WCS- very nice video clip

[David Franklin]

(mixed from two posts...)
true. Nor can I. Why? Should there be a limit to what can be danced in MJ?

Almost anything is possible in MJ, but if you want to be able to have a meaningful conversation, (something I am increasingly despairing of), then you need to recognize a difference between what is possible and what is actually happening. Otherwise, fine, if it makes you happy, I'll accept MJ encompasses the whole of WCS. Where does that get us? Does it change the fact that Robert/Deborah, Jordan/Tat, Ben/Melissa, Kyle/Sarah, Benji/Heidi, David/Susan (could go on for another 20 couples, but what's the point?) etc. are all light-years ahead of anyone in the UK?

If the judges were not so blinkered in thinking that footwork = good dancing, then we'd have some MJ couples in SDF...

With all respect to the couples concerned, I think the truth is SDF showed how far MJ has to go as a performance dance. I've seen an online public poll for "who should have gone through" (London heat), and the sad truth is only 2% voted for Viktor and Carol.

contradiction. Taught in slots, danced amorphous. Taught on every other beat, danced on whatever beat.

As DavidB pointed out, the "slotted nature" of MJ is not taught. And by WCS standards, even the class isn't slotted (woman doesn't travel on a tramline). As for the beat, I can't be bothered going over it, but I find it's a fairly fundamental difference. It's not just a matter of dancing twice as fast - it's often doing more subtle things but doing them more often.

MJ doesn't give people the tools (and teaching etc.) to dance like the top WCS dancers.

Correct: It gives them tools that {in theory} should enable people to dance better than WCS dancers. No boundaries saying that "this is" and "this is not".

I want to live in Theory. Everything works in Theory. In the real world, however, the proof is in the pudding.

In that order. Judging MJ against almost any other style will compare dancing before musicality - Asthetically, I don't really care if the splits don't meet the floor; as long as it was timed with, and suited, the music. You could execute a technically perfect cha-cha-cha with double synchronous turns; but if it didn't match the music or the timing, I would not think that much of it.

Unfortunately for that argument, the top WCS dancers are way ahead of our top dancers in both musicality and technique[*].
[*] Caveat: our very best dancers have training in other styles, and are much closer to the likes of Robert/Deborah. Unfortunately, the fact that they all look outside of MJ to improve their technique doesn't strike me as a +ve argument for MJ, though I'm sure some will try to argue that way.

[bigdjiver]

... Caveat: our very best dancers have training in other styles, and are much closer to the likes of Robert/Deborah. Unfortunately, the fact that they all look outside of MJ to improve their technique doesn't strike me as a +ve argument for MJ, though I'm sure some will try to argue that way.

This is the glory of a circular argument, we can try to have it very which way. If the other styles are all part of the MJ universe, then we are not going outside to improve, but instead seeking the handed down higher wisdom of the old masters. We have built a floor beneath their temples and a road to join them.

I have seen WCS dancers advocating some easier way into the dance. If we regard MJ as the seeking highest common factor in the older, more rigid forms, the we are all part of one big happy family.

Another comparison, there are many different branches of Mathematics, but we recognise Mathematics as the common term. The times tables in primary school may be worlds apart from string theory, but there is a continuum between them.

(How did I drag this debate into a beginner thread? If you want to get lost, I know a short cut ...)

[David Franklin]

If the other styles are all part of the MJ universe, then we are not going outside to improve, but instead seeking the handed down higher wisdom of the old masters. We have built a floor beneath their temples and a road to join them.

Yup. You're absolutely right. Ballet, African dance, Shaolin Kung Fu, Athletics - all part of the MJ universe. We don't just have the best dancers, we have the best martial artists, the fastest runners, the top gymnasts. And the best bit is, they don't even have to have heard of MJ, and we'll take the credit anyhow. Come to think of it, why are we doing ourselves down about SDF? All nine couples are doing MJ - they just don't know it yet!

Being serious - that MJ is a mongrel dance that takes ideas from elsewhere is undoubtably one of its strengths. But at the end of the day, you've got to be able to make those ideas work inside MJ, or what's the point? I mean, if someone tries to take ideas from WCS, and ends up being indistingushable from a WCS dancer, and unable to make those changes work with 99.99% of MJ dancers - do you really think it makes sense to call what they dance MJ?

P.S. Is everyone else bored by this thread? Doesn't feel it's going anywhere...

[Zebra Woman]

I've been reading with interest . Agree with you David

Almost anything is possible in MJ, but if you want to be able to have a meaningful conversation, (something I am increasingly despairing of), then you need to recognize a difference between what is possible and what is actually happening. Otherwise, fine, if it makes you happy, I'll accept MJ encompasses the whole of WCS. Where does that get us? Does it change the fact that Robert/Deborah, Jordan/Tat, Ben/Melissa, Kyle/Sarah, Benji/Heidi, David/Susan (could go on for another 20 couples, but what's the point?) etc. are all light-years ahead of anyone in the UK?

/snip......

MJ doesn't give people the tools (and teaching etc.) to dance like the top WCS dancers.

/snip..............
In that order. Judging MJ against almost any other style will compare dancing before musicality - Asthetically, I don't really care if the splits don't meet the floor; as long as it was timed with, and suited, the music. You could execute a technically perfect cha-cha-cha with double synchronous turns; but if it didn't match the music or the timing, I would not think that much of it.
Unfortunately for that argument, the top WCS dancers are way ahead of our top dancers in both musicality and technique[*].[*] Caveat: our very best dancers have training in other styles, and are much closer to the likes of Robert/Deborah. Unfortunately, the fact that they all look outside of MJ to improve their technique doesn't strike me as a +ve argument for MJ, though I'm sure some will try to argue that way.

I agree with all of that.

I don't know much about WCS as I'm only a beginner. All I can say is it that in WCS the dancers seems to become an instrument in the music, the lead instrument even. The way that the 6 beat/8 beat patterns enable the dancers feet and bodies syncopate and accent each and and every note of the music is way beyond anything I have ever seen in MJ . I have seen WCS clips where every single note seems to have been recognised and celebrated by the dancers. I have never seen a MJ clip that thrills me in quite the same way. I think it's partly 'cos in the US they do strive so hard for excellence in their dancing, but also WCS seems to have a greater potential for bringing the music to life because of the footwork and body isolations that come with it.


I even feel that thrill myself when I attempt WCS with someone who is feeling the music (Bobgadget for one) . I can even 'follow in a dreamlike state' for a few seconds before I have to return to my beginnerish habit of chanting 1,2, 3&4 .

That said I will always love MJ because it's so inclusive and can has so many elements of so many other dances brought into it. What a delight

ZW

[David Bailey]

That said I will always love MJ because it's so inclusive and can has so many elements of so many other dances brought into it. What a delight

Honestly, no-one's going to convince me that MJ is the elite of dances. I think the Croninism of "McDonalds of Dance" is a bit harsh (maybe we've got up to Pizza Express level now ), but it may never be an exhibition-style dance. The difference between freestyle dancing and MJ in an exhibition is sometimes tricky to pin down, I imagine.

OK, the "it can absorb everything" argument is true, but to my mind, that just means that MJ really doesn't have it's own style in the first place.

But, you know, so what? I've had more fun in MJ, met nicer people, and had a better time, than in any other dance scene. That's the only important thing; if you're not enjoying yourself, who cares if it's a "better" dance.

[bigdjiver]

I want to see the best MJ dancers dance at the level we see in those clips. I would hate to imagine that they could not because the rules of MJ forbade it.

MJ for most of us has been going less time than it takes child to get from primary school to University entrance. I think now is the time for our leaders to start deciding what a degree and a Masters degree in MJ would look like, and start forming in their minds the foundation stone for the University of MJ. Ceroc and MJ are fine as they are, and I do not wat to lose any of those achievements, but neither do I want to accept that, if you really want to dance, you have to do something else.

I too am done with this thread, and go away to learn more and hope for inspiration. Thanks to all.

[Gadget]

Almost anything is possible in MJ, but if you want to be able to have a meaningful conversation, (something I am increasingly despairing of), then you need to recognize a difference between what is possible and what is actually happening.

Fine - you stay grounded in the reality of here and now. I will set some goals, dream some dreams, and work on moving myself as close to the impossible as I can. Should I just accept the level of dancer I am just now? Accept that I can't do some things I want to? Acknowledge the fact that I lead poorly and just live with it?
Should we just look at what the majority of folk are doing just now and fence it off saying "this is Modern Jive". Full stop.?

What is possible is that I will become the best MJ dancer on the planet, but the chances of everyone else being abducted by aliens are fairly slim. The reality is that I am a good dancer and I may be able to reach the heady heights of great but it's unlikely I will be amazing!...
What is possible, and what is actually happening? I recognise that you see what may be possible, but are unwilling to even try to make it happen.

Unfortunately for that argument, the top WCS dancers are way ahead of our top dancers in both musicality and technique[*].[*] Caveat: our very best dancers have training in other styles, and are much closer to the likes of Robert/Deborah. Unfortunately, the fact that they all look outside of MJ to improve their technique doesn't strike me as a +ve argument for MJ, though I'm sure some will try to argue that way.

I don't understand the relevance - all this says to me is that MJ can learn from these people how to better find areas in the music to listen to and express. The "Technique" should be about control & mastery of your own body and communication between partners. Can't a MJ dancer do that?

The "style" is young: There are no "Ancient Masters" to learn from. There is no "Mystic Tome" of secrets {excluding the bible of course } Who else are we going to learn from? Why create new components when the existing ones in other styles have been refined and honed over the years.

Yup. You're absolutely right. Ballet, African dance, Shaolin Kung Fu, Athletics - all part of the MJ universe. We don't just have the best dancers, we have the best martial artists, the fastest runners, the top gymnasts. And the best bit is, they don't even have to have heard of MJ, and we'll take the credit anyhow. Come to think of it, why are we doing ourselves down about SDF? All nine couples are doing MJ - they just don't know it yet!

Yes, and no. I know that this was an attempt at sarcasm, but there is an element of truth in it; everyone from these disciplines could bring some of the fundamentals from that sphere into MJ. Just because they have learned them out with modern jive does not mean that they are not/ can not be applied to it.
You're absolutely right: Just because you learn spotting and how to spin/turn in Ballet, then by using this skill you are doing ballet and you don't even know it! wow! Hey, I'm a KungFu master cos I can strike a pose and do that "come on" hand beacon! - see I can do sarcasm too

Being serious - that MJ is a mongrel dance that takes ideas from elsewhere is undoubtedly one of its strengths. But at the end of the day, you've got to be able to make those ideas work inside MJ, or what's the point?

?? and they don't? Is there a concept or idea in any other dance form that is unable to be assimilated?
The common thread is that every form of dance is trying to interpret the music and transform it into movement shared between two partners. Most dance styles are tied to a musical style: And what defines that music? The rhythm and perhaps an instrument or a way of playing it. So the dance reflects that rhythm and movements try to follow that instrument.

Modern Jive gives the tools to pick out the rhythm of the music and follow whatever path the music takes.

I mean, if someone tries to take ideas from WCS, and ends up being indistinguishable from a WCS dancer, and unable to make those changes work with 99.99% of MJ dancers - do you really think it makes sense to call what they dance MJ?

Eh? To take all the ideas from WCS so that it is indistinguishable from WCS means that it is WCS - what people mean about taking an idea is that you take one thing and leave the rest; not take the rest and leave one thing! If you take the concept of doing everything to a 6 or 8 beat count into MJ, you are taking a core concept to what defines WCS; WCS without it is MJ with some synchronised choreography. {am I wrong? <-genuine}

Honestly, no-one's going to convince me that MJ is the elite of dances.

Define "elite". Then see what of those definitions can't be applied to MJ. Just now, it may not seem to be there- but can't you smell the potential?

[David Bailey]

The "style" is young: There are no "Ancient Masters" to learn from. There is no "Mystic Tome" of secrets {excluding the bible of course } Who else are we going to learn from? Why create new components when the existing ones in other styles have been refined and honed over the years.

Mmm, not that young - 25 years at least, and you could argue that other dance forms such as lambada and salsa have been around (in a sense) for comparable amounts of time.

Define "elite". Then see what of those definitions can't be applied to MJ. Just now, it may not seem to be there- but can't you smell the potential?

Errr, no
The problem is that the dance is inherently structured to be easy to learn - the bar is deliberately set low to encourage beginners, primarily for business reasons (i.e. increasing retention numbers), and the origins of something like Ceroc are business-oriented rather than dance-oriented.

Nothing wrong with that, of course, but it means that there are few inherent style, rules, footwork (of course!), posture, discipline and other areas which are taught routinely with most other dances. The aims of Ceroc were to get lots of people in the doors - the aims of (say) Ballroom teaching were to get people to dance well.

Again, let me re-iterate that I love MJ - but I don't believe it's ever going to be an exhibition-style dance, it just has too many inherent "handicaps" for that to happen. "Exhibition MJ" is nearly a contradiction in terms, it's not designed for that purpose.

I realise one could make the same argument about something like salsa, and to an extent I'd agree, but salsa was not "designed", it just kind of happened, and is more based on dancing than on business. And salsa is evolving, the best salsa dancers now are pretty amazing...

[ducasi]

... but I don't believe it's ever going to be an exhibition-style dance, it just has too many inherent "handicaps" for that to happen. "Exhibition MJ" is nearly a contradiction in terms, it's not designed for that purpose.

While I agree with your basic thesis – MJ is at heart about enjoying dancing rather than enjoying watching dancing – as you read in my "First-time Impressions" thread, it's still possible to be entertained, amazed and astounded by a couple just doing MJ.

Now if there had been another couple next to them doing WCS or whatever, who knows which one I'd be more entranced by. Maybe it depends on the quality of the dancer more than anything else.

[Yliander]

Again, let me re-iterate that I love MJ - but I don't believe it's ever going to be an exhibition-style dance, it just has too many inherent "handicaps" for that to happen. "Exhibition MJ" is nearly a contradiction in terms, it's not designed for that purpose.

some of the cabaret/showcase performances literally take my breathe away - a great Australian example of this is Adrian & Louise from Melbourne

I realise one could make the same argument about something like salsa, and to an extent I'd agree, but salsa was not "designed", it just kind of happened, and is more based on dancing than on business. And salsa is evolving, the best salsa dancers now are pretty amazing...

and the best MJ dancers aren't amazing

[David Bailey]

and the best MJ dancers aren't amazing

Of course they are, lots of to them.

But honestly, I think the very best salsa dancers I've seen have the edge - IMO, of course, and no disrespect to the MJ-ers. Could be that I haven't seen enough really good MJ-ers in exhibition mode of course.

Having said that, there are a lot of really crap salsa dancers around, so I'm not sure whether the average MJ-er is better than the average salsa-er!

While I agree with your basic thesis – MJ is at heart about enjoying dancing rather than enjoying watching dancing – as you read in my "First-time Impressions" thread, it's still possible to be entertained, amazed and astounded by a couple just doing MJ.

I refer the honourable gentleman to my previous answer

[David Franklin]

What is possible, and what is actually happening? I recognise that you see what may be possible, but are unwilling to even try to make it happen.

OK, we're talking about putting WCS into MJ; and I freely admit my main interest in WCS is in terms of moving stuff into MJ (I haven't found it easy at all,which is kind of the point). Surely this has to start with learning about WCS. So how many WCS classes have you been to? How many workshops? What have you read? [Bluntly, the comments you've made about WCS show you know very little about it]. I've actually done classes as far away as the US (and I'm going to Atlanta in May for a WCS/Shag event); I've gone to events solely for the WCS teachers; I've even performed a showcase incorporating WCS (OK, so the WCS'ers had to cover their eyes when they watched it, but still!). Many have done a lot more than me. So, exactly who is it who's unwilling to try?

Modern Jive gives the tools to pick out the rhythm of the music and follow whatever path the music takes.

The whole problem with MJ is that it is lacking in tools. You keep trying to argue "no preconceptions, no rules" as a strength. But in dancing, the preconceptions and rules are the tools. Even "dance on the beat" is a rule (and like all rules, can be broken for effect). But do you really think a dancer who doesn't know that rule is better than one who does?

Eh? To take all the ideas from WCS so that it is indistinguishable from WCS means that it is WCS - what people mean about taking an idea is that you take one thing and leave the rest; not take the rest and leave one thing!

That's exactly my point. You can do that for some of the things in WCS without too much trouble - e.g. slotting. But the different rhythm/count, the connection and frame seem a lot more fundamental. The fact that the basic count is to every beat in WCS is a very difficult thing to bridge into MJ (or at least I'm finding it so).

If you take the concept of doing everything to a 6 or 8 beat count into MJ, you are taking a core concept to what defines WCS; WCS without it is MJ with some synchronised choreography. {am I wrong? <-genuine}

Yes, you're wrong. The basic rhythm and the use of anchor steps rather than rock steps are both far more fundamental, and I'd say if you change those two things in MJ to match WCS, what you have would look more like WCS than MJ.

Let me try to explain why I'm still fighting this corner. In my experience, MJ has a strong tendancy to take the easy fix - to grab a couple of moves and a bit of styling from another dance and say "See! You can do WCS/Tango/Salsa in MJ as well. MJ lets you do all styles!". When in fact all you have is a token gesture, usually 'dumbed down' so the whole feel of the dance that was stolen from is lost anyhow. I'm trying to persuade people it might take a little more than that if we want to get "the good stuff" from WCS.

Let's try something. When someone posts a WCS clip, it can be guaranteed someone will pipe up "Is there anything there you couldn't do in MJ". OK, let me stipulate "yes, you could do all that in MJ". I've resisted doing that before, because my concern is the relevant parties will breath a collective sigh of relief: "Hurrah! MJ is still the greatest style ever. We rock!", rather than taking anything constructive from the clip in terms of what they can learn, what we could be changing in the way MJ is taught etc.

Prove me wrong. Please.

[Gadget]

Mmm, not that young - 25 years at least, and you could argue that other dance forms such as lambada and salsa have been around (in a sense) for comparable amounts of time.

Really? Salsa is that young? Perhaps the other dance forms seem older because they have stagnated?

The problem is that the dance is inherently structured to be easy to learn - the bar is deliberately set low to encourage beginners,

That's a problem? You are taught to hold a pencil before you can write. you are taught how to form letters before constructing words. You are taught how to form words into sentences. Just because MJ teaches at the lowest level to begin with, does not automatically imply that the dance is a "lower level" of dance:
With the same core of basic 26 letters, you can write limericks and you can write poetry. You can describe beauty and wonders, convey meaning and emotion, tell stories and imagine things beyond reality. You don't have to be stuck writing "The cat sat on the mat."

... primarily for business reasons (i.e. increasing retention numbers), and the origins of something like Ceroc are business-oriented rather than dance-oriented.

Yes, the Ceroc model was brilliantly set up to get people from nothing to a competent level of dancing... and now that dancers are regularly reaching that level, they are looking to cater to these people as well. (Workshops, teaching other styles, experimenting and developing with "advanced" dancing...)

...but it means that there are few inherent style, rules, footwork (of course!), posture, discipline and other areas which are taught routinely with most other dances.

And they are taught in Ceroc - just in a more focused environment where closer tuition and more one-on-one teaching can be given to help people. Workshops. Classes are to give people practice and develop their own styles; workshops are there to get outside advice on how to improve your own dancing.

The aims of Ceroc were to get lots of people in the doors - the aims of (say) Ballroom teaching were to get people to dance well.

?? If I am reading you right, I think I disagree here: The aims of Ceroc are to get people to dance. The aims of ballroom are to get people to dance ballroom.
Marketing and a product people want are what gets people in the door - no matter what the product.

Again, let me re-iterate that I love MJ - but I don't believe it's ever going to be an exhibition-style dance, it just has too many inherent "handicaps" for that to happen. "Exhibition MJ" is nearly a contradiction in terms, it's not designed for that purpose.

can you explain what you mean by "exhibition-style dance"? I also am unsure of what you mean by inherent "handicaps" bad habits that people have to improve on?

I realise one could make the same argument about something like salsa, and to an extent I'd agree, but salsa was not "designed", it just kind of happened, and is more based on dancing than on business.

Salsa just kinda happened?
Ceroc is a business based on dancing - not a dance based on business. (At least that's impression I get from the way Franck runs it and is probably why we have such a good atmosphere and so many good dancers.)

And salsa is evolving, the best salsa dancers now are pretty amazing...

probably. At dancing to a Salsa track. Pity it's such a narrow music taste. Can you give any examples of how is Salsa evolving?
The best MJ dancers are pretty amazing too - a pity that we don't teach people how to do that {<-sarcasm}

[David Franklin]

With the same core of basic 26 letters, you can write limericks and you can write poetry. You can describe beauty and wonders, convey meaning and emotion, tell stories and imagine things beyond reality. You don't have to be stuck writing "The cat sat on the mat."

I was really tempted to follow up on this analogy, to ask "and would it be better if we didn't have rules for writing? If we didn't have grammatical guidelines, and if punctuation was optional? If we didn't restrict ourselves to the correct spelling of words?"

Then I noticed who I was replying to... (Though to be fair, Gadget, all that's improved dramatically - what's changed? Using a spellchecker?)

[David Bailey]

Really? Salsa is that young? Perhaps the other dance forms seem older because they have stagnated?

Boy, I am so not going to rise to that one... Must resist...
Oh OK, then. I'm no expert, but I believe that what we now call salsa is something that evolved / was marketed in the mid-'70's in the States, although up until recently the very word "salsa" was a bit of a marketing thing. Salsa evolved from a variety of dances, including mambo, pachanga, cumbia, you name it - and of course it's similar to Cha-cha and Rumba in many ways.

That's a problem? You are taught to hold a pencil before you can write. you are taught how to form letters before constructing words. You are taught how to form words into sentences. Just because MJ teaches at the lowest level to begin with, does not automatically imply that the dance is a "lower level" of dance

Using the writing analogy, MJ teaches you how to write text messages - fun, useful, quick to learn. But it won't teach you how to write proper-like

?? If I am reading you right, I think I disagree here: The aims of Ceroc are to get people to dance. The aims of ballroom are to get people to dance ballroom.

Well, I'd say the aims of the Ceroc organisation are to run a successful business. Call me crazy, I don't care...
Sure, the aims of Ceroc teachers and taxi dancers (especially the good ones!) are of course to help get people dancing, and to improve their dancing. But the teachers and the taxi dancers don't define the rules or organisational structure.

Salsa just kinda happened?

Again, from what I know of the history, "Salsa" was a catchall term for "the way people are dancing in the streets in Latin America", and got started there. So, yes.

Can you give any examples of how is Salsa evolving?

Sure - the whole "cross-body lead" style of dancing has been created, developed, adopted and taught over the past 3-5 years. Similarly, "Dancing on 2" style has evolved as a distinct subcategory. Again, I'm no expert, and I don't even particularly like those styles, but they're there.

The best MJ dancers are pretty amazing too - a pity that we don't teach people how to do that {<-sarcasm}

Well, I'm not the only person to think the best salsa dancers are pretty good
(forum searching is a wonderful tool )

[Sheepman]

But, you know, so what? I've had more fun in MJ, met nicer people, and had a better time, than in any other dance scene. That's the only important thing; if you're not enjoying yourself, who cares if it's a "better" dance.

This I would agree with, despite those times when I've felt intimidated, out of my depth, clumsy, slow to learn, etc.
Then I had a thought could it be that MJ is easier to enjoy for all parties across the spectrum because it is easier to accommodate and get around when things are going wrong?
I was talking earlier to a friend who was saying that she finds it hard to enjoy wcs lessons, (as a fabulous dancer, the footwork comes easily to her ) so she just gets pulled around, or not lead at all, by men who are trying to cope with the move and the leading.
So how many other dance styles are there where it is as easy to gloss over the mistakes? In most styles you will have to almost stop, to pick up the rhythm to get back into your initial step. If someone is doing the wrong footwork then the whole dance feels wrong. So the experts will be less inclined to dance with beginners, leading to more of that elitism. (And no, I'm not saying it doesn't exist in MJ.)

Greg

[Almost an Angel]

It is going to be interesting to see who teaches it, and what they teach. I don't watch any of the BBC3 programs - do they show the dancers actually learning the dance?

Yes they do - but only very brief training updates where you see them practising, as for who is teaching them it seems to be Kevan & Vanessa from what I can see.

Also Kevan is attempting (I think thats the word) to teach Joe how to 'Hustle' needless to say it's very amusing to watch (and cringeworthy).

[David Bailey]

In most styles you will have to almost stop, to pick up the rhythm to get back into your initial step. If someone is doing the wrong footwork then the whole dance feels wrong. So the experts will be less inclined to dance with beginners, leading to more of that elitism. (And no, I'm not saying it doesn't exist in MJ.)

Excellent point, I agree - you can swap and stop so easily in MJ, stretch a move out, speed it up or whatever, whereas in other dances (e.g cha-cha), you have to kind of wait till the next cha comes around to get back on the beat - at least I do, but then I'm less-than-competent at cha-cha, I'm still counting steps under my breath

[Gadget]

{sorry; another long reply... (I missed DavidF's post last time)}

OK, we're talking about putting WCS into MJ ~ Surely this has to start with learning about WCS. ~ [Bluntly, the comments you've made about WCS show you know very little about it].So, exactly who is it who's unwilling to try?

I haven't learned enough about MJ yet to consider moving into anything else; I still find new things to learn and new things to do and new ways to express the music within the dance I do just now - why should I want to look outside it? Do I have to visit Africa to see an elephant?

My comments (on WCS) are based on what people have written about the dance style - If there is that much freedom of expression and room for interpretation, then why bother with the structure? If the structure is important, then it must confine the expression. OK, so it's a balance between the two and seeing how far you can express within the structure of the dance - but what happens when you go out with this structure?
You may know more, have seen more and experienced WCS than I will ever in my life, but your comments from all this experience seem to be saying that MJ will never be as good - I'm just trying to work out how you came to this conclusion and what exactly in WCS makes it so.
You have the wealth of knowledge - do I need to learn the same things as you in order to pick your brains? I would rather you tell me I'm wrong and explain why than berate me for my ignorance.
{sorry - just finished reading the rest of your post and you have - but I can't be botherd to edit all that again }

As to the unwilling to try, it was a bit harsh; what exactly are you trying to incorporate, and what are you doing to merge it? Could it be that what actually makes what you are trying to migrate worthy of migrating is the structure it's contained within; remove the WCS structure and the concept is nothing but a simple thing that MJ already has/does. ? Dunno; just guessing.

The whole problem with MJ is that it is lacking in tools. You keep trying to argue "no preconceptions, no rules" as a strength. But in dancing, the preconceptions and rules are the tools. Even "dance on the beat" is a rule (and like all rules, can be broken for effect). But do you really think a dancer who doesn't know that rule is better than one who does?

There are rules; no pain or discomfort, dance to the music, lead/follow. The only one that is not "natural" and needs specific tutorage is the lead/follow: People tend to avoid pain and inflicting it. Dancing is moving to music or a rhythmic pattern; without that, you are not dancing.

Do I think that one dancer who knows to dance on every beat is worse than one who does not know it; they just do it? Yes. The latter is more likley to actually dance to the music rather than just following a beat.

Preconceptions and rules are the guidelines within which the tools are used - I dissagree that they are the tools. MJ gives you some basic tools and says "go build." Other styles give specific tools and say "go build a bordello" or "go build a mansion" or "go build a fun fair"... the MJ dancer can pick up the tools from any of these things and have a helter-skelter going through the living room to end in the madam's boudoir!

Let me try to explain why I'm still fighting this corner. In my experience, MJ has a strong tendancy to take the easy fix ~ When in fact all you have is a token gesture, ~ I'm trying to persuade people it might take a little more than that if we want to get "the good stuff" from WCS.

Why would you want more than a token gesture? Yes, I agree that saying "look - MJ can do all these dance styles" is wrong, but "look - MJ can dance to all these styles of music" is right. There is a lot of "acting" in musical interpriation - as such, you only want get accross the look and feel of the stolen stuff; it does not (and IMHO should not) be the genuine artical.
BTW what is the "good stuff"? styling? movement? musical interpritation?

"yes, you could do all that in MJ".~ rather than taking anything constructive from the clip in terms of what they can learn, what we could be changing in the way MJ is taught etc.

What you could take costructivly from the clip would be styling, where and how music was emphisised in the dance, how the 'connction' worked between the dancers, ... and stuff from what you see.
To exrtrapolate from this that to get this good from doing the basics in such a way into "we must change our way of learnig to match theirs so that we can be like them" is more than one step too far.

I believe that what we now call salsa is something that evolved / was marketed in the mid-'70's in the States, ...

I didn't know that.
Re: salsa developing -So that salsa I learned a few years ago is 'out of date' ? {assuming I could remember any of it }

Using the writing analogy, MJ teaches you how to write text messages - fun, useful, quick to learn. But it won't teach you how to write proper-like

You might be righ for beginner's classes - but again I'll say it: workshops.

Well, I'm not the only person to think the best salsa dancers are pretty good
(forum searching is a wonderful tool )

2003? I think it's wrong to assume that the opinion has not changed in a couple of years.

[David Bailey]

Re: salsa developing -So that salsa I learned a few years ago is 'out of date' ? {assuming I could remember any of it }

Yes - depressing, isn't it? I'm in exactly the same boat, for what it's worth, all this new-fangled moves, can't handle it, brain hurts...

2003? I think it's wrong to assume that the opinion has not changed in a couple of years.

Anything's possible (I change my mind every week ). You could always ask...
However, I've seen similar other comments recently, I think Adam (cerocmetro) said something similar a while back. We really should have an FAQ!