[David Franklin]

Originally Posted by bigdjiver

Please pay attention at the back. I have pointed out that if MJ is danceable to a count, that there is no reason for any particular interval between counts, so it follows that MJ moves are danceable even to random (within limits) beats.

I do have limits. For example I would hope that the Lindy "bum-out" would usually cost points in MJ.

I do pay attention - the problem I have is what you would accept in MJ is so all-encompassing that I don't know what the limits are For example, I have no idea why you say the Lindy "bum-out" would cost points in MJ. Seems perfectly acceptible styling to me (it was even taught that way several years ago if I recall correctly).

The MJ moves may be taught that way, but, to me, it looks like most dancers can do something with every beat. Perhaps that is where I am going wrong ...

Just because it's possible to do something doesn't mean it will be done. As I said before (facetiously) - why not have a dance with absolutely no rules, or even teaching. Just put people in a room and say "go on, dance!". There is nothing to stop the people immediately dancing a routine that would put Clayton and Janine to shame - they are at liberty to do absolutely anything C/J can do. But it's not going to happen. In the same way, 99.9% of MJ dancers dance exactly as taught - one action every two beats (other than stepping every beat - if you're lucky!).

Maybe this is a better way of putting things. I don't see any significant reason (other than dogma) why someone dancing WCS should be disqualified from a MJ competition for not dancing MJ. But the fact remains that if you look at MJ as it is practiced, no-one actually dances that way. MJ doesn't give people the tools (and teaching etc.) to dance like the top WCS dancers.

I am having great pleasure researching this to try and improve my perception. However I am still seeing the WCS dancers doing in-out rock steps where it suits. I am still looking for examples done to the sme music.

That's why I said it's subtle. Over an entire dance, I find there's a lot more "feel" of a bounced in-out in MJ than in WCS. That doesn't mean it never happens in WCS, or it always happens in MJ.

That is the second time that you have used that phrase, and my point - where is the exact boundary?

I don't think there is a boundary in the sense you seem to want. Both are fairly accepting styles - given the way WCS is judged I think you'd be marked down dancing MJ due to a lack of WCS basics, but a lot of comps have a catch-all 'swing' category where you might get away with it. But my point would be the question isn't what you can dance in either style, but what people actually do dance. Defining a dance by the outermost boundaries when 99.9% of the people don't go anywhere near them doesn't seem very helpful.

Interesting - so is "blues" part of WCS? Can "blues" be part of MJ? Can MJ be a generic term? Can we inject more triple steps and slotted dancing into MJ and still call it MJ?

As the famous riddle goes:

Q: How many legs does a dog have, if you call the tail a leg?
A: 4. Calling the tail a leg doesn't make it one.

But to answer your question - if everyone (or even a reasonable percentage) starts dancing slotted and with triple steps, I have no problem saying that's part of MJ. But that is a long long way from where we are now.

Maybe I'm misrepresenting your position, but I sometimes get the impression that if, say, Robert and Deborah did a cabaret for Blackpool (and won!), yout reaction would be "Oh good. See, MJ really can do anything WCS can." Whereas mine would be "OK - how do we start learning how to do that in MJ?". Because at the minute, it might all be possible in MJ, but no-one can do it.