Is it Time We had formal Structure in MJ

[Yogi_Bear]

I think we should have a campaign to Eject Sourpuss Grumpyguts. We could even give it a catchy three letter acronym.

No, to borrow another thread, deploy the ESGs to dance with the know it all beginners....

[Andybroom]

Absolutely. Experience the other styles and the structured learning (it can mean being a beginner for quite a while),

The term "Beginner" is a relative thing. MJ "promotes" people to intermediate after they know a handful of moves whereas most other dance forms expect people to progress quite a lot further before "promoting" them.

But actually I would say when I first started dancing (ballroom, some 15 years ago) it took me about the same length of time to be able to actually dance a few moves around the floor as it does most MJ beginner leads and that my rate of acquisition of moves (if that's the right term!) as a beginner was about the same in ballroom as it is for a "from scratch" beginner in MJ. I did learn a lot more technique along the way though.

At the end of the day, that's what matters - it's irrelevent what the class you attend is called.

I think one of the issues for MJ is that -whatever it may feel like- progression as an MJ dancer isn't really any faster than in any other dance form, but (for most MJ only dancers) technique is almost totally sacrificed.

Andy

[Mary]

A miserable sod that couldn't talk to people would be no good at all, no matter how good their dancing was.

Looks like I'm the one that slipped through the net.

M

[Gadget]

How does the "Ceroc Essentials" warmup fit in with the structure? It teaches timing, which foot to step on, transferal of weight, turning and spinning... all before you've even lifted your partner's hand.

Isn't this a good thing? Isn't this what we've(*) been saying is lacking?

(* with a few exceptions)

[Lou]

but it's COMPLETELY WRONG for the girl to step back on the left for so many reasons

I've missed this place!

If someone can stylishly step back on her left foot at the beginning of a first move, and equally stylishly excute the inevitable triple step that's required to still end up back right in the turn out,

Speaking as someone who follows with either foot, there is no triple step. If you start left foot back, the pattern is 1, 2 - and - 3. If you start right foot back you dance 1 - and - 2 - and - 3. There's syncopation in the left foot back version, but not normally a triple step (unless the follower is really trying to make life difficult for herself).

It's easier to follow right foot back, for the reasons Andy gives. And if Viktor wants more structure to MJ lessons, then maybe consistent footwork is a good place to start. Perhaps we could learn something from our Australian cousins who have specific prescribed footwork for beginners & intermediates.

Ahhh... that feels better!

[ChrisA]

Speaking as someone who follows with either foot, there is no triple step. If you start left foot back, the pattern is 1, 2 - and - 3. If you start right foot back you dance 1 - and - 2 - and - 3. There's syncopation in the left foot back version, but not normally a triple step (unless the follower is really trying to make life difficult for herself).

Not sure I understand your notation here. If you mean that starting left foot back, you only step four times (including the step back), then you either end up in a different place (not having travelled so far), or you have to take bigger steps forward on 2 - and - 3 to compensate. Or have I still not undertstood what you mean?

Here's what I meant:

When not taught either way, I've observed followers doing three variations:

1. Stepping back right first, in which case it's easy, since as you say it's much easier to follow (and to lead).

Steps R-L-R-L-R (timing: slow, slow, slow, slow, slow)

2. Stepping back left, then closing right to left, then stepping forward L, then RLR as 1. Timing the same as starting back right, but with the initial LRL in the same time as the back right case's initial RL. So effectively a triple step at the beginning to change weight.

Steps L-R-L-R-L-R (timing: quick, quick, slow, slow, slow, slow)

3. Stepping back left, then forward right, then left - close right to left - left side back right. So a triple step effectively just prior to the turn out.

Steps again L-R-L-R-L-R (timing: slow, slow, quick, quick, slow, slow)

Both 2 and 3 are of course much more difficult. But there's a strong tendency when learning almost anything to make it more difficult for oneself.


Although I understand the theory of being able to lead a follower to step back on either foot, it's far too advanced for beginners. Stepping back on the side you get led on seems most natural to me. The accursed semicircle buggers that up as well...

[clevedonboy]

How about the variant of the First Move that goes Quick Quick Slow Slow, Quick Quick Slow Slow (leader L R L R L R L R), by including two Rock Steps in the footwork. It's totally leadable, there is no ambiguity & it's very stylish. It also has the advantage of taking 12 musical beats to complete (no prizes for spotting a multiple of 4) and you begin on one foot and end on the other - meaning your next move begins on the left again (for leaders).

(I know that Ceroc would not sanction teaching such a move for beginners as they would be too scared leading to certain loss of revenue and possible large numbers of premature deaths)

[Lou]

Not sure I understand your notation here. If you mean that starting left foot back, you only step four times (including the step back), then you either end up in a different place (not having travelled so far), or you have to take bigger steps forward on 2 - and - 3 to compensate. Or have I still not undertstood what you mean?

Notation is really tricky! Describing the footwork on here is always a challenge. And I remember discussing it with John Eastman & we decided that with a lady's left foot back First Move, it was a lot more fluid than the notation indicated.

When it's taught in Bristol (with the exception of Nailsea & Elmgrove, who do ridiculous counts), with specific footwork, the Lady steps back on her left on 1, into the side on 2, pivot & step back on 3. And that's because the teacher will pause when the lady is brought into the man's side. But Ceroc teach that way too.

During this "Teach" (sorry), the ladies will probably step back on their Left on 1, forward on Right on "And", and on their Left, bringing feet together on 2. This is where the pivot starts, meaning that they'll step back on Right on 3. In freestyle, the rhythm changes slightly, so that the step in, pivot & step back timing merges into something a lot more fluid. And it does change into something a bit more 1-2-and-3-ish. There are 5 beats to the music, but only 4 transfers of weight, you see.

Whereas with the standard Ceroc "Walking Style" (your first example), the lady transfers her weight during each beat. Simpler, but not as nice to look at!

So it doesn't really match up with the very scary variations of left foot back you've seen!

[ChrisA]

Whereas with the standard Ceroc "Walking Style" (your first example), the lady transfers her weight during each beat. Simpler, but not as nice to look at!

Ironic, really, that with all this worrying about how important it is to make MJ easy for beginners, Leroc teaches something nice but harder, Ceroc makes it (IMHO) harder by not teaching anything, and the BigdJivers of this world think I'm the one trying to make it less accessible.

Interesting footwork variations are cool, but not for novices, IMHO.

The great thing about what you call the "walking style" is that it provides a real consistency to practically every single beginners move. The footwork for the first move is virtually identical to that for the basket, octopus, travelling return, manspin, in fact almost everything.

If there's one thing that would make MJ more accessible to brand new dancers, not inhibit a good grounding in lead/follow, and make all the moves feel like one another in their execution (though not in look), it would be the adoption of this very simple footwork.

There's no counterintuitive "lead through the right, but step back on the left", no arbitrary "teach it one way in the class, dance it another way in freestyle", and in my view it is MUCH easier to learn and adapt to more complex moves - it doesn't make any later moves any harder.

The dancers get used to having their weight in the right place at the right time, and variations don't then require as much learning.

I do agree that if it's danced consistently step, step, step, on the count, with no variation, it looks a bit dull. But it still feels nice, in fact much nicer than when the footwork is random or awkward.

And if I had a fiver for every time I've taken a floundering beginner, got her to step on the count, right foot back at the end and the start, and turned her into a decent follower that can follow all the beginners moves, and many of the intermediate ones as well, in one track (occasionally two, but 70% of the time it takes only one track), I, erm, well I'd have a lot of fivers.

[Andy McGregor]

Lovely to have the debate about footwork back again

[ChrisA]

Lovely to have the debate about footwork back again

Well it is unusual to actually have a topic about dance on here...

[Lou]

Lovely to have the debate about footwork back again

Although things change. Right now, we're proposing that teaching a simple and consistent "Men back left, Ladies back right" footwork to beginners is A Good Thing, within Viktor's desire to see a more structured way to teach MJ.

I'd love to hear Franck's current opinion.

[Andy McGregor]

I'd love to hear Franck's current opinion.

I think he might have a different opinion from Ceroc-the-business-before-all-else. I think their opinion will be that you can step back on whichever foot you like so long as you pay £6/7/8 And if you paid £10 you wouldn't have to step back for yourself, they'd have a foot-maiden move you chosen foot for you

[Andy McGregor]

If I didn't make the point earlier in the thread, I was intending to use the fact that we can't agree on which foot to move first in the first move we'd have a real problem agreeing a formal structure in MJ.

IMHO a formal structure would be brilliant for MJ - and it would raise standards too. I don't think this will come from Ceroc though. There's no profit in putting people off by getting picky about which foot you move or telling people they need to improve. Well, there is a profit, but it's probably not as high as it would be if you let people do what they want within a loose structure of clues about how moves are done with no specific right and wrong way.

[Robin]

IMHO a formal structure would be brilliant for MJ - and it would raise standards too. I don't think this will come from Ceroc though.

Thats not entirely true Andy, how organised has Modern Jive become because of Ceroc? I'd also hazard a guess that a lot of the "competition" specifically keeps their distance rather than work with Ceroc to establish such a structure.

You also seem to be forgetting that Ceroc probably introduced 90+% (?) of Modern Jivers into the scene .... without it there simply wouldn't be enough numbers to even entertain some form of formal structure. On that basis I would suggest that whether you like it or not, Ceroc are probably the most well placed organisation/body to introduce said standards and to get them acknowledged professionally. However, there has to be a balance for the business economics - you don't introduce something thats going to be bad for your business ..... and by that I mean that perhaps the MJ field is simply not yet ready to accommodate the structure you have in mind.

As an example, in many latin countries , peoples' mindset are much more pre-disposed to dancing ... in the UK its much more of a "Fancy a pint?" mindset.

[El Salsero Gringo]

If I didn't make the point earlier in the thread, I was intending to use the fact that we can't agree on which foot to move first in the first move we'd have a real problem agreeing a formal structure in MJ.

IMHO a formal structure would be brilliant for MJ - and it would raise standards too. I don't think this will come from Ceroc though. There's no profit in putting people off by getting picky about which foot you move or telling people they need to improve. Well, there is a profit, but it's probably not as high as it would be if you let people do what they want within a loose structure of clues about how moves are done with no specific right and wrong way.

Hypothetical question for you Andy (and for anyone, really): suppose Ceroc decided, overnight, that there was a correct foot to step back on (say the left, for argument's sake) whereas you thought it should be the right. Would you support Ceroc and go along with the new structure - even though you thought the other way was better - or would you teach it as you thought best, promoting 'schism' between left-footed and right-footed MJ? In other words, what premium would you place on structure (or uniformity) over best-practice?

[clevedonboy]

Hypothetical question for you Andy (and for anyone, really): suppose Ceroc decided, overnight, that there was a correct foot to step back on (say the left, for argument's sake) whereas you thought it should be the right. Would you support Ceroc and go along with the new structure - even though you thought the other way was better - or would you teach it as you thought best, promoting 'schism' between left-footed and right-footed MJ? In other words, what premium would you place on structure (or uniformity) over best-practice?

Funny - I was having a similar thought while doing the washing up. Would there be dance police out there to enforce the left / right footedness, would unreformed old skool lerocers be banned until they conformed to the new structure?

Really, I suppose the question is how can your impose structure on something retrospectively? Or is that actually how structured dance develops?

[David Bailey]

Funny - I was having a similar thought while doing the washing up.

As one does...

Would there be dance police out there to enforce the left / right footedness, would unreformed old skool lerocers be banned until they conformed to the new structure?

Really, I suppose the question is how can your impose structure on something retrospectively? Or is that actually how structured dance develops?

I'm still not sure if we're talking about the same thing when we say "structure" - people seem to equate it with "footwork", which to me is almost irrelevant, despite the footwork fetishists who are popping out of the woodwork - yes, I am looking at you, Lou.

To me, structure is a developmental area for MJ that builds on the existing (and excellent) beginner-oriented structure, by providing something for people to aspire to, combined with a standardised definition of both form and technique. In other words, something beyond the "after 6 weeks, you're an intermediate, and that's pretty much it" attitude which to me still seems prevalent in a lot of Ceroc.

So, to take this (boring) discussion about footwork on the first move; a structure would not necessarily tell people what foot to step back on, but might well tell people what the advantages and disadvantages of both are, and possibly explain how to do both variations well. And it would do it on a national standard level - and that's the key point.

A structure would also define a standardised national progression path for dancers (and yes, that could involve assessments, so sue me). Hell, I'd even accept competitions as a reasonable price for a proper MJ structure - that's how badly I want to see it in place.

In terms of "advancing MJ dancing", I'm pretty sure that Ceroc is poorly-placed to do that - I believe that most of the innovation in MJ over the past few years has I believe been driven by independent teachers. But Ceroc is in a good position to incorporate, adapt, and spread such innovation nationally.

[El Salsero Gringo]

So, to take this (boring) discussion about footwork on the first move; a structure would not necessarily tell people what foot to step back on, but might well tell people what the advantages and disadvantages of both are, and possibly explain how to do both variations well.

Yes, but hang on a minute: when you've finished listing the pros and cons of boths ways of doing it, it will abundantly clear that either there is a better foot to step back on, or there isn't. If there is, then it de facto becomes the correct foot. And if there isn't, then you can summarise as "it doesn't matter which foot you step back on", which is exactly where we are at the moment. You can't ask for structure without having the detail to fill the structure in with - which foot to step on, how exactly to spin. By structure one means rule-book, and a rule-book can't be full of blank pages or wishy-washy "you can do it any way you like" suggestions.

A structure would ... involve assessments,

And unless you give the exact criteria (including "steps back on the correct foot") then what are you going to assess?

[El Salsero Gringo]

In terms of "advancing MJ dancing", I'm pretty sure that Ceroc is poorly-placed to do that - I believe that most of the innovation in MJ over the past few years has I believe been driven by independent teachers. But Ceroc is in a good position to incorporate, adapt, and spread such innovation nationally.

And there appears to be another inconsistency in this thread. The endpoint of a formal structure is diametrically opposed to the desire to adapt and incorporate new ideas. How much has Ballroom evolved in the last thirty years? How much has Salsa? Why the difference? Precisely *because* there's no formal Salsa structure. On the one hand the point is made that MJ suffers because of lack of rules - you can dance it any way you please - yet on the other hand, Ceroc comes under fire because it has a consistent and centrally controlled teaching syllabus.