WCS- very nice video clip

Just found very nice video clips of Tatiana Mollman and Jordan Frisbee. Someone, somewhere on the forum was looking for these but I can't find the right tread- Sorry! Really can't wait to see them in action at Southport.
http://www.helenanderic.com/video_wcs.html

[bigdjiver]

If they had performed that at the Ceroc Champs, would they have been disqualified?

Is WCS MJ with added rrules and restricitons?

ECS? Lindy? R&R? etc?

If MJ'ers are free to incorporate bits from WCS, ECS and Lindy etc why can't they incorporate the whole thing and still call it MJ?

To me Modern Jive is an all encompassing general term for jive as it is performed today. That is one reason I nominated Robert Austin for the MJ Hall of Fame, because all styles were welcome at the Le Jive Championships. That seemed to be his vision, and it is mine.

I think there are only a limited number of movements that you can do in a partnered dance. So Salsa is MJ with different timing through turns and a Latin origin, and WCS is very similar as well. MJ is unique in that it is easy to learn at the beginning and relatively new dancers can enjoy a social dance very soon after starting. I think it is important to protect this identity so dancers can choose the style that suits them best. In my opinion the Ceroc champs would have disqualified them, as it is financially important to them to protect MJ's identity.

[Lindsay]

So Salsa is MJ with different timing through turns and a Latin origin, and WCS is very similar as well

Think you'll find Ceroc came after the others! And MJ moves ar on the whole adapted from other dance styles.

[ChrisA]

Originally Posted by bigdjiver

If they had performed that at the Ceroc Champs, would they have been disqualified?

From the Ceroc champs website :

"The dance must be recognisable as a modern jive like Ceroc. (Lindy Hop, Jitterbug, West Coast Swing, East Coast Swing, 50s style Rock 'n' Roll, Ballroom Jive etc are not modern jives and therefore are not permitted.)"

The same text may be found in the Intermediates and Open category rules.

[Sheepman]

Has anyone else had a look at the SwingDiego 2005 clip of Ben Morris and Melina Ramirez? I'd say there is some hot competition for J&T there!

Greg

[David Franklin]

Originally Posted by Sheepman

Has anyone else had a look at the SwingDiego 2005 clip of Ben Morris and Melina Ramirez? I'd say there is some hot competition for J&T there!

Don't know how much it's the quality of the clip, but to me, they don't quite have the performance appeal that J&T do. Plus the routine is such a similar style to J&T that it feels a bit 'copycat'. I actually preferred their routine from 2004 (where amongst other things, Ben shows the rest of us what 'spinning' is all about! ).

[drathzel]

I have to say what i have seen and been tought if wcs, it is fab and sexy! I watched the clips of Jordan and Tatiana and Jordon and Sara! i love the elegance of the style especially when you see the masters perform it properly! I'm glad we have got the option to learn both here in Glasgow and in Edinburgh!

[Lynn]

Originally Posted by Teamgoldie

Just found very nice video clips of Tatiana Mollman and Jordan Frisbee. Someone, somewhere on the forum was looking for these but I can't find the right tread- Sorry! Really can't wait to see them in action at Southport.
http://www.helenanderic.com/video_wcs.html

And apparently they are also going to be in Ireland in October!

[bigdjiver]

One of the reasons I come to this forum is to learn and to refine my opinions.

To my unsophisticated eye much of the WCS action above the waist in these clips looks like MJ. Is there any characteristic, above the waist, that makes all of these clips identifiable as WCS?

Otherwise do I take it if I walked through the routines most would pass as MJ?

In the past fortnight "Syncopated Butterfly Kicks" and a "Cha-Cha" move have been taught in Ceroc Intermediate classes I attend, and triple step, chasse rock step and back step have all been mentioned. Presumably the use of this footwork is usable outside of the particular moves in which they were taught, and it would still be regarded as MJ.

So, am I right that I could walk through most of those routines, with the occasional bit of flash footwork, and still have it regarded as MJ?

What I would consider terribly sad if the amount of such footwork that was put in to make the routine eligible for disqualification as WCS was about the amount that made the routine look too good to be MJ.

[David Franklin]

Originally Posted by bigdjiver

One of the reasons I come to this forum is to learn and to refine my opinions.

To my unsophisticated eye much of the WCS action above the waist in these clips looks like MJ. Is there any characteristic, above the waist, that makes all of these clips identifiable as WCS?

Depends what you mean - from your previous postings on similar topics I am honestly pressed to think of anything danced to 4/4 music that you wouldn't consider incorporatable into MJ.

But in terms of telling "does this clip look like WCS or like MJ?" - even if you only look above the waist, I think it's actually quite easy. I'd say the most obvious difference is that WCS moves use every beat, rather than MJ which only uses every other beat. At first glance, the clip might look like MJ, but listen to the beat of the music at the same time, and it's very different to what MJ would look like to the same music. The other two things I notice are more subtle, and there's some overlap between the styles, but WCS doesn't have the same 'bouncy' in-out rock-step in-between moves (though some MJ couples don't either), and it's more slotted than almost any MJ couple would dance.

So, am I right that I could walk through most of those routines, with the occasional bit of flash footwork, and still have it regarded as MJ?

There's a bit of overlap between the styles - the clips with Ben Morris mentioned here are towards the MJ end of the spectrum. If you look at say Brent and Kellese's US Open routine in 2003, it's much more blues than MJ - moreover, 90% of that routine is in the footwork - take that out and you'd be left with almost nothing.

What I would consider terribly sad if the amount of such footwork that was put in to make the routine eligible for disqualification as WCS was about the amount that made the routine look too good to be MJ.

And if MJ had half the footwork in it that WCS does, I expect we'd have some MJ couples still in SDF...

[bigdjiver]

Originally Posted by David Franklin

Depends what you mean - from your previous postings on similar topics I am honestly pressed to think of anything danced to 4/4 music that you wouldn't consider incorporatable into MJ.

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.

But in terms of telling "does this clip look like WCS or like MJ?" - even if you only look above the waist, I think it's actually quite easy. I'd say the most obvious difference is that WCS moves use every beat, rather than MJ which only uses every other beat.

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 ...

At first glance, the clip might look like MJ, but listen to the beat of the music at the same time, and it's very different to what MJ would look like to the same music. The other two things I notice are more subtle, and there's some overlap between the styles, but WCS doesn't have the same 'bouncy' in-out rock-step in-between moves (though some MJ couples don't either), and it's more slotted than almost any MJ couple would dance.

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.

There's a bit of overlap between the styles - ...

That is the second time that you have used that phrase, and my point - where is the exact boundary? Even the WCS community has some dispute over what is and what is not WCS, and the consensus has changed with time.

I am moving towards dance styles = mountains
WCS = Everest?
MJ = Himalayas?
Ceroc classes = Foothills?

...the clips with Ben Morris mentioned here are towards the MJ end of the spectrum. If you look at say Brent and Kellese's US Open routine in 2003, it's much more blues than MJ - moreover, 90% of that routine is in the footwork - take that out and you'd be left with almost nothing.

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?

And if MJ had half the footwork in it that WCS does, I expect we'd have some MJ couples still in SDF...

You are talking to someone still considering therapy after a lesson incorporating Syncopated Butterfly kicks and a Cha-Cha move.

Thanks for the detailed reply

[David Franklin]

Just thought of something else vaguely SDF related. The BBC Website (http://www.bbc.co.uk/strictlydancefe...19/18705.shtml) has a clip of the hustle. To me, that clip is virtually indistinguishable from MJ.

[From my very limited knowledge of hustle, that clip isn't exactly 'classic' hustle - it's too strongly phrased (one way I recognize hustle music is "if I can't tell which beat is the '1', it might be hustle"!). I think the phrasing of the music in the BBC clip makes the dancing a little less smooth and continuous than a hustle should be. But to be honest, most hustle looks pretty like MJ to me].

(Awaits long explanation from DavidB which shows I don't know nearly enough about hustle to be making such comments!).

[bigdjiver]

and the repmeister stopped me giving David Franklin some small reward for his valued efforts to educate me.

[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.

[DavidB]

Originally Posted by David Franklin

Just thought of something else vaguely SDF related. The BBC Website (http://www.bbc.co.uk/strictlydancefe...19/18705.shtml) has a clip of the hustle. To me, that clip is virtually indistinguishable from MJ.

[From my very limited knowledge of hustle, that clip isn't exactly 'classic' hustle - it's too strongly phrased (one way I recognize hustle music is "if I can't tell which beat is the '1', it might be hustle"!). I think the phrasing of the music in the BBC clip makes the dancing a little less smooth and continuous than a hustle should be. But to be honest, most hustle looks pretty like MJ to me].

I can't see that clip properly at work. It gets reduced to one frame a second. I could hear the description though. I don't know where they got the connection between Hustle and Swing, because Hustle is directly descended from Salsa.

It is going to be interesting to see who teaches it, and what they teach. I don't watch any of the BBC3 programs - do they show the dancers actually learning the dance?

[David Franklin]

Almost playing devil's advocate with myself here, as I feel I've fallen into the "polarized opinions" trap that's befallen the forum recently.

Contrary to what you might think, MJ is my "first love", and I can't see me switching whole-heartedly to WCS. I think it is easier to get started in MJ, and from what I've seen in the states, I think most WCS teachers would be thrilled to get the kind of numbers MJ venues get.

WCS has evolved a lot over the last 20 years, and I think MJ is doing the same. I think if we are going to get to the level of the top US dancers, it is more likely to come from an evolving MJ scene than from a wholesale move to WCS, though it's always easier to copy and adapt than start from scratch, so I see WCS being a major influence.

I don't believe it's possible for either dance to be truely successful across the Atlantic. In other words, WCS isn't going to overtake MJ here, and MJ isn't going to be a major force in the US. Just too much established mind-share.

Although I see a lot of parallels between MJ and WCS evolution, one thing that does worry me is the different attitudes towards 'the pursuit of excellence', and how that affects people's learning. Wanting to "be the best" is far more acceptible in the US; I wouldn't say cries of "elitism" are unknown, but it's not like it is here. Unfortunately, I think the attitudes here are counterproductive - not just for the best dancers, but for most everyone else as well.

As DavidB said, competitive MJ is almost becoming a different dance form, bearing increasingly little resemblence to what people get taught at a typical venue. Rather than all evolving together, we're ending up with a split and a real, genuine elite, who go to specialist classes and workshops and learn "secrets" that don't get disseminated. I'm not sure how this will pan out - I don't know how well Ceroc is doing with teaching things like frame and connection these days - and without those basics, any advanced ideas are very hard indeed.

[David Franklin]

Originally Posted by DavidB

I can't see that clip properly at work. It gets reduced to one frame a second.

RealPlayer is great, isn't it? I'm particularly glad it always streams the data, rather than allowing me to download the whole clip and watch it at a sensible frame rate.

It is going to be interesting to see who teaches it, and what they teach. I don't watch any of the BBC3 programs - do they show the dancers actually learning the dance?

I don't have BBC3 either, but the BBC website now has a clip showing 3 of the couples learning the tango, so I guess we'll get one for hustle too.