When I am explaining MJ to anyone I refer to them as 'basic moves' rather than 'beginner' moves.Originally Posted by mick
Is it counter-productive to call the basic moves, "beginners moves". It gives the impression that dancers should move on, and leave these moves behind.
It is like saying that the chords of G and D are beginners chords, and that a competent musician should not use them.
Would it not be better to call the 15 or so moves, "basic" or "fundamental moves"?
When I am explaining MJ to anyone I refer to them as 'basic moves' rather than 'beginner' moves.Originally Posted by mick
On the Ceroc websiteOriginally Posted by Lynn
http://www.ceroc.com/nonmembers/workshops.htm
I have just checked and it refers to 12 beginners moves. That is the expression I have normally heard.
We don't have any Ceroc in NI! Just some basic MJ!Originally Posted by mick
I think that's an interesting point. However, calling them beginner moves does reinforce the point to new people that these moves are suitable for them.
I agree, but also feel that calling them 'basic' moves suggests that this is where you start learning. And also has the idea of these being the building blocks you use to put together in freestyle, to add to for 'intermediate' moves.Originally Posted by Graham
Originally Posted by Lynn
I always thought calling them 'foundation' moves would be more appropriate.
That would be appropriate to their function. I suppose I use 'basic' moves as other dance styles refer to basic - eg 'basic step'. But maybe that's because in the past MJ here has been attracting people who already do some form of partner dance so will be familiar with the term as referring to the bit you learn first and build on.Originally Posted by Jive Brummie
To my mind, foundation moves would be things like a return, or a single in&out. Moves like the Shoulder Drop are more complex than that.Originally Posted by Jive Brummie
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks