The Limitations of Modern Jive

[Gus]

{ODA Mode ON}
Is there a limit to how far we can develop MJ. Got to thinking about this after the thread about trying to Ceroc to Hip Hop music. I'd been working on some moves and thought I was getting somewhere ... then I tried doing them with a partner and realised the fundamental flaw. If you take the point that two of the fundamentals of MJ are that;

1. it is a led dance
2. there is no/limited footwork

then there is very little hip hop work that can be incorporated. The need is to be able to change beat interpretation rapidly (half beat, std beat, double beat). there is also a need to fit in footwork patters, lunges, cross steps and sinking moves ... and that’s just on the very simple stuff that I know. How do you lead a partner into this?

Although we feely pretty good about assimilating moves from Salsa, Tango etc ... the moves that we do assimilate can end up being a pale imitation of their former selves. The 'no footwork' of MJ is a major factor in making the dance easy to learn ... it is also a major limitation to the dance becoming more complex. At some point the dance stops being MJ and then becomes something else.
{ODA Mode OFF}

[RobC]

I think people get too hung up on :

Originally Posted by Gus

• there is no/limited footwork

A better way of saying it would be to add a qualifier, such as "at a beginner level".

I mean, of course there is footwork in MJ. I seem to spend half the beginners class and most of the repeat beginners class trying to persuade the guys to move their feet and do something other than stand rooted to one spot on the floor. It's just that we don't try to over complicate things for beginners by telling them how to move their feet when most of the time all we want them to do is what comes / feels natural.

At a higher level there is plenty of footwork to learn. When doing a drop or seducer for example, if the ladies aren't taught where to place their feet to hold their own weight, and the guys aren't taught how to position their feet to give a stable base, everyone would end up in a heap on the floor

As to whether it is leadable, have you ever been to / seen one of the Hip Hop Jive workshops done by the one and only Dan-the-Man Baines and Sue (is it Freedman ?) ? They have done several at MJC's over previous years and I'm sure they will have done similar classes elsewhere as well. Almost anything is leadable - footwork, tempo changes etc, you just need to have the right 'connection' between you and your partner, and sadly this is often what is lacking in MJ
If you take a look at WCS as a close cousin to MJ, the ladies are taught from the word go that they follow their right hand. If the guy moves the hand side to side, it should make the ladies 'twist' on the spot. If the hand is moved forwards or backwards, the guys can make the ladies take a step, (and taking it to extremes I guess lifting the hand could cause a hop/jump ?) If you apply this connection to you Hip Hop/MJ dancing, you should find that you can lead most of what you want to do - the rest may fall into the 'choreographed move' category.

[ChrisA]

Originally Posted by RobC

Almost anything is leadable - footwork, tempo changes etc, you just need to have the right 'connection' between you and your partner, and sadly this is often what is lacking in MJ

.......

If there's one thing I've learned during the painful process of converting my leading ability from 'completely nonexistent' to 'occasionally not too dreadful on a good day' it's that far more is leadable than I used to imagine.

Mostly these days I assume that things are leadable, just that I can't lead them yet. I've not been proved wrong yet.

Chris

[Gus]

Originally Posted by ChrisA

Mostly these days I assume that things are leadable, just that I can't lead them yet. I've not been proved wrong yet.

Not sure if I agree. If you are using techniques and moves from solo dance forms (e.g. Hip Hop, Street Jazz) the ability to lead accurately and quickly enough may simply not exist. The alternative is to end up with a series of choreographed sequences that will have to have a series of signals.

[ChrisA]

Originally Posted by Gus

Not sure if I agree. If you are using techniques and moves from solo dance forms (e.g. Hip Hop, Street Jazz) the ability to lead accurately and quickly enough may simply not exist. The alternative is to end up with a series of choreographed sequences that will have to have a series of signals.

Well, I did say "mostly", and I did say "assume" - and having watched people like Nigel and Amir leading people I've danced with (and whose dancing I therefore know), it's clear to me that I am barely more than an embryo as a leader.

When I can lead the way they can, maybe I'll start worrying about learning to lead the nuances of the solo dance forms

Chris

[bigdjiver]

I think the MJ leader has considerable freedom whilst the follower is in freeze mode, or in a double spin.

Also the leader could say something like take 8 (or 12, 16 or whatever) and both go into independent moves for that many beats.

When incorporating the more individualistic styles it is probably better to have some signal for swapping the lead.

All theory, I have not tried any of the above.

[MartinHarper]

Hmm... I can lead the occasional piece of footwork to JazzJive followers, with varying degrees of success. My inabiliity to do the same in Ceroc resulted in my [url=http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3330 first post] on the forum...

Trying to figure out why.... JazzJive has a small amount of standardised footwork. Eg: prior to a return, a JazzJive partner will be stepping back right behind left. Also, we get taught a few specific footwork patterns in JazzJive, such as the Charleston, and the six beat break. Finally, the "frame" in JazzJive tends to extend down to the knees, whereas in Ceroc it tends to stop at the waist. Your mileage may vary.

I very occasionally experiment on this during the "warmup" bit in class where everyone steps in and out to music. I try to lead the lady to step back on one foot or the other. Nothing remotely fancy: just a simple question of left foot back vs right foot back. So far it's been an unqualified failure, but I live in hope...

As a result of all that, my current thoughts are that I'll manage my own footwork, and leave my partner to manage hers. I'll try to do something with my feet that doesn't interfere with the lead, and reflects the music. If my partner does the same, then we'll gell nicely just because we're dancing with the same music.

[Gadget]

Originally Posted by Gus

Is there a limit to how far we can develop MJ.

I think the question is more Is there a limit to what you can lead the lady to do?
As such, yes; however there should be ways arround most obsticals:
The main obstical intimated was the ability to lead the lady's footwork - I think that one way to overcome this would be to incorporate verbal instructions just before the lead. ("slide", "lunge", "lean", "cross-step") But you have to make sure that the lady understands what you are trying to do first.
Another way to lead moves would be to start leading a repeat pattern with both hands, or/and hands on shoulders guiding, then removing the main physical lead to leave only the visual one. {You taught a shoulder dip thingie at a workshop of yours I went to that used the same principles.} But this is not footwork.

The other obstical is leading timing changes - I would think that it should be fairly simple to send the signals, but I think that it would require a lady beyond "beginner" status to pick them up; I can lead a stop, I can lead to double time, I can lead half time. There was a workshop by Marc intruducing some "funky" moves & styleing I atended - What I took from that was the "stop-frame" motion that could be led; very hard to follow though (I assume)

Another lead perhaps could be the change in shoulder level - the lady should take cues from the lead's movements - most of the time this involves watching for lateral movement and rotation; perhaps vertical movement could be used as a visual lead?

The 'no footwork' of MJ is a major factor in making the dance easy to learn ... it is also a major limitation to the dance becoming more complex. At some point the dance stops being MJ and then becomes something else.

True, but in the same way as "dips" and "seducers" require the lady to know the preperation signals and positioning required to take her own weight, couldn't "Hip-Hop" styling be another string to the bow? Teach how to lead the changes in tempo, tricks to get the ladies to match your footwork, body motion and styleing.


MJ is what it is because you can take anyone and lead them through it. Arials and drops may be led, but it requires specialist knowledge. Why can't some "hip-hop" be led with specialist knowledge? Is there a comparison to be made?

[MartinHarper]

The need is to be able to change beat interpretation rapidly (half beat, std beat, double beat)

Curiosity... how rapidly? Are we talking about doing a first move (say) and changing beat interpretation two or three times during the same move?

[Gus]

Originally Posted by MartinHarper

Curiosity... how rapidly? Are we talking about doing a first move (say) and changing beat interpretation two or three times during the same move?

If the music defined such a beat change ... why not. the first move has the possibility of being a complex and monderfully interpretative moves (wasted on beginners ). The concept of using HipHop and other similar types of music is that is forces dancers to dance to the music rather than just do moves ..... and I'm NOT getting into that bun-fight again ... I got flamed enough the last time I raised that concept

[Sheepman]

Originally Posted by Gus

How do you lead a partner into this?
The 'no footwork' of MJ is a major factor in making the dance easy to learn ... it is also a major limitation to the dance becoming more complex. At some point the dance stops being MJ and then becomes something else.

I'm with Rob on the "no/limited footwork" thing. Maybe it comes down to the definition (which I have previously given up on), of modern jive. I would describe what I do as mostly modern jive, but as well as moves borrowed from salsa and tango, I do moves from swing dances, so there is footwork, most of which is lead, OK my partner has to know my repertoire ( ) well, to be able to follow, so as to be able to pick up the subtleties of the lead, but that would be the case if I was doing those same patterns within those swing dances.
Just a few months ago I probably would have agreed with Gus, but with Amir's and David & Lily's classes, the revelations from Johnny at Beach Boogie, (taught as beginners Lindyhop), and Paul Warden's lessons, I realise my leading is now maybe just beyond the beginners level. (Last Friday we had no complete beginners at Paul's beginners lesson, so the lesson was about the fundamentals of technique for leading footwork )
I think most MJ lessons will be stuck with the limitations, because you have to learn a dance where the footwork is more important in order to have time to spend learning the intricacies. The vast majority of dancers will not be interested in spending the time and effort required, so if any definition of MJ was to include "a dance at which most people can reach an advanced level by dancing a couple of times a week for a few years" then yes, Gus is right, MJ does have such limitations. Personally I don't think any definition should be related to how easy (or difficult) it is to do.

Greg

[MartinHarper]

Originally Posted by Gus

How do you lead a partner into {footwork patterns}

Just come back from a JazzJive class that used another option: call and response. Set up some repeating pattern (we were doing a side by side Charleston, but I expect it could equally be an in-and-out). Guy does some fancy footwork pattern, but only from the waist down: he keeps the lead going for the girl to carry on as before. The girl watches the guy and carries on as normal the first time. Then, the second time through the girl performs the mirror of what the guy did last time. Cool folk will presumably do this sort of thing during the call and response section of a song like Minnie the Moocher...

[Graham W]

People seem to freely incorp elements from tango, swing , etc, etc. so I think there are still wider possibilities for MJ

G

Bit of call & response potential 2 minutes into, ahem, the Bongo Song , too :-)

[Ste]

Haven't read all the posts but I think that Gus is essentially right.

I spoke to a top modern jiver and he said that what we do is child's play compared with ballroom. Or words to that effect.

When I describe modern jive to people I describe it as dancing for people who can't dance. What I mean is that anyone can do it.But the very thing that turned us on to it in the first place i.e. that it is so easy to pick up is it's limiting factor..because it doesn't involve the same physical disciplined body structure and therefore will not be as visually interesting.

One thing that i found quite intresting was that I went to a wedding a couple of years ago and James Cronin and Janie were there. I don't think I had ever seen them dance before and it was a privilge to see them dance. The way they danced was almost a ballroom looking version of Ceroc........quite professional looking and not sloppy like a lot of Ceroc. Maybe that's the way that they saw modern jive but as we have got it second hand we probably can't get that structural discipline that they had even though I don't think they danced so much together anymore.

I think that it is interesting that Mike Ellard is now the leader of Ceroc. He is an amazing dancer and ballroom trained and Linda is one of my top dance heroes as well. She is unbelievable in full flight again I think because of her ballroom training. ( I now go to her old ballroom school!!!And Aunty Joan remembers her !). I think that they will bring a flavour of discipline to Ceroc.

I showed some Ceroc video to a friend and i think her comments were quite revealing. As I recall, she said she thought that it was not nearly as good as ballroom!!!

But the plus factor is that it potentially can still evolve. It after all is partner dancing and to the extent that people put into it new moves and footwork then it has a chance of appealing as a serious art form. I think it would be great to see a new breed of Ceroc to emerge say with proper footwork like salsa or ballroom.

But the great thing about modern jive is that it is an open lidded tin. For example because of the way that i conceive of what looks good in dancing, I would love to compete with a trained ballroom dancer. If I found one such person ( like Debstar!) then we could do our own ballroom type moves and blend them into the looser modern jive. If more people did that, then the look of modern jive would change and people would start to adopt and may be even take that structured look even further.

[Lounge Lizard]

what limitations
Firstly with my dancers hat on...
This is an easy to learn dance, very friendly atmosphere and although there are many different organisations teaching their own format I as a dancer can go to any venue in the country join in and enjoy.
It has radiccaly changed my social (and work) life in a way no other dance style could I have friends throughout Uk & beyond as aresult of MJ

Now with my Teachers hat on
I am an average dancer with an inventive imagination, I can develop create and explore new moves and ideas either within or outside the MJ framework, I can then teach them to a very willing and friendly crowd who enjoy the structure of the move the concept behind the idea and are not to bothered if my body posture footwork or arm position is not quite correct.

Dj Hat now on
I can play music from Frank Sinatra to Goldfrapp, I can cover about 10 different genres of music (pop, Dance, Hip hop, Jazz, swing, big Band, latin etc etc.) and the dance floor will fill up with every track.
although we are all dancing the same style and simmilar moves you would never know it by just watching.

Take a step outside the MJ envelope
We can take our dance style to almost any function/night out/dance walk onto a dance floor do our stuff,, have fun and probably wow the rest of the room.

Now tango ballroom Lindy Salsa etc. may be harder to learn, they may be more precise, they may even look better (but only at the highest standard - an average MJ'er looks a whole lot better than an average Tango dancer IMHO) But Tango etc. is only danced at limited specialist venues within the Uk and Ballroom is very much the domain of the blue rinse brigade (I live in Eastbourne remember!!!)

Where do we go with MJ...we dont need to go anywhere, our desire to learn more will always be prresent but the majority want to learn more dance styles then bring them into the Mj arena.

Finaly, IMHO the limitations of Modern jive....are equal to the limitations of your imagination
Peter Phillips

[foxylady]

Originally Posted by Lounge Lizard

what limitations
Firstly with my dancers hat on...

Now with my Teachers hat on
Dj Hat now on

Take a step outside the MJ envelope

There is no definition of MJ. MJ can be whatever you want it to be. It has the advantage of being almost idiot proof, whilst at the same time being a dance in which great levels of skill can be achieved !

I have done Lindy (which is a great social dance, but limited to a certain genre of music in the main), I have done the texas two step (to cowboy music), I salsa, and I am learning rhumba, cha cha, quickstep, samba etc... which I have to say are great fun...

However aside from Lindy (and certain types of salsa), all the other dance forms I have learnt are very presciptive. Allow little or no imagination on the part of the follower or leader, allow for no self expression, and are midbendingly awful when done badly......

MJ has flexibilty. It can be sublime, it can be ridiculous, it can play with the music, it can bounce following the music on a precise beat... It can be done badly but with great gusto, and such enjoyment that it matters not, and it can be done (lead/followed) in a way that knocks your socks off.....

Limitations ! bah !! As a social dance there is nothing to beat it....


FL

[under par]

Originally Posted by foxylady

MJ has flexibilty. It can be sublime, it can be ridiculous, it can play with the music, it can bounce following the music on a precise beat... It can be done badly but with great gusto, and such enjoyment that it matters not, and it can be done (lead/followed) in a way that knocks your socks off.....

Limitations ! bah !! As a social dance there is nothing to beat it....


FL

Well said !!!!. L/L and your views concur with mine.

A great form of dancing open to all levels, all people and has many additional styles and influences.

[Gadget]

{Sorry - long post...}

Originally Posted by Ste

I spoke to a top modern jiver and he said that what we do is child's play compared with ballroom. Or words to that effect.

In what terms? To learn? yes. To do well? no.
Structured dancing (like ballroom) have specific steps and patterns that must be preformed in that order to that pattern. There is very little flexability in what you can and can't do. Posture, movement, timeing expressions, etc. are all trained in: the only real "lead" is going into a specific pattern - the man or lady can go through the steps without the other one! where is the lead in that?

MJ is based about the concept of the man leading the lady and interperating the music: No patterns. No steps. No 'calling' signals.

A lady who can follow every nuance a man leads, and improvise in any gaps he gives her. A man who can listen to every layer of music and convert it into motion to give it to the lady. If these two fictional people meet for the first time, then they will dance a dance to put every structured dance to shame. Because they can dance to the music. They don't need to know their partner, have danced with them before, know any special moves or signals - they can just feel the music and dance.

When I describe modern jive to people I describe it as dancing for people who can't dance. What I mean is that anyone can do it.But the very thing that turned us on to it in the first place i.e. that it is so easy to pick up is it's limiting factor..because it doesn't involve the same physical disciplined body structure and therefore will not be as visually interesting.

"not as visually interesting?? Horses for courses. I see MJ is the "natural" garden, while ballroom etc. are the victorian structured gardens. One can appreciate the lines, the symetry, the work that went into creating a ballroom dance. But the MJ dance windes here and there, organic and natural with different wonders on each turning. The paths walked are seen only to the couple dancing - no linear brick path and signs saying "keep off the grass".

The "limits" that people see are when they find a place in the natural wilderness that they like and want to explore further - tailor it to meet what they think may be a nice place to visit. Wanting to do more, reach further, impose a bit of order, steal a flower from a structured garden and see how it fits in...

The way they danced was almost a ballroom looking version of Ceroc........quite professional looking and not sloppy like a lot of Ceroc.

Ceroc is only "sloppy" because men do not lead smoothly or crisply, and ladies compensate for this and follow their own ideas of what should be happening - two individuals dancing in response to each other. Good, but it could be two people in unity, moving with each other. What you were probably seeing was years of practice and discapline in repeating the same moves again and again identically. They know each other's repertoir and movements. That's what people practice together to acheive. Moving as one.
It gets less "sloppy" as the dancers improve and learn both how to follow properly and how to lead properly.

I showed some Ceroc video to a friend and i think her comments were quite revealing. As I recall, she said she thought that it was not nearly as good as ballroom!!!

I've got a friend who has done a bit of MJ, seen it done live by very good dancers, and she prefers moshing at a rock club. This is just as revealing.

But the plus factor is that it potentially can still evolve. It after all is partner dancing and to the extent that people put into it new moves and footwork then it has a chance of appealing as a serious art form.

OK, so what is "a serious art form"?
'Art' is an expression of yourself - puting forward your vision of something that emotes you. Music in the case of MJ. This 'art form' is movement. Specifically movement to a rhythmical beat using presubscribed or improvised movements and gestures. AKA Dance. Why should we want it to appeal as a serious anything? It's dance - it should be fun!

MJ Cannot 'evolve' with footwork:
You add salsa footwork, and you need to add salsa timeing: it becomes salsa.
You add swing footwork, you need to add swing timeing: it becomes swing.
You add hip-hop footwork, you... get the drift.

I think it would be great to see a new breed of Ceroc to emerge say with proper footwork like salsa or ballroom.

:eugh:!! Go do West Coast Swing.

... because of the way that i conceive of what looks good in dancing,...

Despite how this may read, I am not having go at your opinions of what looks good in dancing; just that you think MJ should bend towards this direction. A nice spot in the forest perhaps, but there are other nice spots that deserve visiting now and again.

If more people did that, then the look of modern jive would change and people would start to adopt and may be even take that structured look even further.

It has/does happen. The main reason that you like the look of "classically trained" dancers is due to the hard work they put in learning how to spin properly and learning about their own bodys/balance. A martial artist has this, but lacks the spinning; you will probably find that you like a lot of their dance too.
People come from within these structured gardens and bring with them some ideas and plants that seed into the wild of MJ. Others catch a vision of another structured garden from the wilderness and head towards that. MJ is not a dance style: it's just a lable we choose to stick on "dancing with a partner".
Ceroc is a dance style (I used to think that ceroc was MJ) It is an introduction to the wilderness: It shows you some nice trees and plants; a few paths leading between them and if you pay attention, it shows you how to make your own paths and find your own way about the wilds. Workshops demonstrate some exotic life that can be visited, new ways to find a path, smoother ways of passing through the forest and how to move without leaving tracks.

If people devoted as much time, resources and energy into MJ as you see others devote to ballroom, ballet, tap or even highland, then I think you would notice the qulity improving