Still getting my thoughts together on this topic but I thought I’d get the ball rolling anyway.
Beginners. Are we teaching them correctly? My recent observation has been that the majority of dancers coming through the ranks do not have a real understanding of tension/compression or lead & follow, or how to transfer weight. Before I get an onslaught from vexed (and impugned) Ceroc teachers let me put this in context.
- Ceroc is profit making organisation that is there to bring numbers into dance, not to achieve dancing perfection.
- Real dancers take years to learn how to dance, we expect the person in the street to be competent after 6 or so lessons.
- There is a real limit to what you can teach to 60+ people from a stage, teaching as one mass.
- The aim of Ceroc is fun, social dancing.
- Ceroc HAS attempted to improve the teaching of beginners, changes (IMHO) which were for the most part a positive step forward.
Having said that, there is obviously some way to go. Ask why many of the really good dancers tend to avoid dancing with the common masses … simple … because they are sick of getting their arms and legs pulled off! Same goes for some guys … my last few times dancing with beginners (and some intermediates) have not always been pleasant experiences. I was wondering … is there a way, using a new synthesis of cognitive and dance theory, to improve the dance and movement teaching within Modern Jive. I get a feeling, and I need to think this through, that there is a gap in the market to teach MJ dancers how to dance rather than do moves.
Am I being too harsh? Am I totally off track or is there an element of reason within my ramblings? I would particularly like to hear from trained MJ teachers as to their views.
One of the most useful courses I ever did was a lead and follow course at the BFG last year, taught by Franck.
Such a simple concept, yet fundamental to dance and good practice can lead to a very enjoyable dance with no arm injuries for the ladies due to poor or over-assertive leading.
I agree. The only teaching I can remember about lead/follow came from other dancers and from a workshop run by John Sweeney. It should be emphasised and practised in every single beginner's class.
Sadly I agree.Originally Posted by Gus
Lead and follow is just so critical, and I am yet to have come across (1st hand) anyone who does it effectively. It's great to hear that Franck is doing it and would need to know a little more about it's content in order to convert my scepticism.
I was out dancing yesterday (after a bit of a break), and it still seems that many of the ladies are pulling back on their step back, even after a good few months.
One of them mentioned that the teacher always emphasizes body tension. I wonder if tension between dancers is being mistaken for tension in the body (and arm, in particular).
The best workshop that I attended early on started from real basics ..... walking. Using music as a framework, the trainer was encouraging us to listen, walk in time, and play with that ..... listening out for any syncopations.
This then moved onto simple walking, with partner and hand-to-hand hold, before moving onto argentine tango hold. [plenty of swapping partners, and swap role]
Er, harsh is not the first word that comes to mind.
I think it's because it's not so much fun dancing with people who half the time are dancing off the beat. Or else dancing on the beat, but to a totally different song than the one that's being played by the DJ.
just went way down in my opinon - sarcasm or not how can beginners (or intermediates) become better without dancing with better dancers. I try to dance with some beginners each night and am happy to accept their limitations but still have plenty of time to dance with others of a similar standard to myself or better (perhaps they shouldn't dance with me ........)
I think beginners are taught well. I think they are taught better than anyone else. About the only thing I would suggest is to mention the First Rule Of Partner Dancing - "Don't hurt your partner".
The place to introduce technique is in the Intermediate class. However the first stage would be for the teachers to work out some common ideas they could teach. The worst thing to happen would be a lot of contradictory ideas being taught.
Modern Jive is a compromise. You have to live with the implications of the compromise. I understand that you would get better dancers by teaching technique right at the beginning. You just wouldn't get as many of them.
Interestingly, only one man has ever asked me for advice on leading.The only teaching I can remember about lead/follow came from other dancers
David
LOOK ... we are NOT going through the debate about how obligations (or not) to bring on beginners through dancing with them. Some of the people I have been referring to have done more to bring on dancers in the MJ scene than most of the instructors I know (including myself). The comments are made due to the fcat that these dnacers are suffering real pain and injury through dancing with people who need to be instructed from the stage! I've lost count of the number of times I've tried to help an intermediate lose rigidity/grip of death ... only to be harshly told ... "the instructor didnt do it like that!"
If better dancers are 'expected' to spend time brining on the less good dnacers, then its not too much to ask that the less good dancers have at least been shown the rudiments of how to dance in the first place by the club's instructor. Fair comment?
Why don't the ceroc venues have posters up or leaflets about good dance style and technique. These could be handouts.
Most dancers want to be better so why not provide a simple short term solution and once a month or so, add a fundamentals element to the class which may include things like frame, lead and follow and bouncing!
I accept Clevedonboy's rebuke for being a bit 'lippy' but I just wanted to point out that no matter how good the teaching, you aren't going to make *everyone* in the room suddenly become a joy to dance with. The better you get, the less fun it is dancing with "the masses". (I know that's a different topic, and one that's been had many times before so I'm happy not to go there.) Now you're quite right to say that dancing with anyone shouldn't be dangerous but is the feeling that people's arms are being wrenched universal? It isn't something I've really noticed as a recurring theme.
Not to claim that Ceroc or other MJ lessons are perfect and have no room for improvement, but I'm not convinced that you can teach people to dance - distinct from teaching them some moves and a few technique points - any more than you can teach someone to be a novelist, or composer. Ultimately dancing is a creative activity and obviously not everyone is cut out to be a Degas, Chopin or Scott Fitzgerald - or even reach a level that would distinguish them from the "common masses" of which you speak.
I agree that maybe there is more that could be taught on occasion. However, thinking back to when I first began, the first few weeks are so mind-numbing, you rarely make it through to the end of the night before needing to leave and sit in a dark room listening to dolphin music!
As DavidB mentioned, too much too soon can be off putting. Another real problem is that many people just don't listen at all! They pay their money for workshops and still they don't listen. You bend over backwards to offer the right tuition and technical insight, and still they don't listen.
Once dancers reach a certain level they then consider that they don't need to attend workshops any more. They have nothing left to learn. There are a 101 reasons why, big fish-small pond syndrome and all that.
From a teacher, and a new one at that, this may seem harsh and negative and why am I doing it? Well, Things may seem bad to some, but they would be far worse if not. We do manage to get through to some people, and those few usually end up being the better dancers of the future.
I am sure I will get stacks of flack for this post, but over the last few weeks this point has been driven home to me; aching arms, shoulders and elbows from some women who could have been pronounced dead due to the amount of rigormortis in their bodies!
One bid advantage of the beginner format
It gets people dancing
To start with it does not matter about style
Big advantage with MJ you can start with two left feet and no sense of rhythm
You dance and you enjoy yourself
You get addicted
You realize there is more to dancing and life than bopping
Style comes later sometimes much later
Gus,
There's also an achingly large assumption in your original post - that the common masses actually desire to be improved so that the "really good dancers" as you put it, will want to dance with them. It's possible, just possible, that those people for whom this is important are the ones who already have the motivation to rouse themselves and learn how to dance better and become what they want to be - while the others, content with their lack of skill, might very well resent any interference with the lesson content they already receive. Nobody ever signed up for Ceroc as the route to becoming a highly-skilled dancer - it's simply not a selling point of this form of dance.
valid point
The self-proclaimed expert dancers, huh! Notice how the empty vessels make the most noise. Who is it that tells these people that they are good dancers anyway?
Could this be an opportunity for the taxi dancers - to help beginners with dance etiquette. That way beginners get feedback as they are dancing. much easier than being instructed in it.
Top lad ... excellent points (will rep you again when I can). I think the Ceroc(tm) should be paying you for this idea.
Don't think we are actualy talking about style. We are talking about dance basics, how to do simple things right and cease to be a pain (in the literal sense).
What on earth justifies this rampant hostility towards people who consider their dancing is quite good enough for their purposes, thank you, and turn down the (oh-so-generous) offer of paying £25 or whatever to go to more workshops and lessons? For goodness sakes, some people just don't want to worry about doing it better - it's not on their agenda. And they don't deserve to be slagged off here.Rather than just perpetuating this (I suspect) myth, how about stumping up some evidence? If you want evidence to the contrary then just look at how many people don't take up the workshops, ask the teacher after the class for extra help, and so on. Point?
Last edited by El Salsero Gringo; 4th-May-2005 at 08:31 PM.
I totally agree with you that some people are quite happy to dance as they are and are totally happy without workshops. They should then also be happy if turned down because those who do value their health and want to progress avoid them or politely refuse a dance offer. You cannot have it both ways and we always try to encourage people to dance with anyone and everyone.
Great Ghu, from question to abuse in 90 minutes, it's a fast-moving system we've got here.
Moi non plus, but then leaders probably wouldn't so much.
Oh yes, we've definitely had this debate, I initiated the last round of it...
Getting back to the original question, I think Ceroc (and other MJ) will never try to add too much technique to beginner classes, it'd be commercially poor as I suspect it'd increase retention rate. Also, I'm not sure that tension and weight-shifting is something that beginners will want to learn.
However, I do believe there's a major problem when you get people past the beginner level. I'm very glad that (I believe) Ceroc are now saying do 12 weeks as a beginner before moving up. But that's still not a long time, and there doesn't seem to be an official "improver" level (say, 12 weeks - 6 months). I'd certainly like to see more differentiation in experience levels, that'd allow time and space to develop people at their own pace, and concentrate on technique as much as moves in some areas.
One crazy idea - how about a test to go "up a level"? I think anyone who's ready to go from beginner level is probably hooked, so I don't think it'd put people off, and it could give the precise opportunity to ensure that "beginners", "improvers", "intermediates" and "advanced" can at least be taught the basics of the craft, rather than hoping they'll pick it up on the way.
Isn't this how they do it in the southern hemisphere?
To me the issue here is the people who want to "have a go" at intermediate but might be denied whilst waiting to be assessed.
Why not introduce an "optional - for feedback" scheme that allows people to measure their own progress, strengths and weaknesses rather than have it as a pre-requisite for the next step in ceroc.
I would certainly be interested in something like that.
It was Gus who implied that there was a problem with this in his original post, and he didn't supply any evidence for that point of view.
Here's an even more radical idea: if you want to improve the standard of dancing (and as teachers I know that it's high on *your* agenda, even if you've not shown to be high on the agendas of many customers) how about working on motivating people to improve? How can you switch people's mindsets from "my dancing's good enough" to "I'd like it to be better, and I'm now prepared to put in the time, money and effort involved to make it so"? That's going to require more than just a change in teaching syllabus.
David's point about having tests to move up levels is perhaps a method of achieving this, but I'm sure he'll forgive me for saying I think it's a pretty cack-handed and counterproductive one.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
![$vboptions[bbtitle]](images/master_col.bmp)
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks