jive and end up dancing clearly west coast swing at the end of the track (or the other way around) with gradual changes what were we dancing ?
    I don't know - and I don't know if such a transition is possible. So I'll let a WCS-er take this one on.

    I do know that, despite much effort, "Jango" is extremely difficult to achieve - you have to either have very slow MJ, or you have to adopt a Milonga style.

    Quote Originally Posted by frodo View Post
    For comparison with Jive to Salsa or Salsa to Jive I reckon there would need to be a distinct transition. Dancing the first half of the track as one / a clear change and the second half as the other.
    I honestly think it'd be near-impossible to transition between Jive and Salsa in a single dance.

    There are almost no tracks I can think of that would allow that, and there are very few dancers I know who could handle such a transition even if I did lead it.
    Last edited by David Bailey; 21st-October-2010 at 10:39 AM.

  18. #78
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Cruden Bay (Aberde
    Posts
    7,053
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Is it me...

    Quote Originally Posted by Andy McGregor View Post
    Let's say that someone weight 10 stone. If all 10 stone is being supported on one foot the weight is "committed" to that foot and the other foot is bearing no weight - therefore it can be moved.

    Commit any less than 10 stone to one foot and the remaining wight has to go somewhere. Let's say there's just 8 stone being carried by one foot, where does Gadget think the other 2 stone has gone?
    Hmmm, let me see...
    Put a 10 stone person so that one foot is on one scale and the other is on another. Get them to walk on the spot and see what the scales read. Do you think that during each step, when one scale reads zero, that the other will read 10?
    {I honestly don't know for sure, but am tempted to go and get another set of scales to try it }

    Let's say that the same 10 stone person jumps: where does Andy think the 10 stone goes to?

    If the weight was transferred fully from one foot to the other, at the speed of the steps and triples in WCS, then the upper torso would be wobbling back and forth.
    Quote Originally Posted by geoff332 View Post
    Well, you're still wrong.
    ...
    What I've seen from MJ dancers (including myself), is they can get stuck in the basic 4 count pattern of MJ, so there's a tendency to try and lead on the 5th count of a six count pattern. This usually means the follow is on the wrong foot for the lead; but it's not the follow's fault. It also suggests that the lead has not stuck to the pattern either.
    Who's fault is it if they are trying to dance WCS and I'm trying to lead MJ? Blame the DJ.

    You are probably right: most movements in MJ are split into 4 counts, so the first of a 6 count triple lands just at the wrong time to lead off on the foot a MJ lead would expect.

    Quote Originally Posted by straycat View Post
    Admittedly it's near-impossible to tell just from watching YouTube, but I can happily reassure you that it's perfectly possible to get that smooth movement while fully committing your weight on each step. It's simply a matter of technique.
    I know it is perfectly possible - it's what's done in AT. I'm far more impressed with the precision and placement in that dance than the shuffling, skipping I see in WCS. But that's my personal opinion.

  19. #79
    The Forum Legend
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Nottingham
    Posts
    10,672
    Rep Power
    14

    Re: Is it me...

    Quote Originally Posted by Gadget View Post
    If the weight was transferred fully from one foot to the other, at the speed of the steps and triples in WCS, then the upper torso would be wobbling back and forth.
    Rubbish!

    (And my torso wobbles more than most! )

  20. #80
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,781
    Rep Power
    11

    Re: Is it me...

    Just had a lightbulb moment - think I understand what Gadget is on about

    I spent a minute analysing what happens when I try to do my smoothest wcs footwork - as the weight of my body transfers from the heel of my sending foot to the ball of it to eventually the 3 toe-base, the heel of my landing foot has already landed and is already taking some of that weight - hence am I don't go from having purely 100% of my weight on one foot to having purely 100% of my weight on the other - i.e. I am not hoping, I go as gradually as I possibly can from 100 to 90/10 to 80/20 to 70/30 etc until I get 0/100 and I can pick up what was my sending foot for it to become to landing foot of the next step.
    Is that what you mean Gadget ?
    Still, surely you do that in (smooth) MJ too and in any dance where you're not hoping up and down ? (jeez typing this I suddenly recall the bouncyness of MJ that's always driven me crazy ).

    Still, it terms of commitment, I very much commit to transfering all my weight from one foot to the other... I just try to do it as gradually as I can, having my landing foot exactly under my center as my sending foot pushes forward so it looks smooth...

    It's the rolling of the feet that gives wcs that smooth look by the way... like you peel them off the floor as gradually as you can...

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
  •