Technique in Modern Jive

[Gadget]

I was digging around the net and came up with an interesting quote from DavidB (The Orical)...

DavidB - rec.arts.dance - Re:Modern Jive - 2002-04-23
There is undoubtedly technique in Modern Jive. It is not
understood, and certainly not taught enough yet, but it is there.

So, two years have passed: is it understood yet? Is it taught? What is it?


{Not that much digging actually - typed in "Modern Jive" into Google groups and it was the first/second item }

[ChrisA]

Originally posted by Gadget

DavidB - rec.arts.dance - Re:Modern Jive - 2002-04-23
There is undoubtedly technique in Modern Jive. It is not
understood, and certainly not taught enough yet, but it is there.

So, two years have passed: is it understood yet? Is it taught? What is it?

Given that Ceroc still teach that it makes no difference which foot the lady steps back on, I would say it's reasonably safe to suggest that it isn't taught much.

Chris

[Gadget]

Originally posted by ChrisA
Given that Ceroc still teach that it makes no difference which foot the lady steps back on, I would say it's reasonably safe to suggest that it isn't taught much.

You made a pivitol assumption in that statement which I dissagree with:
- That technique revolves around footwork.

I also don't understand why stepping back on a specific foot would indicate bad or good tecnique: surely it depends on the move being led into/out of?

[Jayne]

Originally posted by Gadget
You made a pivitol assumption in that statement which I dissagree with:
- That technique revolves around footwork.

Is the natural extension of this therefore that the "technique" in modern jive is for the man to move his hand and the girl will follow?

If you believe that footwork isn't technique then how can technique be about body movement, musical interpretation or anything else???

J

[eastmanjohn]

Originally posted by Gadget
You made a pivitol assumption in that statement which I dissagree with:
- That technique revolves around footwork.

I also don't understand why stepping back on a specific foot would indicate bad or good tecnique: surely it depends on the move being led into/out of?

You're right. It depends on the move.

I think when it comes down to technique and specific moves we need to concentrate on the link between moves. The technique in making the dance flow revolves around how you finish each move and therefore how you start the next. This includes when to use returns and when not to (no it's not just to stop the lady getting dizzy!)

If the step back at the start of the First Move is the same as the step back at the end, then surely that should happen on the same foot in each instance (for the leader and the follower). Try dancing a first move with a return and stop on beat 8 (if 1 was stepping back). Which foot is back? Well if it's the same every time then surely that is the foot you should teach to step back on beat 1.

Isn't this where technique and footwork come together. The technique with the arm/upper body lead is then synchronised with the footwork so that there is little delay between the lead in the arm/upper body and the reaction in the follower to interpret that in movement (through footwork).

[ChrisA]

Originally posted by Gadget
You made a pivotal assumption in that statement which I disagree with:
- That technique revolves around footwork.

Actually, I didn't make that assumption at all. You inferred that from something I didn't say

Here's a clue, though:

Take 100 beginner ladies. Tell them to step back, without telling them which foot to step back on. I don't know what the actual proportion is, but many will step back left, and many will step back right.

However, if you take 100 beginner ladies, and spend two or three minutes teaching connection, with the guy holding the lady's right hand, the results are very different when you then step the lady back maintaining some compression.

Ceroc teaches that there is no difference between ladies stepping back left foot or right foot. There manifestly is, if there is some connection established; I'm just suggesting (so far, anyway) that it's worth thinking about what this implies about other things they teach or don't teach.

Chris

[Gadget]

Originally posted by Jayne
Is the natural extension of this therefore that the "technique" in modern jive is for the man to move his hand and the girl will follow?

I would say that the natural extension is for the man to lead and the lady to follow. The lead is much more than just moving the hand, but that's not what I was trying to say:
Technique does not revolve around footwork. I don't think that it is an important or vital part of MJ technique: Some very good dancers barely move their feet.

If you believe that footwork isn't technique then how can technique be about body movement, musical interpretation or anything else???

Admittedly a loose definition of footwork can be a small part of the over-all technique. It is not the placing of your feet that define technique, but the placement of the body as a whole. The feet are just a tool to prevent you falling over and move your body into the right position.{IMHO}

Spinning and turning technique I conceed is aided greatly by footwork, but that's only a fraction of what modern jive is about.

[Jayne]

Originally posted by Gadget
The feet are just a tool to prevent you falling over and move your body into the right position.{IMHO}

Whilst I appreciate that this is your opinion, my opinion is that this is the most absurd thing I've heard for a long time.

Gadget: have you done *any* dance other than MJ?

J

[Jayne]

Originally posted by Gadget
that's only a fraction of what modern jive is about.

Whilst I don't want to turn Friday afternoons into regular sparring sessions between Gadget and myself...

...Gadget. What (IYHO) is modern jive about? Maybe once we've established this starting point we can have a proper discussion?

J

[Bill]

Originally posted by ChrisA
Actually, I didn't make that assumption at all. You inferred that from something I didn't say


Chris

ah but your're forgetting that Gadget can read minds.......so maybe you almost thought it

[Bill]

Originally posted by Jayne
Whilst I appreciate that this is your opinion, my opinion is that this is the most absurd thing I've heard for a long time.

J

how polite and well considered................

[spindr]

Isn't repeatability and consistency a hallmark of good technique.

Randomness doesn't seem a "solid" base upon which to build consistent technique.

SpinDr.

[Aleks]

Originally posted by Gadget
I would say that the natural extension is for the man to lead and the lady to follow. The lead is much more than just moving the hand, but that's not what I was trying to say:
Technique does not revolve around footwork. I don't think that it is an important or vital part of MJ technique: Some very good dancers barely move their feet.


Admittedly a loose definition of footwork can be a small part of the over-all technique. It is not the placing of your feet that define technique, but the placement of the body as a whole. The feet are just a tool to prevent you falling over and move your body into the right position.{IMHO}

Spinning and turning technique I conceed is aided greatly by footwork, but that's only a fraction of what modern jive is about.

Could "footwork" also refer to the transfer of weight from one foot to another? If so, my opinion is that footwork is intrinsically part of MJ.

[ChrisA]

Originally posted by Bill
ah but your're forgetting that Gadget can read minds.......so maybe you almost thought it

Maybe I did; how would I know if I almost thought it???

[Gadget]

Originally posted by ChrisA
Actually, I didn't make that assumption at all. You inferred that from something I didn't say

My inferance was deduced from the statement - I thought it a logical conclusion: was I wrong?

Take 100 beginner ladies.~snip~ and spend two or three minutes teaching connection,[/b]Ceroc teaches that there is no difference between ladies stepping back left foot or right foot.

...and you are teaching a lead/follow, not footwork. The lady is simply responding to the connection and moving accordingly. The lead can dictate which foot the lady steps back on if it's needed. The teaching that it makes no difference (I think ) is correct: the movement is the same, the result is the same - you do not need to think on two 'seperate' moves - one for each foot. This way it does not matter what foot you start/end a move on. This is especially relevant for the beginners that are the {percieved} target of Ceroc.

I'm just suggesting (so far, anyway) that it's worth thinking about what this implies about other things they teach or don't teach.[/B]

That statement implys to me that Ceroc is witholding the recipe for secret sauce that will make my dancing better. I'm not saying that the "Ceroc" way is the only, or even the best way of teaching. In fact I was just talking about technique in MJ.

Trying to follow your breadcrumbs - there is poor technique displayed by most MJ'ers - most have been introduced to MJ through Ceroc - most beginners at Ceroc display poor techique - Ceroc is teaching poor technique. (or at least in a method that encourages poor technique). Yes?

[eastmanjohn]

Originally posted by spindr
Isn't repeatability and consistency a hallmark of good technique.

Randomness doesn't seem a "solid" base upon which to build consistent technique.

SpinDr.

Absolutley. This is one of the first things I try to hammer home to people who come to me to train as teachers.

Well said. And great to see you on Friday. Eric said you liked his choice of music. PM me if you have any other comments on the night.

[eastmanjohn]

Originally posted by Gadget
..... The lead can dictate which foot the lady steps back on if it's needed. The teaching that it makes no difference (I think ) is correct: the movement is the same, the result is the same .............. This way it does not matter what foot you start/end a move on. This is especially relevant for the beginners that are the {percieved} target of Ceroc.

Yes the lead can dictate which foot to step back on. However you cannot say that the movement is the same whichever foot you step back on. It is most definitely different. The final result might be the same (i.e. you end up in a side by side position etc) but HOW you get there is VERY different.

[spindr]

Originally posted by Gadget The lead can dictate which foot the lady steps back on if it's needed.

I've heard other people make this statement before -- but I've never managed it. However, I am genuinely intrigued that I am missing something, so: "From a neutral starting position: how do you dictate that the follower steps back on her left foot when you lead her to move directly backwards (without swivelling), e.g. with a left-to-right handhold? How does that lead differ from one where the follower steps back on her right foot?"

I'd contend that the only way to lead the follower to be stepped back on a particular foot would be to lead a rotatation == turn / spin / swivel -- and assume that the lady followed "natural footwork" -- stepping back on the left (equivalently forwards on the right) after an ACW rotation and back on the right after a CW one (equivalently forward on the left).

However, this probably only has real consequences if the next step is also rotational in nature -- the natural "lead/follow" is then a step rotating in the opposite direction. If there's little or no rotation, then it doesn't matter as much which foot the follower is on.

SpinDr.

[ChrisA]

Originally posted by Gadget
That statement implys to me that Ceroc is witholding the recipe for secret sauce that will make my dancing better.

I've never seen your dancing, so I have no idea what would make it better

Ceroc is teaching poor technique. (or at least in a method that encourages poor technique). Yes?

I certainly believe this to be the case in some areas. I know we've flogged it to death elsewhere, but all the nonsense about visual signals for neckbreak-based moves, for instance.

Stop signs are completely unnecessary to lead any form of neckbreak, and teaching these signals reinforces the specious idea that lead/follow on the social dance floor has got anything to do with "I'm making this silly shape with my arm, so you need to do move X".

We've also done the semicircle to death elsewhere, but the same applies.

I'd be the last one to claim any great knowledge of dance technique, but I do spend a lot of time dancing with and teaching beginners, which includes basic work on connection. As soon as they get that, miraculously they start stepping back much more consistently on the right foot, and much of the confusion about where to place their feet disappears since it all becomes much simpler.

IMHO, Ceroc attempts to simplify things in an effort to make the dance more accessible to new beginners, but while, overall, I admire the formula, in some respects the attempted simplifications are counterproductive.

Chris

[spindr]

Originally posted by eastmanjohn
And great to see you on Friday. Eric said you liked his choice of music. PM me if you have any other comments on the night.

Well, how many venues can boast 140 consecutive monthly dances!

Hope you're planning something special for the 150th -- be sure and remind us.

SpinDr.