So what exactly IS West Coast Swing? (WCS)

[Gadget]

I've heard people mention it all the time. Some realy good dancers dance it. Personally, I've never had the opportunity to learn or even watch it: Someone please explain in little words, drawing a comparison to MJ (which I do know), what makes WCS WCS.

{... and not just a nice form of MJ?}

[Lynn]

As an absolute beginner with 2 classes under my belt, I'm not very qualified to answer and will leave it to others with much more technical knowledge.

But I can suggest a clip - watch Jordan and Tatiana in action - http://www.helenanderic.com/video_wcs.html

Might give you some idea of what it looks like.

[MartinHarper]

Well, for "what makes WCS WCS", I'd suggest looking at the "Jack and Jill" and "Strictly Swing" stuff, and steer clear of the "Classic Division" clips. Things to look for:

* The Slot
* Female sabotage
* Men in shirts and tight black trousers

[Northants Girly]

Originally Posted by MartinHarper

Well, for "what makes WCS WCS", I'd suggest looking at the "Jack and Jill" and "Strictly Swing" stuff, and steer clear of the "Classic Division" clips. Things to look for:

* The Slot
* Female sabotage
* Men in shirts and tight black trousers

Sounds kinda kinky

[Minnie M]

Originally Posted by MartinHarper

Well, for "what makes WCS WCS", I'd suggest looking..../snip/...
* Female sabotage
* Men in shirts and tight black trousers

[Whitebeard]

Originally Posted by Martin Harper

Things to look for:

* The Slot
* Female sabotage
* Men in shirts and tight black trousers

I liked the complete absence of bounce in the clips I saw, but aren't the feet 'busy' looking.

[bigdjiver]

Originally Posted by Whitebeard

I liked the complete absence of bounce in the clips I saw, but aren't the feet 'busy' looking.

First step in converting an MJ dancer - turn the under floor heating to "Fry".

[David Franklin]

Originally Posted by Whitebeard

I liked the complete absence of bounce in the clips I saw, but aren't the feet 'busy' looking.

Not sure who you looked at, but Brent and Kellese are usually worth watching if you're after fancy footwork.

[Gadget]

Been reading some of the posts on the forum about WCS (From some of the best, most admired and respected dancers - who I think know what they are talking about)

The concensus seems to be that...

• it's harder to learn than MJ (well duh! - MJ is based on being easy to learn)
  
  
• Even if you are competent at MJ, starting it still learning from scratch and very difficult. (I find it hard to believe that what I've learned in terms of balance, connection, body postitoining and movement wouldn't translate well.)
  
  
• It can be danced to a broader range of music. (This I find hard to tally with the threads asking for decent WCS tracks, and I doubt that there are any tracks you could WCS to that I couldn't MJ to.)
  
  
• It's based on (footwork) patterns. (I mean that the 'basics' are based arround patterns; just like the basics of MJ are based around "core" moves)
  
  
• It is more 'stylish' than MJ. (Why? I simply don't get how more style can be put into WCS than into MJ. OK, the classes/form may encourage 'style' as soon as the basics are learned. I could get that since patterns are involved, once the pattern is learned more 'brain space' could be used to focus on other things {inc style}, but I simply don't buy that a MJ dance couldn't be as stylish/more so than a WCS one.)
  
  
• It's smoother than MJ. (Basic moves, joined together in basic ways within MJ are not very stylish. The common 'bounce' of marking the beat with hands in MJ tends ony to be corrected once dancers are competent. So at a basic level, I would conceed that MJ could be seen as 'lumpy'. However I have seen some very smooth MJ dancers and some very smooth MJ moves.)
  
  
• Ladys can "suggest" which pattern with more freedom than they can hi-jack in MJ (I think that it probably comes down to this pattern thing again - if you both know a pattern, what does it matter who initiates it? Can't really be done in MJ because you don't both know what's hapening in the next few beats - only the leader does {alledgedly })

I don't mind if folk keep saying "WCS is brilliant: so smooth and stylish with great music!".
But it irks me because they don't: they say "WCS is brilliant: so much smoother than MJ, so much more stylish and the music is much better than in MJ" From everything I've seen and read, it looks like a "grass is always greener" statement. (Tieing in with the "Proper dance school teachers" Vs "Ceroc teachers" thread)

I've watched the clips. The moves seem no different from any that I would see in a MJ class. The slick execution comes from skills that would apply to any dance style: balance, spacial positioning, awareness of your partner and leading/following. The style could be learned from anywhere and applied into MJ just as well as WCS.

I don't know enough about the style to criticise it, but I know I am a competent MJ dancer and I have only scratched the surface of where MJ can go. There are no limits. When I see MJ people saying "wow: WCS" I think Why wow? What are they doing that you can't? Why can't you?.

[Paul F]

Originally Posted by Gadget

I've heard people mention it all the time. Some realy good dancers dance it. Personally, I've never had the opportunity to learn or even watch it: Someone please explain in little words, drawing a comparison to MJ (which I do know), what makes WCS WCS.

{... and not just a nice form of MJ?}

Funny you should ask that.

About 10 hours ago I honestly thought I knew what WCS was.

3 hours with a teacher from over the pond and Im not too sure now

Far to tired to try and give a lengthy opinion on what it is so I will just say that I find it to be a style that redifines the notion of 'give and take'.
Apologies for the cryptic nature of that statement but Im off to bed and thats the best I can come up with

[El Salsero Gringo]

Originally Posted by Gadget

Been reading some of the posts on the forum about WCS (From some of the best, most admired and respected dancers - who I think know what they are talking about)

I'm not one of them and I've done only a few weeks of WCS but....

Originally Posted by Gadget

The concensus seems to be that...

• it's harder to learn than MJ (well duh! - MJ is based on being easy to learn)

• Yes

  Originally Posted by Gadget

  
  

  Even if you are competent at MJ, starting it still learning from scratch and very difficult. (I find it hard to believe that what I've learned in terms of balance, connection, body postitoining and movement wouldn't translate well.)

  It wouldn't really translate. You have the right vocabulary, but what you do with your body appears to be much more critical in WCS.

  Originally Posted by Gadget

  
  

  It can be danced to a broader range of music. (This I find hard to tally with the threads asking for decent WCS tracks, and I doubt that there are any tracks you could WCS to that I couldn't MJ to.)

  I don't think it can, unless perhaps you're a pro. It's nicest with tracks that turn out to be a bit too slow to comfortably MJ to.

  Originally Posted by Gadget

  
  

  It's based on (footwork) patterns. (I mean that the 'basics' are based arround patterns; just like the basics of MJ are based around "core" moves)

  Not really. It's based around core moves (sugar push, left/right-side pass, whip ...), just like MJ - only there are footwork patterns in all the core moves.
  

  Originally Posted by Gadget

  It is more 'stylish' than MJ. (Why? I simply don't get how more style can be put into WCS than into MJ. OK, the classes/form may encourage 'style' as soon as the basics are learned. I could get that since patterns are involved, once the pattern is learned more 'brain space' could be used to focus on other things {inc style}, but I simply don't buy that a MJ dance couldn't be as stylish/more so than a WCS one.)

  They're both equally unstylish when they're not done properly. When they're both done at the highest level, you'd have to make up your own mind.

  Originally Posted by Gadget

  
  

  It's smoother than MJ. (Basic moves, joined together in basic ways within MJ are not very stylish. The common 'bounce' of marking the beat with hands in MJ tends ony to be corrected once dancers are competent. So at a basic level, I would conceed that MJ could be seen as 'lumpy'. However I have seen some very smooth MJ dancers and some very smooth MJ moves.)

  Smoothness is built into WCS right from the word go, in a way it just isn't with MJ.

  Originally Posted by Gadget

  
  

  Ladys can "suggest" which pattern with more freedom than they can hi-jack in MJ (I think that it probably comes down to this pattern thing again - if you both know a pattern, what does it matter who initiates it? Can't really be done in MJ because you don't both know what's hapening in the next few beats - only the leader does {alledgedly })

The lady gets a strong 'physical lead' (in terms of the direction you're asking her to travel) - on two beats: the one, and the four - for a six-count move (according to Cat.) There's more room for the lady to throw in styling because she isn't being 'shepherded' through every beat and every step.

Originally Posted by Gadget

I don't mind if folk keep saying "WCS is brilliant: so smooth and stylish with great music!".
But it irks me because they don't: they say "WCS is brilliant: so much smoother than MJ, so much more stylish and the music is much better than in MJ" From everything I've seen and read, it looks like a "grass is always greener" statement. (Tieing in with the "Proper dance school teachers" Vs "Ceroc teachers" thread)

I've watched the clips. The moves seem no different from any that I would see in a MJ class. The slick execution comes from skills that would apply to any dance style: balance, spacial positioning, awareness of your partner and leading/following. The style could be learned from anywhere and applied into MJ just as well as WCS.

They look the same, but they feel very very different. I've tried putting WCS moves into MJ; it doesn't work very well. Those slick moves do just work more slickly with WCS footwork, and WCS lead/follow.

Originally Posted by Gadget

I don't know enough about the style to criticise it, but I know I am a competent MJ dancer and I have only scratched the surface of where MJ can go. There are no limits. When I see MJ people saying "wow: WCS" I think Why wow? What are they doing that you can't? Why can't you?.

Try it, and see if you can answer your own question!

[MartinHarper]

Originally Posted by El Salsero Gringo

The lady gets a strong 'physical lead' - on two beats: the one, and the four [...] There's more room for the lady to throw in styling.

Whereas in MJ, the lead is on the 1, the 3, and 5 in a six beat move, and the typical bpm is higher. Ok, I can see that there's a difference there.

Is there a cultural aspect too? If followers are used to sabotaging and throwing in heavy styling, and leaders are used to dealing with that, then that should be self-reinforcing, just as the lack of sabotage and heavy female styling in MJ is self-reinforcing.

[DavidB]

Bugger! You just spend 30 minutes writing a post, only to find someone else types quicker! 4 hooves must be better than 2 fingers}

Originally Posted by Gadget

it's harder to learn than MJ

Yup

Even if you are competent at MJ, starting it still learning from scratch and very difficult. (I find it hard to believe that what I've learned in terms of balance, connection, body postitoining and movement wouldn't translate well.)

Yup. But if your definition of competency in MJ includes "balance, connection, body postitioning and movement", then there aren't many competent MJ dancers

It can be danced to a broader range of music.

No. It is danced to a different range of music, and there is some overlap between slower MJ music and faster WCS music.

I doubt that there are any tracks you could WCS to that I couldn't MJ to.)

I use 'Emotion' by Destiny's Child for teaching WCS. It is 80bpm, and I wouldn't like to MJ to it.
Similarly I've done MJ to Zoot Suit Riot, and wouldn't like to WCS to it.

Originally Posted by Gadget

It's based on (footwork) patterns.

It is based on a handful of patterns that show how the bodies interact. It is taught with footwork. There is a subtle difference.

Originally Posted by Gadget

It is more 'stylish' than MJ. (Why? I simply don't get how more style can be put into WCS than into MJ.)

There is no reason why one would be more stylish than the other. Ultimately you are still holding onto the same hand and leading the same type of movements.
However WCS has several advantages.
- The music is slower, so you have more time to think and react. It makes little difference when you know what to do, but it makes a big difference when learning.
- There is a natural pause at the end of each move, which automatically gives the dance more contrast. You can do this in MJ, but you have to actively do it.
- The standard footwork of WCS is a mixture of walks and triple steps. In MJ it is justs walks (even if you have never been taught footwork, that is what most people do.) It gives MJ a very 'flat' look in comparison.
- When people are taught footwork, they should also be taught how to move their feet. Very few MJ ladies move their feet well. Almost no MJ men do.

Originally Posted by Gadget

It's smoother than MJ.

You can do MJ just as smooth as WCS. However WCS is *taught* to be smooth, so more people end up doing it like that. MJ is not really taught to be done in any particular way.

Ladys can "suggest" which pattern with more freedom than they can hi-jack in MJ

It is easier to do in WCS, but it is certainly not impossible to do in MJ. There is a definite difference in expectation though. In MJ I'm surprised when the lady does something on top of the basic move I lead. In WCS I'm surprised when the lady doesn't.

I think that it probably comes down to this pattern thing again - if you both know a pattern, what does it matter who initiates it? Can't really be done in MJ because you don't both know what's hapening in the next few beats - only the leader does

No. In this respect both dances are identical. Both dances use the same basic principles of Lead & Follow, so the lady only knows the move after she has done it.

I don't mind if folk keep saying "WCS is brilliant: so smooth and stylish !". But it irks me because they don't: they say "WCS is brilliant: so much smoother than MJ, so much more stylish"

This is the difference between theory and in practice. In theory there should be no real difference. In practice there is a big difference - WCS dancers *are* smoother and more stylish. They are also fewer in number.

and the music is much better than in MJ

'better' is personal preference. Therefore everyone is right.

When I see MJ people saying "wow: WCS" I think "Why wow? What are they doing that you can't? Why can't you?"

They aren't doing anything in WCS you can't do in MJ. However they have teachers in WCS who can show them how to do it. There are no such teachers in MJ yet.

[Minnie M]

Open message to my personal UK WCS greats David & Lily B - please

The lady gets a strong 'physical lead' (in terms of the direction you're asking her to travel)

I unfortunately (due the distance & time available) have not attended any of Paul or Cat's classes, I have only learnt from the US pros and David & Lily Barker - however, have found a lot of the new leads very forceful (or loud as Sarah Van Drake said in her classes) to a point that it has confused my 'follow'

[El Salsero Gringo]

Originally Posted by Minnie M

Open message to my personal UK WCS greats David & Lily B - please



I unfortunately (due the distance & time available) have not attended any of Paul or Cat's classes, I have only learnt from the US pros and David & Lily Barker - however, have found a lot of the new leads very forceful (or loud as Sarah Van Drake said in her classes) to a point that it has confused my 'follow'

I was trying to find the right word. Strong meaning clear and with direction, not yank-your-arm-off strong. It isn't true that the lady isn't lead on any of the other beats, but on those two beats you're establishing the direction up and down the slot. (so I'm told.)

If the lead's too 'loud', might be because some of the ladies in the classes are 'deaf'?

[David Franklin]

Originally Posted by Gadget

Even if you are competent at MJ, starting it still learning from scratch and very difficult. (I find it hard to believe that what I've learned in terms of balance, connection, body postitoining and movement wouldn't translate well.)

Originally Posted by DavidB

Yup. But if your definition of competency in MJ includes "balance, connection, body postitioning and movement", then there aren't many competent MJ dancers

I do find the MJ "instincts" don't translate across well to WCS. In other words, unless I'm very in a WCS 'groove', if something goes a little wrong and I try to improvise, or I try to mix things up, what would have worked in MJ just causes confusion in WCS. Not that I'm a good, or even intermediate WCS dancer, but I'm a lot better at it than Salsa. But I can do the MJ->Salsa bodging better than MJ->WCS.

Originally Posted by DavidB

I use 'Emotion' by Destiny's Child for teaching WCS. It is 80bpm, and I wouldn't like to MJ to it.
Similarly I've done MJ to Zoot Suit Riot, and wouldn't like to WCS to it.

You're not going to tell me you like to MJ to Zoot Suit Riot, are you? Surely you'd go for that other alternative you mentioned, the one involving a bar and alcohol?

There is no reason why one would be more stylish than the other. Ultimately you are still holding onto the same hand and leading the same type of movements.
However WCS has several advantages. ~advantages snipped~

In addition to those, it seems to me that WCS dividing time up into smaller intervals makes it naturally smoother. Teaching MJ only with every other count, and having people learn to "halt" at each MJ-count doesn't exactly help smoothness. (Yes, you could dance/teach MJ with actions on the half-counts, but that seems a very radical change while still calling it MJ).

This is the difference between theory and in practice. In theory there should be no real difference. In practice there is a big difference - WCS dancers *are* smoother and more stylish. They are also fewer in number.

In the couple of times I've been over to the USA, I was unable to decide how much the apparent difference in standard for the "average" dancer was better teaching etc. v.s. all the mediocre dancers having dropped out. I don't think it's entirely due to the dropout rate, but I bet it's a significant factor.