Musicality - The Difference it Makes

[Andy McGregor]

On the Jive Masters thread there has been some debate over the relative importance of musicality. To my mind it is an essential component of a dance performance. In my opinion, performing moves to the beat, with no reference to the musicality is like the difference between reading a poem and reading a shopping list.

This was brought home to me recently when I saw Nigel make a mistake when performing a cabaret with Nina. They do a move called the ribbon, it starts with Nina horizontal at shoulder height and, at the right point in the music Nigel seems to drop Nina, and she stops, still horizontal, very near the floor, right on a big dramatic break in the music. This move always gets applause from the audience - except this one time I saw Nigel get the timing wrong. People didn't seem to notice the move and just carried on watching as if nothing had happenned. Of course Nigel, being the professional, got back in the groove and performed the rest of the routine faultlessly And Nina didn't even use a death stare

So, my argument for musicality is that a dance without it is just a series of moves, which could just as easily be done to the banging of a single drum or the recording of a windscreen wiper. The moves can be fabulous, they can be perfectly exectuted, they can have a high degree of difficulty. But, without reference to the musicalty there is something essential missing from the performance.

The question is, if musicality is so intrinsic to dancing, why is it so rarely taught?

[Gus]

The question is, if musicality is so intrinsic to dancing, why is it so rarely taught?

Ever tried teaching a group of beginners to pick the beat?

[David Franklin]

On the Jive Masters thread there has been some debate over the relative importance of musicality.

This was brought home to me recently when I saw Nigel make a mistake when performing a cabaret with Nina. They do a move called the ribbon [snip]This move always gets applause from the audience - except this one time I saw Nigel get the timing wrong. People didn't seem to notice the move and just carried on watching as if nothing had happenned.

While I don't disagree with your main point, one thing I've noticed with cabarets is that if the audience don't know when to applaud, they won't... Have seen routines with amazing musicality, but because it was to lots of accents rather than a few crescendos, it was really hard to know when to applaud without "interrupting". Result - dead silence from the audience during the performance - even though we certainly appreciated it.

Dave

[stewart38]

So, my argument for musicality is that a dance without it is just a series of moves, which could just as easily be done to the banging of a single drum or the recording of a windscreen wiper. The moves can be fabulous, they can be perfectly exectuted, they can have a high degree of difficulty. But, without reference to the musicalty there is something essential missing from the performance.

The question is, if musicality is so intrinsic to dancing, why is it so rarely taught?

Agree with this

Maybe it starts at a very basic level with a 'sense of rythm' then its a learnt thing.

I see many people who you regard as 'good dancer' rushing through 50 moves in set and no doubt would do the same moves to every song.

10 moves that match the dance can be far more inspiring to watch

[Lynn]

The question is, if musicality is so intrinsic to dancing, why is it so rarely taught?

Maybe quite a few of the teachers haven't been taught it, or taught how to teach it? Maybe things need to go back to that level, a couple of 'teachers training' type workshops that focus on how to teach musicality and how much to teach at each level.

[Andy McGregor]

Ever tried teaching a group of beginners to pick the beat?

I somtimes find it impossible with one partner, let alone a group of beginners

But, of course, there are a lot more people than beginners at a dance class. How about a lesson in musicality for people who can 'pick the beat' and already have a nice repertoire of moves? They would benefit much more from a lesson in musicality than being taught another move.

While I don't disagree with your main point, one thing I've noticed with cabarets is that if the audience don't know when to applaud, they won't... Have seen routines with amazing musicality, but because it was to lots of accents rather than a few crescendos, it was really hard to know when to applaud without "interrupting". Result - dead silence from the audience during the performance - even though we certainly appreciated it.

I agree, I only used the cabaret performance to illustrate the difference between being on and off the music and the difference that can make to the performance.

I see many people who you regard as 'good dancer' rushing through 50 moves in set and no doubt would do the same moves to every song.

I've even seen a couple win an airsteps competition dancing on the off-beat. They did produce the best airsteps, but, being on the off-beat, were they the best dancers?


And, besides the performance aspect of the dance, I find it much nicer to try to freestyle with musicality - even though I've had the odd partner say something like "oh, you do that stoppy-starty thing" in a less than complimentary way I always wonder what they were expecting?


N.B. I've been thinking a lot about the way MJ is taught. Mainly to try to understand why so many people have developed bad habits. And I think it's because of the lack of individual feedback. People teach from the stage, demonstrate the moves, watch the audience 'til most/all of them have got it and that is probably it - with the possible exception of beginners who get a bit of individual attention from Taxi dancers. Once we join the intermediate lesson we're left to work it out for themselves, develop our own style, never corrected, etc. What are the teachers afraid of?

[DavidB]

To my mind it is an essential component of a dance performance.
{snip}
The question is, if musicality is so intrinsic to dancing, why is it so rarely taught?

You are talking about the difference between a performance and a social activity. The majority of people who do Modern Jive are not there to become performers. They want a night out that is sociable and fun, with a bit of physical activity thrown in.

The problem with teaching anything more complicated such as musical interpretation is that it almost invariably makes you a worse dancer for a while. Saying "you have to get worse before you can get better" is ok for serious dancers, but not for the majority who just wand a good night out.

Musical interpretation is an ideal subject for advanced classes, or a series of workshops. I think there could be more workshops like this - especially at dance weekends. But I'm not convinced it should be taught too much in regular intermediate classes.

Maybe things need to go back to that level, a couple of 'teachers training' type workshops that focus on how to teach musicality and how much to teach at each level.

There are a lot of teachers that have utterly and completely different ideas on musical interpretation. It makes the discussions on the Jive Masters thread look pretty tame.

[ChrisA]

The question is, if musicality is so intrinsic to dancing, why is it so rarely taught?

This is such a good question, that I gave you some rep even though you've overtaken me again .

Hmm. Let's think about who teaches it, first of all...

Amir teaches it the best, I think. And Nigel teaches it the next best (someone said that Joseph and Tricia also teach it but I haven't seen them so I can't comment).

They are both staggeringly musical dancers. And from the way they talk about what's going on, they clearly know what they're doing that's musical.

So not only can they do it, they can also explain what they do while they demonstrate it, which makes the whole learning process easier.

Now, here's where I risk getting flamed - hope this comes out the right way

My subjective impression of a lot of other teachers that I watch is that their musicality, which is often very nice, is based more on instinct - so they would find it correspondingly difficult to teach that particular aspect of what they do. And there are those, of course, who are not very musical themselves, so you wouldn't expect them to be able to teach it.

Bottom line: musicality is hard (I certainly wouldn't claim to be a particularly musical dancer yet - though I'm getting better). Teaching it probably even more so. Add to that the relative unpopularity of learning something difficult and it isn't surprising that it's so rare.

Chris

[Lynn]

Surely the basics can be taught though? Another eg from salsa (we don't have much MJ here!) - last night a track slowed down as it came to the end, my partner, who is a musician, slowed down his steps in time with the music. Another couple nearby kept dancing to the same beat, which was no longer being played. The music eventually faded out - they kept dancing even for a second or two of silence. Surely that is the most basic MI - if the beat changes, you change to match it? I'm sure there are some other fairly universal principles of MI that could be passed on as people are learning.

[Magic Hans]

On the Jive Masters thread there has been some debate over the relative importance of musicality. To my mind it is an essential component of a dance performance. In my opinion, performing moves to the beat, with no reference to the musicality is like the difference between reading a poem and reading a shopping list.
...

Totally agree 5 zillion percent!! Were musicality absent from MJ (or any dance for that matter), I'd have lost interest within a few weeks.

...
The question is, if musicality is so intrinsic to dancing, why is it so rarely taught?

[Personal opinion on] My angle is that it is both risky and difficult. Two ingredients are needed.

a) some understanding and emoting of music, moving sadly when the music 'feels' sad, moving lively when the music 'feels' lively. Piano pieces often direct the player as to how to play [eg vivace con brio - lively with motion]

b) involves self-expression. I hear and internalise the music, interpreting it into feeling (as above), I then externally express that which I am feeling. This is [imo] only possible to teach informally, and requires dropping any sense of self-consiousness.

Many people seem to be afraid to go within themselves, and express from within .... 'cos it's dark and scarey in there. I might not like what I might find there.

Make any sense?? Or too esoteric?

Ian

[Gadget]

The question is, if musicality is so intrinsic to dancing, why is it so rarely taught?

I would suggest that it's because most people can't seperate "musicality" from just 'dancing'. In order to actually dance with a patner, you have to both move on the same beat - you have to hear the same rhythm in the track.
A good lead can show the lady what he hears by moving her to it. A good follower will be able to pick up on what the lead hears by his movements.

Dancing to the beat is the first step in musicality. Then it's hearing breaks. Then anticipating them. These things are taught in most workshops, or at least brushed on; "this move would be good for a break", "if the music is slower, you could do this",...

Beyond this, you are takling about concepts which involve listening - a passive activity that is more a lecture than a workshop. I think that a mixing desk is the best teacher of listening to tracks; you can change the 'focus' of sound to favour or eliminate sounds.
I think that you could probably create a "learning CD" that would teach you how to listen and understand tracks. Slap a Ceroc lable on it and sell it to dancers to listen to on the way too-from their classes. {I want royalties on this idea }

[Gadget]

~ ingredients are needed:
a) some understanding and emoting of music,

Is emotion necissary to turn music into motion? Do you have to feel "horny all night long" to dance to hot & jucy?
If the song has strong emotional content, then why not; but tearing up and trying to fill moves with sorrow because the song says "...and his dog just up and died." ...

[ChrisA]

b) involves self-expression. I hear and internalise the music, interpreting it into feeling (as above), I then externally express that which I am feeling. This is [imo] only possible to teach informally, and requires dropping any sense of self-consiousness.

-snip-

Make any sense?? Or too esoteric?

Makes perfect sense.

But this aspect of musicality is probably the very hardest to teach - since both people's feeling and their expression of that feeling are different.

Also, if you're fortunate enough to be uninhibited enough for that feeling to translate reasonably easily into your dancing, then I'd say you're very lucky.

I know I'm not alone in finding that very difficult - so as well as the understanding of the music, I also need to learn some of the things that can be done with it as well.

For many, this is simply too difficult unless it's broken down into non-elephant-sized mouthfuls, and it's doing this in an accessible way that I think many teachers don't do very well.

Respect to the ones that can.

Chris

[ChrisA]

Do you have to feel "horny all night long" to dance to hot & jucy?

It probably helps

[BeeBee]

Agree with this

Maybe it starts at a very basic level with a 'sense of rythm' then its a learnt thing.

I see many people who you regard as 'good dancer' rushing through 50 moves in set and no doubt would do the same moves to every song.

10 moves that match the dance can be far more inspiring to watch

Totally agree!!! I've got the 'sense of rythm' bit, just need to get some snazzy moves to match the music . . .

[CJ]

Am intrigued by all of this...

Ok, so I am a muso, composer, songwriter, etc, etc...

I would have to say that musicality is my strongest suit when I dance. I don't know many moves; my lead can be wooly; but reaching breaks, anticipating breaks, gradually building crescendos, "word-painting" etc all come really easy to me but I have no idea why or how I would transfer this on to some one else.

It's an intrinsic thing, that I can't describe: maybe if I thought hard enough, I could try to put it into words. I guess people could learn 12 bar patterns for blues, 16/32 bar patterns for pop, etc but I think there is more to it than that.

Mmm... got me thinking
and everyone knows THAT doesn't happen much!!

[stewart38]

Surely the basics can be taught though? Another eg from salsa (we don't have much MJ here!) - last night a track slowed down as it came to the end, my partner, who is a musician, slowed down his steps in time with the music. Another couple nearby kept dancing to the same beat, which was no longer being played. The music eventually faded out - they kept dancing even for a second or two of silence. Surely that is the most basic MI - if the beat changes, you change to match it? I'm sure there are some other fairly universal principles of MI that could be passed on as people are learning.

Wonder how much of that is learnt/talked and how much just natural ability

ie 'advance' dancers dont sometimes 'listen' to the changes and you get the differences explained above.

Can we define what musicality is ? From different threads people seem to intepret it very differently

[ChrisA]

Totally agree!!! I've got the 'sense of rythm' bit, just need to get some snazzy moves to match the music . . .

Yep. Thing is, the thing that makes a move snazzy in these terms is ensuring that you're on the right part of the move at the right time in the music.

I think there are a number of phases to go through... some can go through them faster than others, of course, but my experience has been along the lines of:

1. Huh?
2. Damn, missed it as usual
3. (occasionally) Oooh... why can't I do that all the time
4. (increasingly) Oooh... that felt nice

I spent literally years at stage 1.

Then, when I was on the point of giving up MJ completely because I was so bored with moves, I went on a workshop that Amir taught. I still couldn't do it, but I had the tools to start listening, and an inkling of what to do which occasionally translated into something.

Even from 3 to 4 there is an unlimited amount of stuff to do. Just being able to stop in a good place in the move on the break was wonderful to start with, but now I'm completely unsatisfied by just that, and feeling like there's another mountain to climb. Which there is, of course - but it's a lot more fulfilling now.

Chris

[Lory]

I don't know who I'm agreeing with, or disagreeing with )

But IMO, as someone else said, musicality is instinctive. You either feel/hear it, or you don't.

I don't think it comes down to a case of people not letting go, some people can hardly keep time, let alone hear the subtleties of the music, and I doubt it can be taught.

It's like shouting at a man who's stone deaf, It doesn't matter how loud you shout, even if you stood him next to Big Ben, he still wouldn't hear it!

BUT I do think there's a case for teaching people who DO have an appreciation of music and musicality already, what options they have i.e. moves, breaks, half time etc. to be able to interpret it!

[Magic Hans]

Is emotion necissary to turn music into motion? Do you have to feel "horny all night long" to dance to hot & jucy?
If the song has strong emotional content, then why not; but tearing up and trying to fill moves with sorrow because the song says "...and his dog just up and died." ...

hmmm .... something tells me that we'll only ever agree on this when hell starts to freeze over!!


I guess we'll have to agree to disagree agreeably.

If "Hot and Juicy" makes me feel sexy, then yes ... I will translate that into my moves, moderating it, dependant on my partner [I don't want her to feel uncomfortable]

My point that it is emotion that makes us human. An individual stripped of emotion becomes little more than an automaton, a computing device/machine. Which we sometimes need to be in order to learn something new, but not my favourite choice of dance partner.

.... I'm sure you have a different viewpoint!

Ian