Dance Theory in Ceroc?

[Gladrags]

I had a recent discussion with a WCS dancer who implied that by doing a "footworked" dance, you learn so much more about the theory of partner dance, and this makes you a better Modern Jiver?

Obviously there are examples of people who become high level dancers in jive, both with and without pure dance theory, but how useful is it? One point of view is perhaps that a pure dance theorist would not take up MJ due to the lack of footwork?

Is there a place for a theory lessons, in much the same way that Ballroom professionals do lectures (although I understand there is also an element of practice in this)?

[David Bailey]

I had a recent discussion with a WCS dancer who implied that by doing a "footworked" dance, you learn so much more about the theory of partner dance, and this makes you a better Modern Jiver?

I think most people would agree that doing a variety of dance disciplines will help your general dancing, because it'll increase your knowledge of and practice of different styles. And since MJ is quite close to "general dancing", in that it's adaptable and flexible, then lots of stuff you learn from other areas can be imported into MJ.

But reading very hard between the lines, there's an implication that WCS is a "better" dance than MJ. Uh-huh...

Is there a place for a theory lessons, in much the same way that Ballroom professionals do lectures (although I understand there is also an element of practice in this)?

Proper dance degrees and qualifications are (I believe) very much academic-oriented; you cover anatomy, music, study, research, you name it - oh, and you do a bit of dancing. You can do graduate and post-graduate courses in dance (e.g. at the Royal Academy of Dance).

But - so what? I'd be amazed if a dance like WCS covers dance theory in any detail - maybe a little more than MJ, but it's like comparing a teaspoons' worth of a lake to a tablespoons' worth. The rest of the lake is still pretty big.

If you want to learn dance theory, don't do classes in a particular dance style - that's not what they're teaching. Go on a theory course.

Having said that, I'd love to go on an academic sitdown workshop for a couple of hours, with little or no dancing. But I think I'm pretty much alone with that one.

[Franck]

Is there a place for a theory lessons, in much the same way that Ballroom professionals do lectures (although I understand there is also an element of practice in this)?

I believe there is, and that's why I started the 'Focus on...' workshops every Sunday in Stirling.
I realised that there was a lot of important foundation techniques and theories that needed taught, in a different format from the usual workshops. So instead of having a 4 hour workshop on Style, technique, footwork or musicality, I spend 1.5 hours on a very focused topic.
So far we have covered:

- Frame & connection
- Using the beat

Next week we're looking at 'Walking' and the following session will be on 'hi-jacking the lead'.

Each week will cover a specific technique or style area (alternatively) and all the workshops are based on dance theory (with practical exercises).

The results have been excellent so far, and the response impressive enough to suggest there is a demand for that kind of theory, specific and tailor-fitted to Modern Jive.

I'm still developing the course, and hope to have a full curriculum (rotating and progressive) by Spring 2006...

[MartinHarper]

I had a recent discussion with a WCS dancer who implied that by doing a "footworked" dance, you learn so much more about the theory of partner dance, and this makes you a better Modern Jiver?

I'm guessing he's referring to practical exercises that promote elements of dance theory, rather than sitdown lectures.

[David Franklin]

I had a recent discussion with a WCS dancer who implied that by doing a "footworked" dance, you learn so much more about the theory of partner dance, and this makes you a better Modern Jiver?

Addressing the particular, and not your more general point: I'm guessing what he was getting at is knowing where your partner's weight is, and actively leading weight changes rather than just hoping they'll manage to shuffle their feet and not fall over.

If you do a dance with footwork such as WCS, this is all in your face fairly early, because there's a standard footwork pattern, and if you want something else you should lead it. Plus the fact that the teachers usually actively explain "you will need to lead the weight change". In MJ, with no set footwork, people tend to just pick up what works and what doesn't work, and the girls learn to shuffle weight as needed; although both sides get quite good at it, I think it's often subconcious with no real understanding of why. (It is for me, at any rate ). I think most do people benefit from learning some of the underlying theory.

But - MJ dancers do generally learn how do stop falling over their feet, and conversely, when I've seen weight changes discussed on WCS boards, most dancers will admit there's a fair bit of "fudging" and adjusting going on. I'm told when teaching at RebelRoc, Kyle and Sarah told people not to worry too much about the footwork, just concentrate on the lead. So you can get too caught up in the theoretical side of things!

More generally, I think it's hard to work on "what feels good" in purely theoretical classes. "What looks good" is a more feasible (given appropriate audio-visual presentation!).

[Trish]

I believe there is, and that's why I started the 'Focus on...' workshops every Sunday in Stirling.
I realised that there was a lot of important foundation techniques and theories that needed taught, in a different format from the usual workshops. So instead of having a 4 hour workshop on Style, technique, footwork or musicality, I spend 1.5 hours on a very focused topic.
So far we have covered:

- Frame & connection
- Using the beat

Next week we're looking at 'Walking' and the following session will be on 'hi-jacking the lead'.

Each week will cover a specific technique or style area (alternatively) and all the workshops are based on dance theory (with practical exercises).

The results have been excellent so far, and the response impressive enough to suggest there is a demand for that kind of theory, specific and tailor-fitted to Modern Jive.

I'm still developing the course, and hope to have a full curriculum (rotating and progressive) by Spring 2006...

Lucky Scots! I'd be interested in that, but it's just too far away unfortunately. I think I've learnt most of my theory on workshops and weekenders, and some through my cousin (who is a dance teacher), and through reading things on the internet - mostly this forum I reckon . It's all very well reading it, but you do have to take it all home and practice it. I've printed off some lovely spotting exercises for example that I got from a link on the forum.

I think people fall into the two camps, of the social dancers (who love to dance, but aren't bothered about double spins, or frame or how to do things in the "best" way), and those that like learning the technique/theory. I think I'm with David James, and could be quite facinated with a lecture on the subject - as long as I was given a chance to try it out in practice.

I guess dances that use more of a frame - like Ballroom or Salsa (or WCS? Not sure about that, not done much) are going to teach you how to lead/follow more than MJ. In MJ as long as the follower knows what the moves look like, it is mostly possible to dance without the technique (a lot of people do it ), but it's generally a lot more controlled when you do know what the theory is and have practiced enough to be able to apply it . I wouldn't think you learn more theory in WCS etc because of the footwork though. The footwork may mean that you have to be more precise, but it's not necessarily what makes you a better dancer - IMHO frame/rhythm/listening to the music are more important. In some ways you could say the lack of "set" footwork in MJ should mean you have the scope to become more expressive.

[LMC]

(what Trish said)

The virtual world has helped me work out the questions to ask of teachers and the Really Good (and Really Helpful) dancers in the real world (and given me an idea of what to look for in workshops). And the forum and workshops have not only made me a better modern jiver, but a better dancer - I feel I have far more transferable skills than I would have had without the benefit of so many other people's experience.

As far as face-to-face teaching goes - I prefer theory and practice mixed, rather than a classroom type situation. But yes, there is (IMO) quite definitely a place for theory for those who want to learn it.

[Ghost]

I had a recent discussion with a WCS dancer who implied that by doing a "footworked" dance, you learn so much more about the theory of partner dance, and this makes you a better Modern Jiver?

Personally I think it's specialisation vs generalisation. In theory the more aspects you know, the better you'll be in the long run. The less you know, the faster you'll learn in the short run, but you'll probably peak earlier. Despite Ceroc's claim of "no footwork" it's in there eg Columbian. The problem is sorting through heaps of theory to get to the good bits without misunderstanding stuff. The more theory you know the easier it is to get off-course. It can also make it harder to just dance. I really just want the lady to follow and have a good time. I'd prefer it if she wasn't thinking about the best angle of rotation for her left ankle relative to my centerline. Likewise although I accept I have to think a bit if I'm playing with a new concept / move, I do it in moderation. Getting to the point where you can't shut your mind off and just dance is not fun (for me anyway)

Obviously there are examples of people who become high level dancers in jive, both with and without pure dance theory, but how useful is it? One point of view is perhaps that a pure dance theorist would not take up MJ due to the lack of footwork?

Or alternatively a pure dance theorist would take up MJ so they could focus on other theoretical aspects.

Is there a place for a theory lessons, in much the same way that Ballroom professionals do lectures (although I understand there is also an element of practice in this)?

Personally this is what I mainly use the Forum for. Either think about an aspect of dance theory, put forward your thoughts and wait for the thoughts of others or trawl the archives. I've tended not to talk too much so far about pure dance theory eg which part of your anatomy do you move from eg hips and how does this effect your lead if you partner is moving from a different part of their anatomy eg shoulders, because the framework I use to explain it is off-topic and wouldn't be understood by a lot of forumites.

Take care,
Christopher

[Ghost]

Personally this is what I mainly use the Forum for.

Great minds think alike and post at the same time
to LMC and Trish's comments

Take care,
Christopher

[LMC]

Personally I think it's specialisation vs generalisation. In theory the more aspects you know, the better you'll be in the long run. The less you know, the faster you'll learn in the short run, but you'll probably peak earlier. Despite Ceroc's claim of "no footwork" it's in there eg Columbian.

- we all know move monsters, 'nuff said...

The problem is sorting through heaps of theory to get to the good bits without misunderstanding stuff. The more theory you know the easier it is to get off-course. It can also make it harder to just dance. I really just want the lady to follow and have a good time. I'd prefer it if she wasn't thinking about the best angle of rotation for her left ankle relative to my centerline. Likewise although I accept I have to think a bit if I'm playing with a new concept / move, I do it in moderation. Getting to the point where you can't shut your mind off and just dance is not fun (for me anyway)

too

For me, the theory isn't about having my left foot exactly 4.7 inches behind my right foot, or knowing that I can take my own weight at a lean of up to 36degrees off the vertical but no further or I lose balance. It's about what Franck calls "inner and outer connection". Inner connection (if I've understood correctly) being awareness of the tension within your own body and having your skeleton and muscles aligned/connected to each other so that you can move the "whole" body in response to the lead. Outer connection is, of course, the connection with your partner. Detailed anatomical knowledge not required (or at least not required at any level that I am at or will ever aspire to reach!).

[spindr]

If you want dance theory howsabout a quick part time course: http://www.roehampton.ac.uk/pg/bs/

Or check out a few books: http://www.afterfive.co.uk/maps/Book-links.html

SpinDr

[doc martin]

Lucky Scots!

Yup! Basically a workshop every weekend, followed by an evening of non-clompy music ( Tiggerbabe)

I'd be interested in that, but it's just too far away unfortunately.

Many people say this, but as this is the CerocScotland forum I think there should be a few rules for laid down.

1) All forumites should either have to move to Scotland permanently or, failing that, take at least one holiday per year north of the border.
2) All forumites should learn to pronounce loch properly and start saying aye instead of yes.
3) Whenever forumites gather whisky should be the drink of choice.
4) Skirts may be worn by all.

I've printed off some lovely spotting exercises for example that I got from a link on the forum.

You haven't still got the link have you? I would like to see that as it is something I have trouble with. And before anyone says 'men don't spin in Ceroc' I will point out that I do like the occassional birl.

I think people fall into the two camps, of the social dancers (who love to dance, but aren't bothered about double spins, or frame or how to do things in the "best" way), and those that like learning the technique/theory. I think I'm with David James, and could be quite facinated with a lecture on the subject - as long as I was given a chance to try it out in practice.

You really do need a second home. Go on... you know you're worth it.

I wouldn't think you learn more theory in WCS etc because of the footwork though. The footwork may mean that you have to be more precise, but it's not necessarily what makes you a better dancer

On the other hand I heard it explained recently that the syncopated footwork makes it easier to be more precise about keeping on the beat.

I guess dances that use more of a frame - like Ballroom or Salsa (or WCS? Not sure about that, not done much) are going to teach you how to lead/follow more than MJ. In MJ as long as the follower knows what the moves look like, it is mostly possible to dance without the technique (a lot of people do it ),

IMO the follower thinking they know what the move looks like leads to the worst examples of anticipating. Especially when dancing with awkward characters like me who like to mix up variations of moves. I know that you are only saying that it is 'mostly possible', but it is one of my bugbears.

- IMHO frame/rhythm/listening to the music are more important. In some ways you could say the lack of "set" footwork in MJ should mean you have the scope to become more expressive.

Or, perhaps, makes it easier to emphasise the expressiveness side of the dance at an earlier stage of learning the dance.

I'm guessing what he was getting at is knowing where your partner's weight is, and actively leading weight changes rather than just hoping they'll manage to shuffle their feet and not fall over.
*snip*
...not to worry too much about the footwork, just concentrate on the lead. So you can get too caught up in the theoretical side of things!

Sorry about chopping your post up DF. I'm not trying to change the meaning just juxtapose those two bits to make a point. Which is... if you are saying here that controlling your partner's weight changes will control the footwork I definitely agree.

For instance, in a class last night we did a first move with backwards ochos. If you lead a normal first move and turn the lady out she will usually step back quite a way and keep most of her weight on her left leg. To lead the first ocho you need to transfer her weight to the right leg completely as you turn her out. If you do this all the footwork follows very naturally.

But if you don't understand the theoretical basis of how and why to transfer your partners weight, no amount of fudging or shuffling will make the move possible.

More generally, I think it's hard to work on "what feels good" in purely theoretical classes.

Plus I think that if you don't have the theory then working on 'what looks good' will probably lead to bad habits that may be difficult to erase when you do eventually reach the stage of learning the theory.

[Trish]

For me, the theory isn't about having my left foot exactly 4.7 inches behind my right foot, or knowing that I can take my own weight at a lean of up to 36degrees off the vertical but no further or I lose balance. It's about what Franck calls "inner and outer connection". Inner connection (if I've understood correctly) being awareness of the tension within your own body and having your skeleton and muscles aligned/connected to each other so that you can move the "whole" body in response to the lead. Outer connection is, of course, the connection with your partner. Detailed anatomical knowledge not required (or at least not required at any level that I am at or will ever aspire to reach!).

Nicely described.

I think Ghost's stuff is a bit too techy for me (well the angle stuff anway!), but I agree with the general sentiments especially "I really just want the lady [man] to follow [lead] and have a good time."

On the other hand I heard it explained recently that the syncopated footwork makes it easier to be more precise about keeping on the beat.

Ah - told you I didn't know anything about WCS, that makes sense anyway.

The website is http://www.ballroomdancers.com, look on the "technical tips" bit. The exercise is fairly simple, but it helped me understand things better anyway.

[Gladrags]

I too think that the occasional half hour talking through an element of dance theory, be it change of weight, understanding body tension or whatever, would be no bad thing. Even if you're happy with your dancing, then this kind of input can do very little harm (long term) and may make life considerably easier for you and partners.

On the other hand, I guess that many of the necessary fundamentals are already implicit in ceroc moves, with or without the general realisation of the dancing public (e.g. throw the hand down to the right in the wurlitzer has in built concepts of balance and centres of gravity etc). Moreover, some concepts are just learnt by doing, and understanding what works.

But having done some limited ballroom, I do think that concepts such as frame are very much under taught. I expect some of us could name some others, and some theory (or at least teaching) on these could be of benefit

With particular reference to WCS, as some have mentioned, positioning of weight is certainly a pertinent point that can be learnt.

[killingtime]

2) All forumites should learn to pronounce loch properly and start saying aye instead of yes.

Aye; they should.

And before anyone says 'men don't spin in Ceroc' I will point out that I do like the occassional birl.

Men don't spin? What would I do with my time . It's more uncommon for me not to spin from a ceroc spin or catapult.

For instance, in a class last night we did a first move with backwards ochos. If you lead a normal first move and turn the lady out she will usually step back quite a way and keep most of her weight on her left leg. To lead the first ocho you need to transfer her weight to the right leg completely as you turn her out. If you do this all the footwork follows very naturally.

Yep; I liked that move (was at the same class) but found it difficult to execute. Part of that was that some followers would actually shift their weight back to the other foot (the other part was that I wasn't leading it particularly well). If they were taught the theory of weight transfer though then perhaps they would have been less inclined to do this and more inclined to believe that I had shifted their weight for a reason.

I found Franck's Controlling the Frame class very interesting (I attended the one at Southport) and it was probably the first time that I had ever really thought about weight distribution or trying to control it. It becomes much more important when trying to control the woman's footwork. Not that we do footwork in Ceroc .

[Minnie M]

........Many people say this, but as this is the CerocScotland forum I think there should be a few rules for laid down.

1) All forumites should either have to move to Scotland permanently or, failing that, take at least one holiday per year north of the border.
2) All forumites should learn to pronounce loch properly and start saying aye instead of yes.
3) Whenever forumites gather whisky should be the drink of choice.
4) Skirts may be worn by all.
.

1. I promise to try and make the BFG each year (thank goodness for Easyjet)

2. can say 'loch' OK ( being Jewish helps)

3. no problem with this one

4. Do I HAVE to wear a skirt, I feel so much more comfortable in trousers

[David Bailey]

For instance, in a class last night we did a first move with backwards ochos.

That's really spooky - we did that move a few months back at Finchley, and I remember discussing it - also I remember Gus talking about how it was taught differently (and, of course, better...) in the J-place than in Finchley.

I remember it that clearly, because that was one of the moves that got me started on thinking about doing Argentinian Tango, so I could try to lead that sort of thing properly.

Here's one of the posts I did about ochos at the time in the recently-resurrected "Dance ambitions" thread.

Now I've done a bit of AT, I'm not sure the lead is that different in MJ - but it's a damned sight more difficult to lead a typical MJ-er into it than a tango-er...

[Ghost]

I too think that the occasional half hour talking through an element of dance theory, be it change of weight, understanding body tension or whatever, would be no bad thing. Even if you're happy with your dancing, then this kind of input can do very little harm (long term) and may make life considerably easier for you and partners.

On the other hand, I guess that many of the necessary fundamentals are already implicit in ceroc moves, with or without the general realisation of the dancing public (e.g. throw the hand down to the right in the wurlitzer has in built concepts of balance and centres of gravity etc). Moreover, some concepts are just learnt by doing, and understanding what works.

It's the understanding that's the problem. It can be truly frustrating doing a move step by step everything looks right and yet it won't work because some subtletly you're not aware of isn't right eg the weight shift mentioned in the ochos. This is why natural dancers are often terrible teachers - they just do it. Getting them to explain the actual hows and whys is often, well difficult at best .

But having done some limited ballroom, I do think that concepts such as frame are very much under taught. I expect some of us could name some others, and some theory (or at least teaching) on these could be of benefit

I'm having difficulty thinking of any concepts that are properly taught in a standard Ceroc Class (but I'm probably just tired )

With particular reference to WCS, as some have mentioned, positioning of weight is certainly a pertinent point that can be learnt.

Ah, yes I'm a big fan of the eclectic style (ie grabbing all the best bits )

My best advice is to pick a few concepts, post threads explaining them as best you can and see what replies you get. I reckon it would be very interesting and helpful reading

Take care,
Christopher

[David Bailey]

Here's the ocho-discussion from August, I had to dig a bit to find it. I'd be very interested in knowing if the ocho move you guys did was like that?

Franck, is this a "standard" Ceroc-Central approved move? If so, I'm impressed - it's quite tricky, and very nice.

[azande]

Killingtime has a good description of the move on his blog.