Is it Time We had formal Structure in MJ

[Dancing Teeth]

We've heard it all.

"MJ is not a real dance because it has no structure"
"I prefare Tango or salsa because they have structure"

Structure this, structure that.

Was teaching salsa last night and this lady said she stopped doing MJ because of the lack of structure..

Maybe we could get a few MJ elders to brainstorm over a few months.

What do people think... ??

I for one, I've started saying to people in my MJ classes exactly what to do with their feet, seems to work so far.. oh,, and arms too.

[robd]

Depends what is meant by structure I guess. I suspect it's just a phrase for set footwork patterns and I am not sure why MJ should be derided for it (it is after all the major selling point of MJ for many beginners that they can learn to 'dance' without having to know 'complicated footwork'). As for people leaving MJ I suspect it's less to do with structure (most classes I have attended had a lot more structure to the lessons than the (few) classes I have attended for other dance styles) and more to do with reaching a plateau of competence and not having the will to go further.

Robert

[Swinging bee]

We've heard it all.

"MJ is not a real dance because it has no structure"
"I prefare Tango or salsa because they have structure"

Structure this, structure that.

Was teaching salsa last night and this lady said she stopped doing MJ because of the lack of structure..

Maybe we could get a few MJ elders to brainstorm over a few months.

What do people think... ??

I for one, I've started saying to people in my MJ classes exactly what to do with their feet, seems to work so far.. oh,, and arms too.

May I be so bold as to suggest taking a look at Michel Lau's book on " Le Roc " ( a founder of modern jive) there, one will find all the footwork one can handle!

[Lynn]

I was just thinking this morning about the 'rules' for different dance styles - what is appropriate or not appropriate (eg hip wiggles are part of salsa but not appropriate for tango). This was following on from a conversation with another dancer on Mon night, about how some dancers who do other styles can't seem to adapt to MJ because of the lack of structured footwork. And my personal conclusion is that I like the fact that there isn't the same structure and 'rules' that apply to MJ. I can wiggle my hips, play with height and footwork - whatever suits the music, mood and partner.

But I know that some people like to be told exactly what to do and want boundaries to be set for them. Others prefer guidelines rather than rules and the flexibility for interpretation and self expression. I still think there is room for both in MJ - but perhaps a shift towards giving more structure to people, but making it clear that its not compulsory for all? I think this is already happening.

[Little Em]

Depends what is meant by structure I guess. I suspect it's just a phrase for set footwork patterns and I am not sure why MJ should be derided for it (it is after all the major selling point of MJ for many beginners that they can learn to 'dance' without having to know 'complicated footwork'). As for people leaving MJ I suspect it's less to do with structure (most classes I have attended had a lot more structure to the lessons than the (few) classes I have attended for other dance styles) and more to do with reaching a plateau of competence and not having the will to go further.

Robert

yep.... pretty much agree with this..

[David Bailey]

Sounds like a bit of confusion as to what is meant by "structure":

1. Overall dance organisation?
2. Structure of dance progression?
3. Formal definitions for technique of dancing?

So, one-by-one:

1. I think is kind of covered by Ceroc, although obviously they're not too helpful to other MJ venues, but at least there is one body covering many / most MJ venues.
2. This is what we're debating on the "Dance levels" thread at the moment...
3. I agree MJ doesn't have this, and this is IMO a real problem.

[ChrisA]

...more structure... I think this is already happening.

I agree, and a good thing too.

There is a view expressed by a number of people here, namely that a whole host of things such as footwork, structure, assessments, etc, will inevitably lead to making MJ more difficult for beginners and less accessible to the primarily social dancer.

In my view, this is just a nonsense, and is a smokescreen for the rather British tendency to be jealous and suspicious of anything that's good (and in particular better then the person being jealous and suspicious).

The funny thing is, beginners have none of this jealousy and suspicion. They love seeing the good dancers, and want to be like them, even if they feel as if they'll never get there.

Anything that cultivates a true development path for Modern Jivers at any level, from beginner to god/goddess, so that if they choose, they can improve in a structured way, will be a good thing - for the dancers and the dance.

My view is that providing such a path will make it easier for people to get beyond the "plateau of competence" that RobD mentions, and progress further - to the next plateau and beyond if they wish. And the consequence of this will be greater retention, not less.

[Lynn]

Sounds like a bit of confusion as to what is meant by "structure":

1. Overall dance organisation?
2. Structure of dance progression?
3. Formal definitions for technique of dancing?

So, one-by-one:

1. I think is kind of covered by Ceroc, although obviously they're not too helpful to other MJ venues, but at least there is one body covering many / most MJ venues.
2. This is what we're debating on the "Dance levels" thread at the moment...
3. I agree MJ doesn't have this, and this is IMO a real problem.

I took the initial question to mean point 3.

[Donna]

We've heard it all.

"MJ is not a real dance because it has no structure"
"I prefare Tango or salsa because they have structure"

Structure this, structure that.

Was teaching salsa last night and this lady said she stopped doing MJ because of the lack of structure..

Maybe we could get a few MJ elders to brainstorm over a few months.

What do people think... ??

I for one, I've started saying to people in my MJ classes exactly what to do with their feet, seems to work so far.. oh,, and arms too.

I totally agree with you here. I've been discussing this with my partner recently and did once think about giving MJ up because of it's lack of structure. I'd like something that is more challenging such as Ballroom/Latin as it has a set structure and there is much more to learn, and even then you're focusing on technique. With MJ, there is only so much you can learn until there is nothing else to do with it after.

I don't know where modern Jive is going...but my guess is it will just end up being a mixture of WCS (as it's now becoming very popular and makes MJ look good) and latin.

[Mary]

I believe the principle selling point of Ceroc is its accessibility to all - which it is very good at and has a 'structure' tailored to do just that. At the moment there does not seem to be much in the way of options to progress one's MJ further than that, apart from hitting classes with more complex moves - some of which are just plain ugly and uncomfortable!!

Perhaps there could be a continuation and development of a MJ 'structure' in teaching more specific lead and follow techniques, syncopated footwork, more emphasis on compression and leverage to enable more freedom of improvisation and expression to match the music like in Lindy and WCS, simple patterns to start off the journey into improv. etc. Although we have touched on this before on the Forum in discussions about what is an advanced class?

So maybe the idea of 'progression' classes (instead of 'advanced' classes) would perhaps start to give MJ some kind of structure - or would that be taking MJ down a Lindy or WCS route? And would that be such a bad thing?

My first MJ classes taught basic footwork, so I learnt to be on the correct foot to step off again for the lead into the next move. Wasn't difficult (being a beginner), wasn't laboured, but I found it really useful and helped my progression in the first few weeks no end.

Good thread Mr. Teeth. Hopefully, it will give you some useful feedback.

M

[Mary]

My view is that providing such a path will make it easier for people to get beyond the "plateau of competence" that RobD mentions, and progress further - to the next plateau and beyond if they wish. And the consequence of this will be greater retention, not less.

Totally agree Chris (dammit)! And expressed far better than I could.

M

[Donna]

So maybe the idea of 'progression' classes (instead of 'advanced' classes) would perhaps start to give MJ some kind of structure - or would that be taking MJ down a Lindy or WCS route? And would that be such a bad thing?

I reckon the ideal person to teach in progression classes is one who has knowledge of WCS, Swing, Rock&Roll, Hussle and Ballroom Jive. At least it will liven it up with some proper jive steps, and make it look more like Jive.

We met Andrew and Hanna from SCD, and he told us that Mike Ellard is after him to teach. It's people like that that could really make a big difference to MJ. It's just a case of starting from scratch and possibly changing all the moves.

[tsh]

If the people who are leaving are the ones who have passed the beginner stage, then formal structure in terms of the dance style might not be what they need - as people get better, they seem to bend the rules more and more (unless we're talking ballroom). What I feel MJ lacks is the motivation to teach beyond the improver level (in general - obviously there are a few teachers who care), and people leave to learn things that they simply arn't taught by MJ, or because they're fed up of dancing all the time with improver level partners.

I did a tango taster class at the weekend, and it was all about frame and weight transfer, it seems that without these concepts it would be impossible to progress very far. The difference with modern jive seems to be that it's very easy to do in a way which makes progressing past the basics much harder.

There are no core moves which require any technique to work - maybe this is an area which might be worth pursuing, try and find a move which it's possible to spend 5 hours working on in detail with someone who belives they can already dance the move - not adding variations or styling but just making the move easier to lead or follow, in a way that permits variations and styling to be added later.

Sean

[Donna]

[QUOTE]

If the people who are leaving are the ones who have passed the beginner stage, then formal structure in terms of the dance style might not be what they need

Mmmm yeah I see what you mean. MJ started out for those who wanted to be able to dance something easy. Suppose something like that would have to exist otherwise not many people would be dancing would they? and MJ just happens to be it. I think for all those MJ'ers looking for something more challenging would be to actually leave MJ and do something else that actually has more of a structure to it like ballroom jive or WCS.

Look at most couples who compete. You don't see much jivey moves going on there. It's starting to look more latin!

[El Salsero Gringo]

IIt's just a case of starting from scratch and possibly changing all the moves.

Yup.

The funny thing is, beginners have none of this jealousy and suspicion. They love seeing the good dancers, and want to be like them, even if they feel as if they'll never get there.

It's not just the beginners who love seeing good dancers. But all the "stop-to-watch" dancers do it differently. So which, exactly, of all these different styles, is the structured future of MJ?

And who is it exactly that's stopping anyone from defining this structure? Ceroc is a commercial organisation and seems to have a fairly clear idea of how the dance is structured. You can't exert "moral" pressure (should, ought, would be better for MJ if) on a profit-making organisation. Better for the franchisees is the driver there. But if anyone wants to write a rule-book of how to do it better - there's nothing at all stopping them.

[David Bailey]

There are no core moves which require any technique to work - maybe this is an area which might be worth pursuing, try and find a move which it's possible to spend 5 hours working on in detail with someone who belives they can already dance the move - not adding variations or styling but just making the move easier to lead or follow, in a way that permits variations and styling to be added later.

I was discussing this with a friend a couple of days ago, and we wondered what a Tango technique class would look like in MJ.

It would probably involve several classes for each single move - in fact, you could spend a 10-week session on the First Move, focussing on posture, transference, lead-and-follow, hand-hold, balance, connection, spinning and turning technique, and so on.

It'd be great - I'd be a total sucker for that kind of course. But I suspect it'd bankrupt Ceroc if they implemented it as a standard teaching mechanism, because 95% of beginners wouldn't have the patience, commitment or enthusiasm for it.

[Donna]

So which, exactly, of all these different styles, is the structured future of MJ?

Ahem...nobody.

And who is it exactly that's stopping anyone from defining this structure?

James Cronin started it! It's Irreversible now!

[Mary]

There are no core moves which require any technique to work - maybe this is an area which might be worth pursuing, try and find a move which it's possible to spend 5 hours working on in detail with someone who belives they can already dance the move - not adding variations or styling but just making the move easier to lead or follow, in a way that permits variations and styling to be added later.

Sean

And I think that is exactly what Ceroc is trying to avoid - in that it would empty a class in no time. Although a nice idea, it would drive away 99% of your regular Ceroc punters - as any franchisee would tell you, not good for business.

Maybe it should be done in small steps (couldn't resist the pun )

M

[El Salsero Gringo]

Ahem...nobody.



James Cronin started it! It's Irreversible now!

I've a short video clip of James Cronin teaching and dancing, and his style is almost unrecognisable compared to today's heros. Very bouncy, huge steps in and out - certainly wouldn't go down well at Jango...

[Magic Hans]

I agree, and a good thing too.

There is a view expressed by a number of people here, namely that a whole host of things such as footwork, structure, assessments, etc, will inevitably lead to making MJ more difficult for beginners and less accessible to the primarily social dancer.

....

Quite agree. As Mary's said, I see MJs key (or unique) selling point as its accessibility. I would always encourage dance newcomers to start off MJing before moving on to (usually salsa).

MJ has the most loose structure in terms of dance moves, this gives me the opportunity to express (myself) to the music rather than having to concentrate on where my left foot has to go next.

Sadly, we're not a wonderfully, physically expressive race here in the UK (IMO) especially us blokes, and so I can totally sympathise with any desire for more structure (or strait jacketting, as I might subjectively and provocatively say!).

Send everyone on a music appreciate workshop!!!

!an