Page 8 of 14 FirstFirst ... 456789101112 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 160 of 270

Thread: Is it Time We had formal Structure in MJ

  1. #141
    Commercial Operator
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    1,544
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Is it Time We had formal Structure in MJ

    hold up a sec DJ - I'd describe Lindy as a structured dance not because people are assessed or it has a federation but because (how can I put it without stating rhe obvious?) it has a structure that people work to - lesson 1 rock step etc etc. There are variations & disagreements (there were untold caualties in the Savoy / Hollywood style wars) but fundamentally the dance works because everyone agrees that there is a pattern of 6 or 8 counts with several defined (that doesn't mean exclusive) footwork and lead follow conventions. The shapes follow from that. MJs current structure for want of a better word to me seems to be its list of core moves - very different
    Last edited by clevedonboy; 20th-February-2006 at 09:48 PM.

  2. #142
    Formerly known as DavidJames David Bailey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Norf Lundin
    Posts
    17,001
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: Is it Time We had formal Structure in MJ

    Quote Originally Posted by El Salsero Gringo
    Yes, but hang on a minute, 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.
    There certainly is a best foot to step back on, and it's the one you are led to step back on. Stepping back on the other foot is wrong. That's what the DavidJamesCerocRuleBook would say*. It would then go on to provide examples of how to lead the lady to step back on either foot. And fair enough, it would probably acknowledge that most of the time, for a standard First Move, it's easier for the lady to learn to step back on the left foot.

    * Yes, OK, the diagram would be contracted out to an artist, who'd get it wrong as usual.

    Quote Originally Posted by El Salsero Gringo
    By structure one means rule-book
    You may do - doesn't mean I have to. By "structure" I mean definition, progression and transparency. Ceroc's got enough move definition for anyone already, I imagine. By structure, I mean "more than moves".

    Quote Originally Posted by El Salsero Gringo
    , and a rule-book can't be full of blank pages or wishy-washy "you can do it any way you like" suggestions.

    And unless you give the exact criteria (including "steps back on the correct foot") then what are you going to assess?
    How about "steps back on the correct foot for the next step"? Leaders don't even have to step back to lead a first move, they can step forward / sideways / stand still.

    Focussing on exact footwork for every move is nothing like the sort of structure I want to see. Adding proscribed and exacting footwork to MJ won't make it a structured dance; at best, it'll maybe get a few people thinking a bit more about what do do with those things on the ends of their legs.
    Last edited by David Bailey; 20th-February-2006 at 09:46 PM.

  3. #143
    Formerly known as DavidJames David Bailey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Norf Lundin
    Posts
    17,001
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: Is it Time We had formal Structure in MJ

    Quote Originally Posted by clevedonboy
    hold up a sec DJ - I'd describe Lindy as a structured dance not because people are assessed or it has a federation but because (how can I put it without stating rhe obvious?) it has a structure that people work to - lesson 1 rock step etc etc.
    I know nothing about Lindy. But salsa has a structure derived from the underlying musical beat of the music it's played to; it's actually difficult after a while to dance to that beat without dancing salsa.

    The problem is, I think focussing on the moves is a distraction. Using the car analogy previously mentioned, defining moves better is like changing the tyres on a Model T to Pirellis. It may make some difference, but it's still a Model T.

    What would make a major difference is introducing technique and progression as part of the standard format. Having a built-in "career path" for dancers, with the aim of stopping them leaving MJ, in other words.

    It's profoundly depressing to hear franchise owners explicitly say they don't care about dancers beyond beginners - and if MJ is to progress, that attitude needs to be ripped out. Otherwise, eventually, I think MJ will die out; Ceroc will have taught enough people to be confident enough in partner dancing, that other more advanced forms will become more attractive.

  4. #144
    Registered User El Salsero Gringo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    4,881
    Rep Power
    12

    Re: Is it Time We had formal Structure in MJ

    Quote Originally Posted by DavidJames
    There certainly is a best foot to step back on, and it's the one you are led to step back on. Stepping back on the other foot is wrong. That's what the DavidJamesCerocRuleBook would say*.
    That's not terribly helpful in a discussion about structure. You might want to change the teaching method from "either foot is OK" to "the foot the man leads is OK" - but that's no more structured.
    Quote Originally Posted by DavidJames
    You may do - doesn't mean I have to. By "structure" I mean definition, progression and transparency. Ceroc's got enough move definition for anyone already, I imagine. By structure, I mean "more than moves".
    Hmmm.... definition... sounds like a rule-book to me.
    Quote Originally Posted by DavidJames
    How about "steps back on the correct foot for the next step"? Leaders don't even have to step back to lead a first move, they can step forward / sideways / stand still.
    And how is one to know which is the correct foot for the next step, unless your rule book (which you deny you want to exist) tells you which is the correct foot for the next step?
    Quote Originally Posted by DavidJames
    What would make a major difference is introducing technique and progression as part of the standard format. Having a built-in "career path" for dancers, with the aim of stopping them leaving MJ, in other words.
    I don't understand how you can say this doesn't exist in Ceroc (or MJ) for those who want it. Either we have what we have now in MJ and in Salsa (no rules, no assessments) or we have Ballroom with exams, medals and technique fixed in concrete. I can't see the alternative.

  5. #145
    Lovely Moderator ducasi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Glasgow
    Posts
    10,015
    Rep Power
    14

    Re: Is it Time We had formal Structure in MJ

    Does it strike anyone else following this thread that no-one here really knows what "structure" means, but they're damn sure that MJ doesn't have it, but [insert-favourite-other-dance] has?

    And that many of the arguments for what MJ needs are contradictory?

    E.g., "Salsa has advanced over the years because it has structure" vs. "Salsa has no structure, that's what allowed it to advance."

    It sounds like people are just seeing what they see wrong in the current teaching of MJ, proposing a fix, and calling that structure...

    Poor MJ has turned into the scarecrow in The Wizard of Oz...
    MJ – "If only I had a structure!"
    Oz – "You don't need structure, all you need is a diploma!"


    Just on the advancement thing, I'd suggest that that happens when talented individuals with an enthusiasm for the dance introduce and teach new ideas that work with the existing style, renewing it, and keeping it new and exciting.

    Dare I suggest that that is what Amir is doing with Jango, and Mark is doing with Latin Blues?

    Still don't see where the structure thing comes into it...
    Let your mind go and your body will follow. – Steve Martin, LA Story

  6. #146
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Cruden Bay (Aberde
    Posts
    7,053
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Is it Time We had formal Structure in MJ

    I have just discoverd how to lead a follower to finish from a standard traveling return with her right foot back, or her left foot back. (without any concious effort on her part, lead into it is the same and not taking a second step back)

    Which of these is "correct"?

    {.. and now that I can do it, what can I use it for? }

  7. #147
    Registered User spindr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Brizzle
    Posts
    1,617
    Rep Power
    11

    Re: Is it Time We had formal Structure in MJ

    First part of structure is consistency and repeatability.

    For example: dance (*) (a first move + a return) + (a first move + a return).

    One might suggest that to be consistent and repeatable that the way of dancing the a first move and the way of dancing the a first move should be the same. Similarly, the way of dancing a a return and a a return should also be the same.

    You may find that the "footwork" for the a first move and a first move are in fact determined by the "footwork" for the a return and the a return

    SpinDr

    (*) See first move, and return for definitions of terms, if reqd.

  8. #148
    Lovely Moderator ducasi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Glasgow
    Posts
    10,015
    Rep Power
    14

    Re: Is it Time We had formal Structure in MJ

    Quote Originally Posted by spindr
    First part of structure is consistency and repeatability.

    ...

    (*) See first move, and return for definitions of terms, if reqd.
    Based on your own definitions of "a first move" and "a return", Ceroc does teach a consistent and repeatable dance. Where the definition covers footwork, Ceroc teaches it. Where it is missing, Ceroc doesn't teach it.

    I'd suggest that anything missed out in the definition does not need to be part of the consistent and repeatable structure. In the same way as your guide and Ceroc don't tell you what to do with your spare hand – because it is up to you – they miss out the unnecessary footwork details.

    So, is Ceroc teaching consistent and repeatable?
    Let your mind go and your body will follow. – Steve Martin, LA Story

  9. #149
    The Forum Legend
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Nottingham
    Posts
    10,672
    Rep Power
    14

    Re: Is it Time We had formal Structure in MJ

    Quote Originally Posted by clevedonboy
    Funny - I was having a similar thought while doing the washing up.
    If I thought that doing the washing up made me think like ESG, I'd buy a dishwasher immediately....

  10. #150
    Commercial Operator
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Sussex by the Sea
    Posts
    9,276
    Rep Power
    15

    Re: Is it Time We had formal Structure in MJ

    Quote Originally Posted by TheTramp
    think like ESG
    Think? ESG

  11. #151
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    bedford
    Posts
    4,899
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Is it Time We had formal Structure in MJ

    Tonights teacher was Andy, who I had not seen before. A few snippets:
    "Both step back on your outside foot."
    "If you slow it down somewhat and sweep your foot around it looks better."
    "the secret of this is to dip a bit and to move smoothly through it."
    "The secret is in the flow."
    Perhaps it is because I do not know how lucky we are around here that I am not convinced that we need major changes. I was going to write in praise of Michaela, but she is not the only Ceroc Central teacher that teaches style. We have mini-tutorials on spinning, wiggling, posture, the use of the spare arm, and various other styling techniques. She does say which foot to use when it matters, and where the feet should finish up. Both Mark and Paul teach styling for men. I am well content with the standard of the lady dancers at the venues I attend and I can see no clear advantage in changing the way they are taught. The ladies may have a different perspective on things.

  12. #152
    Commercial Operator
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Sussex by the Sea
    Posts
    9,276
    Rep Power
    15

    Re: Is it Time We had formal Structure in MJ

    Quote Originally Posted by El Salsero Gringo
    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.
    No, it's where Ceroc is at the moment. There is very clearly a correct foot for the follower to move. It's the one the leader led. At the start of the first move the leader pushes back the followers right hand: this should result in the follower moving her right foot. For Ceroc to say it doesn't matter is, IMHO, incorrect. It matters that the follower follows the lead and gets used to doing so. I must admit I was quite surprised to hear a Ceroc teacher say it doesn't matter which foot you move a couple of weeks ago - it actually left me uncertain what to do. I was a visiting dancer, I couldn't say to my partners that their teacher was wrong but I couldn't dance properly with women that didn't follow my lead. If I'd been local I would have avoided attending that class as I considered the teaching of dance to be technically poor.

  13. #153
    Registered User El Salsero Gringo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    4,881
    Rep Power
    12

    Re: Is it Time We had formal Structure in MJ

    Quote Originally Posted by Andy McGregor
    At the start of the first move the leader pushes back the followers right hand: this should result in the follower moving her right foot.
    You say that as written-in-stone fact, but is it? Lots of ballroom figures have contra-body motion where the hips and torso go in different directions - why shouldn't MJ? I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'd like to know the source of your authority to dictate which *is* the correct foot.

  14. #154
    Commercial Operator
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Sussex by the Sea
    Posts
    9,276
    Rep Power
    15

    Re: Is it Time We had formal Structure in MJ

    Quote Originally Posted by El Salsero Gringo
    You say that as written-in-stone fact, but is it? Lots of ballroom figures have contra-body motion where the hips and torso go in different directions - why shouldn't MJ? I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'd like to know the source of your authority to dictate which *is* the correct foot.
    Nigel Anderson and the laws of Physics - but not necessarily in that order

  15. #155
    Omnipresent Administrator Franck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Glasgow
    Posts
    3,045
    Blog Entries
    2
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Is it Time We had formal Structure in MJ

    Quote Originally Posted by Andy McGregor
    At the start of the first move the leader pushes back the followers right hand: this should result in the follower moving her right foot.
    Quote Originally Posted by El Salsero Gringo
    You say that as written-in-stone fact, but is it?
    Of course it isn't, and Andy clearly failed to read the good advice given in this thread fully:

    The follower will step back on the foot as led, or (in the absence of proper leading) will step back on the foot that is available!

    The fact that we are holding the follower's right hand is irrelevant, what matters is your partner's weight distribution. If the follower is resting on her right foot prior to the (step back) lead, she will step back on her left because she has no choice, so unless the Leader has the skill and awareness (unlikely in most Beginners classes) to 'lead' a weight-shift first, then she will naturally follow the (step back) lead and use her left foot.
    It would be counter-productive to tell her that she stepped back on the wrong foot if she didn't seem to have a choice at the outset, and as teaching that much awareness and leading skills to Beginner men would definitely not help them, we are stuck with: "Whatever foot you step back on is fine!".

    As for more structure in MJ, I'm all for it, and as far as I can tell, Ceroc are doing their bit to introduce a more formal learning environment. Many pilot classes are being experimented with and gradually, the results are being shared and extended nationally. I would strongly oppose any attempt to make MJ the dance more rigid and less flexible though. I love all the different 'fads' we seem to go through, and I expect I would have got bored with it, were it not for the lindy, salsa, hip hop, WCS and now Tango trends and influences we have had over the last 10 years.
    Franck.

    There's an A.P.P. for that!

  16. #156
    Commercial Operator
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Sussex by the Sea
    Posts
    9,276
    Rep Power
    15

    Re: Is it Time We had formal Structure in MJ

    Quote Originally Posted by Franck
    Of course it isn't, and Andy clearly failed to read the good advice given in this thread fully:
    Was that the advice that people should get the moves wrong because it doesn't matter?

    Quote Originally Posted by Franck
    The follower will step back on the foot as led, or (in the absence of proper leading) will step back on the foot that is available!

    The fact that we are holding the follower's right hand is irrelevant, what matters is your partner's weight distribution. If the follower is resting on her right foot prior to the (step back) lead, she will step back on her left because she has no choice, so unless the Leader has the skill and awareness (unlikely in most Beginners classes) to 'lead' a weight-shift first, then she will naturally follow the (step back) lead and use her left foot.
    And what I'm saying is that "in the absence of proper leading" the follower is told which foot is the correct one to move. This means that the follower does not get into bad habits. Almost all the instructions given to the follower would be irrelevant in the presence of a proper lead. However, it's a learning situation and the leads can't be expected to get it right every time: in the absence of that proper lead I believe that the follower should be told what to do in a move if they had been led properly - rather than told it doesn't matter!

    Quote Originally Posted by Franck
    As for more structure in MJ, I'm all for it, and as far as I can tell, Ceroc are doing their bit to introduce a more formal learning environment. Many pilot classes are being experimented with and gradually, the results are being shared and extended nationally. I would strongly oppose any attempt to make MJ the dance more rigid and less flexible though. I love all the different 'fads' we seem to go through, and I expect I would have got bored with it, were it not for the lindy, salsa, hip hop, WCS and now Tango trends and influences we have had over the last 10 years.


    I'm not saying that MJ needs to be made "more rigid and less flexible". I'm saying that it should be taught correctly with more emphasis on getting it right. IMHO, the advice from the stage that "it doesn't matter which foot" put an emphasis in getting it wrong

  17. #157
    Registered User El Salsero Gringo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    4,881
    Rep Power
    12

    Re: Is it Time We had formal Structure in MJ

    Quote Originally Posted by Andy McGregor
    And what I'm saying is that "in the absence of proper leading" the follower is told which foot is the correct one to move. This means that the follower does not get into bad habits. Almost all the instructions given to the follower would be irrelevant in the presence of a proper lead. However, it's a learning situation and the leads can't be expected to get it right every time: in the absence of that proper lead I believe that the follower should be told what to do in a move if they had been led properly - rather than told it doesn't matter!
    If a new dancer spends the first few months learning that the right (or left) foot is *the* correct one, they're going to have a very much harder time following a lead later on (..."Why is that nasty man trying to lead me back on the wrong foot, Mummy?") than if they learn that whichever foot feels comfortable is OK. In the latter case, all the lead ever has to do is make the desired foot be the most comfortable option, which is the essence of a good lead anyway.

  18. #158
    Omnipresent Administrator Franck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Glasgow
    Posts
    3,045
    Blog Entries
    2
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Is it Time We had formal Structure in MJ

    Quote Originally Posted by Andy McGregor
    Was that the advice that people should get the moves wrong because it doesn't matter?
    No, but that kind of advice:
    Quote Originally Posted by El Salsero Gringo
    Lots of ballroom figures have contra-body motion where the hips and torso go in different directions
    Quote Originally Posted by DavidJames
    There certainly is a best foot to step back on, and it's the one you are led to step back on. Stepping back on the other foot is wrong.
    and
    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisA
    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.
    All the above agree that the follower should step back on the foot that is led, and you quote that yourself, except that you seem to think that all there is to leading is 'pushing back on her right hand'.
    Quote Originally Posted by Andy McGregor
    And what I'm saying is that "in the absence of proper leading" the follower is told which foot is the correct one to move. This means that the follower does not get into bad habits. Almost all the instructions given to the follower would be irrelevant in the presence of a proper lead. However, it's a learning situation and the leads can't be expected to get it right every time: in the absence of that proper lead I believe that the follower should be told what to do in a move if they had been led properly - rather than told it doesn't matter!
    The absence of a proper lead does not mean that no lead is present. Many beginners will try to lead the step back, but before they even start dancing they will have unwittingly led their partner to be balanced on one foot or the other (and many followers do it by themselves if a lead is truly neutral), and this will determine what foot they step back on, much more than which hand is being used for connection.
    Quote Originally Posted by Andy McGregor
    I'm not saying that MJ needs to be made "more rigid and less flexible". I'm saying that it should be taught correctly with more emphasis on getting it right. IMHO, the advice from the stage that "it doesn't matter which foot" put an emphasis in getting it wrong
    I take the opposite view, and have argued it many times with Lou... It's a great idea to suggest to beginners that they try stepping on the other foot if it's not working, but I have seen many situations where either foot was the problem and switching worked. Telling them to step back on the foot that doesn't feel comfortable at the start of the dance is the surest way to convince them they have 2 left feet and they do stop attending classes shortly after that, and yes, I care passionately about beginners, I want them to enjoy their first experience of dance, I want to discover the pleasures of partner dancing without being put off too early, and it has nothing to do with money! It really is about watching people smile when they get it after a few weeks, when they look back after a year and see how much progress they've made, when they attend their first week-ender, join the forum, etc... This is what keeps me and most MJ organisers in the job.

    By all means, let's discuss ways to improve MJ is already taught, let's have a clearer teaching progression, but let's not randomly adopt any doctrine that says "My way is right, so do it my way or you'll be wrong". MJ is about exploring new directions all the time, and long may it continue.
    Franck.

    There's an A.P.P. for that!

  19. #159
    Registered User spindr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Brizzle
    Posts
    1,617
    Rep Power
    11

    Re: Is it Time We had formal Structure in MJ

    Quote Originally Posted by Andy McGregor
    the most important of which is that the follower has been led back with their right hand and this should ALWAYS lead a step back with the right foot.
    The same argument suggests that if I want the girl to walk backwards on her left I should then lead with their left hand?

    But that means if I want her to keep walking (backwards) right, left, right, etc. -- then I need to keep swapping hands -- seems a bit tricky to me, I always thought the lead moved the follower's "center" not individual legs

    SpinDr

  20. #160
    Registered User LMC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    In the corner
    Posts
    4,508
    Rep Power
    12

    Re: Is it Time We had formal Structure in MJ

    Quote Originally Posted by spindr
    The same argument suggests that if I want the girl to walk backwards on her left I should then lead with their left hand?
    See here

    I seem to remember saying on a previous footwork discussion thread that you don't *know* what move is coming up next in freestyle, so the discussion of left/right foot for the first moves seems a bit redundant - I think it's more a case of "pick a foot and stick with it" - I use my right. Even when I'm leading - and so far it seems to work OK :shrug:

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. How old were you for your first time?
    By Lou in forum Let's talk about dance
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 18th-October-2006, 11:05 AM
  2. Forum structure re-vamp ideas
    By David Bailey in forum Forum technical problems / Questions / Suggestions..
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 10th-October-2006, 08:39 PM
  3. Time Out
    By Lynn in forum Chit Chat
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 10th-July-2006, 11:24 PM
  4. What to do if you get out of time?
    By Achelous in forum Let's talk about dance
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 30th-April-2006, 08:14 PM
  5. Time....
    By CJ in forum Fun and Games
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 28th-July-2003, 07:43 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •