Is West Coast Swing Made Too Hard?

[jive-vee]

Mystified - a classic harry potter spell where you dance around in a totally confused state, until someone gives you a pint and you sort yourself out.

Hehe that's you all over Jimbo...

[Minnie M]

Getting back on track I think Andy was saying some students have the impression of it being hard to dance/learn, rather than it actually being hard.

WCS is a fab dance for the follower as it allows lots of styling and free expression, however, a lot of followers are taught that too early, i.e. before thoroughly learning the basics

ALSO.......... you MUST listen to the music (more so than in MJ) if your partner is dancing different timing to you it will be disaster even if you think you are dancing correctly. Not sure if that can be taught in class though

[straycat]

Maybe some really advanced concepts are too widely circulated to inexperienced dancers that can't understand them and then they end up taking the wrong turn?

....

The phrase 'it's a conversation' is a classic mystifiction.

Proper conversations have no lead or follow they just flow.

'Leading by following' is another classic mystification. What does that mean?

If the mans leading by following then the women is following by leading.

So - are you saying that 'dance as a conversation' & 'leading as following' are advanced concepts that a lot of people misunderstand? Or are you saying that they're a load of rubbish arising from people's misunderstanding of advanced concepts?

[David Bailey]

So - are you saying that 'dance as a conversation' & 'leading as following' are advanced concepts that a lot of people misunderstand? Or are you saying that they're a load of rubbish arising from people's misunderstanding of advanced concepts?

I'll butt in here, as it's a Friday.

Both these analogies, to me, cause more problems than they solve.

For example, dancing is not a conversation, it's dancing. It doesn't mean the lead swaps around at will during most dances, depending on who's got the most interesting moves or "loudest" lead.

[straycat]

For example, dancing is not a conversation, it's dancing. It doesn't mean the lead swaps around at will during most dances, depending on who's got the most interesting moves or "loudest" lead.

I do confess - if that's what I understood by 'dance as conversation', I would probably share your opinion. My understanding of it, however, is somewhat different.

[jim]

So - are you saying that 'dance as a conversation' & 'leading as following' are advanced concepts that a lot of people misunderstand? Or are you saying that they're a load of rubbish arising from people's misunderstanding of advanced concepts?

I honestly don't know. I just know that they confuse me.

[Andy McGregor]

So - are you saying that 'dance as a conversation' & 'leading as following' are advanced concepts that a lot of people misunderstand? Or are you saying that they're a load of rubbish arising from people's misunderstanding of advanced concepts?

My feeling is that a conversation is an interaction with people who are doing the same thing - conversing. The person speaking will change, but you both have and equal opportunity to speak. In a lead and follow dance you have very different roles. Those roles compliment each other, but they are different. Now that it's been highlighted "conversation" is an inaccurate way of describing what happens in a lead and follow dance.

[jivecat]

So the follower moving from modern jive gets a jolt quite out of proportion to that experienced by the leaders.

By Jove, I think you're right! Conversely, in tango, the follower is mainly seen as a decorative tool which the leader wields or manipulates in order to accomplish his aims. Which would explain why learning AT is often such a difficult experience even for experienced MJ leaders- they're just not used to having such massive control over so many aspects of the ladies' movement.

[Amir]

Conversely, in tango, the follower is mainly seen as a decorative tool which the leader wields or manipulates in order to accomplish his aims.

Strongly disagree!

Which would explain why learning AT is often such a difficult experience even for experienced MJ leaders- they're just not used to having such massive control over so many aspects of the ladies' movement.

Somewhat agree... although would express it a little differently: In AT the level of self awareness and connection are more nuanced, the style more specific and the rhythm less so.

[Amir]

Both these analogies, to me, cause more problems than they solve.

Its like that joke:

This new guy comes into the prison canteen, where he joins the old convicts who are sitting around talking and laughing. One of them shouts out ‘54’ and everyone burst out laughing. Another says ‘32’ and people hit the floor.
‘What’s going on?’ says the new prisoner.
An old guy explains; ‘we’ve been telling the same jokes here for so long we just numbered them to save time.’
This is easy, thinks the new prisoner, and tries out his luck, shouting ‘46’.
No one laughs, and a few people look at him in disgust.
‘What I do?’ says new prisoner, shocked.
The old guy explains; ‘we agreed to stop telling racist jokes.’

[straycat]

My feeling is that a conversation is an interaction with people who are doing the same thing - conversing. The person speaking will change, but you both have and equal opportunity to speak. In a lead and follow dance you have very different roles. Those roles compliment each other, but they are different. Now that it's been highlighted "conversation" is an inaccurate way of describing what happens in a lead and follow dance.

No analogy is perfect, and there are always dangers in taking them too literally. On the other hand, if that is your honest opinion on how real conversations always work, and of participants' roles in real conversations, you should probably observe a few more of them. Conversations can still have leader and follower roles (amongst others).

I like this particular analogy, because it gets us away from the idea that leading in a dance merely involves leading what the follower should do, and that following involves nothing but obeying those leads. Sure, you can dance like that, but I prefer something more interactive, and more equal.

[Andy McGregor]

No analogy is perfect, and there are always dangers in taking them too literally. On the other hand, if that is your honest opinion on how real conversations always work, and of participants' roles in real conversations, you should probably observe a few more of them. Conversations can still have leader and follower roles (amongst others).

As someone who has spent a lot of time oberving and analysing personal interactions as part of my job I can say that conversations between two people vary enormously depending on the purpose of the conversation. Some conversations are led by one paricipant but many conversations are not. Conversations take many forms. Using comparator such as "conversaton" where there is a great deal of variety in form will probably cause more confusion rather than less as the listeners will all have different ideas of what "conversation" means.

We need to find something better than "conversation" if we're going to come up with a single word with a single meaning.

I don't have an answer. But I've got a very clear vision of the problem.

[Ghost]

We need to find something better than "conversation" if we're going to come up with a single word with a single meaning.

I don't have an answer. But I've got a very clear vision of the problem.

"Jamming"

http://forum.cerocscotland.com/showt...ing#post206552

[straycat]

"Jamming"

http://forum.cerocscotland.com/showt...ing#post206552

I like the jamming analogy also. That one works for me.

[Graham W]

My apologies if my tone sounded ... like something you don't like, and please accept my further apologies for misreading your comments. However - you have yourself read quite a bit into ... whatever the followers were telling you or doing in the class - surely it would be fair to relate the gist of what they were saying, rather than just giving a very vague re-interpretation of it?

apologising on forum - cool, please note it was just one particular class managed by a Leroc Teacher at the time, in one particular place (now finished too)and you werent there , I agree that it is good to have feedback from people but I was new to WCS and when i start I really just want to take on board what the teachers and staff - its not easy taking on loads of info, partic when you see people who dispense it not really doing that well in freestyle - actually, I guess they were trying to encourage me to progress as quicker, but I stand by what I say about them mystifying dancing, even though ANdy thought of it first, lo. Also I personally pay my money to learn from teachers, Paul himself is surely professional enough to gauge his teaching to a particular class as he sees it, :-)

[Graham W]

I always do, but thanks for giving me the permission. Mate.



Perhaps if you explained his comments, rather than making attacks? Mate?


If we're both misunderstanding your comments, does that mean we're both very stupid, or that your post was unclear? Mate?

Yes, I don't like being called "mate". What gave it away?

omg, how could the piece that you quoted as me 'personally attacking' you be construed as a 'personal attack'!? just a touch of debate.

[jivecat]

Strongly disagree!

And in many ways I agree with you disagreeing! I'm speaking from the point of view of taking lessons - where I have found often that all the teaching is directed at the leaders and the role of the woman is purely that of a prop to enable the leaders to learn. Not all lessons are as unproductive as that for followers but many are. I can only assume that the reason for it is to get novice leaders over that enormous early learning curve. And it is the opposite of what people are reporting re WCS.

[nomoves]

(Off thread, hi Jive-vee, Helen B, Ickle Sue and Dottie, thanks for the welcome and Gerry thanks for the character reference - the nicer person anyone could wish to meet is your good self)

Back on the thread. Yes I've been to classes for beginners/near beginners where some concepts - rolling count, hitting breaks in the music, syncopations - were introduced too soon for me personally but I think that reflects an ambition in West Coast teaching that was missing from most of the jive classes I went to.

I went to lots of jive classes and learned lots of moves, most of which I forgot very quickly. I now go to lots of West Coast classes and learn lots of moves, most of which I forget equally quickly but I also get taught technique - body lead, connection, frame, weight transfer (how many times have I heard Cat say "nose over toes") - as a much more built-in part of the package which means my dancing is getting better anyway.

Without wishing to be too provocative, it would be interesting to have another thread asking if jive is made too easy.

I'd suggest you're much more likely to go for years to jive classes without really improving than you are to West Coast, tango or ballroom classes.

I can still remember my distress at going to my first Jango lesson with Amir - after many years of jive - and having followers manipulating my torso and talking about something called "frame" which I'd never heard discussed before. I now look at jive hotshots (yes they do exist) at weekenders and think they're obviously great dancers but they'd look a whole lot better if they had some frame.

I never really heard connection emphasised at a jive class until I went to a workshop held by Scottish Frank (our Forum host, I believe) but it's such a basic part of dancing well it should be taught everywhere, every week.

By the way I don't mean to criticise individual jive teachers rather than the teaching model (in my case Ceroc) to which they were working.

[jivecat]

Without wishing to be too provocative, it would be interesting to have another thread asking if jive is made too easy.

[I]If it wasn't easy, maybe I wouldn't have made it past the first few months of lessons, and no doubt this applies to many other people. But apart from that, yes, I think it is too easy in the sense that much more technique should be taught, or at least available in specialised workshops.

[jivecat]

I'd suggest you're much more likely to go for years to jive classes without really improving than you are to West Coast, tango or ballroom classes.

There's certainly many examples of this to be seen in MJ. But improvement mainly occurs when there's real motivation to improve and this is down to the individual as much as the dance style or teaching methods.

I never really heard connection emphasised at a jive class until I went to a workshop held by Scottish Frank (our Forum host, I believe) but it's such a basic part of dancing well it should be taught everywhere, every week.

Yes, yes, yes! I've no idea why it isn't.