'Is MJ a superset of other dances?', other dance style comparisons, set theory, etc.

[bigdjiver]

Jive - not a precise dance! Rubbish! You just need the right notation (http://www.jiveoholic.org.uk/mathsjive.asp)!

for the website, but ...

When I went to the Modern Jive championships back in 98 one of things that turned me into a missionary for it was the diversity of styles there. That diversity has increased. Ceroc jive is specified by the Ceroc teaching manual. MJ is wider than that.

I now do bits of cha-cha, tango, mambo, other dances, and nameless and shameless things of my own as part of my dancing.

I would now classify jive as a subset of MJ, and Lindy and WCS and ballroom as subsets of MJ.

It should be again remembered that "Jive" was originally applied to speech, as a derogatory term, with shades of meaning of false, inferior, imperfect etc. It then was applied to jive music, and from thence to the dancing done to that music.

On Sunday I was at an MJ event, and danced with two ladies, and possibly a third, that had never done an MJ lesson. They all loved dancing in their own way, and I just did my best to slip in bits of MJ here and there. It was "Jive" dancing in the loosest and most derogatory use of the word, but it was a real challenge, and great fun.

[straycat]

I now do bits of cha-cha, tango, mambo, other dances, and nameless and shameless things of my own as part of my dancing.

I would now classify jive as a subset of MJ, and Lindy and WCS and ballroom as subsets of MJ.

I think you might need to look at the definition of 'subset'. This would be true if - and only if - jive, lindy, wcs and ballroom were taught to MJ students as a part of MJ. In other words - if, having learned only MJ I could then go out and do all those dances with no extra tuition, this claim would have some validity.

Just because I can fit parts of these dances into the MJ framework, does not mean that they are subsets of MJ. I can quite happily do the reverse, and incorporate MJ into, say, Lindy, should I so choose - and this doesn't make MJ a subset of Lindy. It just means I'm good enough at Lindy and at MJ to do this.

Yes, it's great that one can bring so many other influences into MJ, but MJ is hardly unique in that.

Just enjoy the dances for what they are. Don't try to make them into something they're not.

[bigdjiver]

I think you might need to look at the definition of 'subset'. This would be true if - and only if - jive, lindy, wcs and ballroom were taught to MJ students as a part of MJ. In other words - if, having learned only MJ I could then go out and do all those dances with no extra tuition, this claim would have some validity....

I feel the need to rech into the mathematical section of my brain, otherwise known as David Franklin. (I contract that sort of stuff out.)

From my perspective rules create subsets. WCS is like MJ except that you are not allowed to put your partner over there, you are not allowed John Sargant footwork, etc

Another way of putting it would be that MJ is other forms of dance done badly, in that their rules are being broken. This is the core that makes it so accessible and versatile.

[straycat]

From my perspective rules create subsets. WCS is like MJ except that you are not allowed to put your partner over there, you are not allowed John Sargant footwork, etc

So what you're saying is that WCS (and by implication, the other dances mentioned) are fundementally MJ, but with more rules? I think that this is one of the fundemental misunderstandings that MJ people have about other dances. WCS and MJ (I believe I'm right in saying) have differences that run right down to the core of the dances. To shift the focus onto Lindy, which is more comfortable territory for me, this is absolutely the case, and it's worth noting that until I got to grips with this fact, no matter that I thought I was learning it just fine, my Lindy was going nowhere.

As for rules... I can't speak for WCS in this regard, but standard social and common-sense rules aside, I don't see Lindy as consisting of rules. At its core, it consists purely of techniques. Those techniques are geared primarily towards two things: movement - especially in releation to swing music, and connection with your partner. Appearance does come into it, but far less than people generally suppose.

MJ lacks the core techniques that Lindy is built on. It lacks the core techniques that WCS is built on. How can they possibly be subsets?

Another way of putting it would be that MJ is other forms of dance done badly, in that their rules are being broken. This is the core that makes it so accessible and versatile.

I think that's getting warmer, but the way I'd see it is that MJ takes certain moves and connection methods from other dances, then simplifies those to the n'th degree. The goal is accessibility, and the achievement of that goal is MJ's triumph.

[NZ Monkey]

I think that this is one of the fundemental misunderstandings that MJ people have about other dances. WCS and MJ (I believe I'm right in saying) have differences that run right down to the core of the dances.

I agree 100% with this statement.

As for rules... I can't speak for WCS in this regard, but standard social and common-sense rules aside, I don't see Lindy as consisting of rules. At its core, it consists purely of techniques. Those techniques are geared primarily towards two things: movement - especially in releation to swing music, and connection with your partner. Appearance does come into it, but far less than people generally suppose.

Even in WCS, the things that are often thought of as arbitrary rules are related very closely with the way connection works in the dance. I think this is misunderstood often enough by the people who actually dance WCS, let alone the one's who don't. At least, that's the conclusion I've come to over time and a considerable amount of thought.

MJ lacks the core techniques that Lindy is built on. It lacks the core techniques that WCS is built on. How can they possibly be subsets?

I think the argument is roughly along the lines of "if anything goes in MJ, then everything can be described as MJ". It's a nice fuzzy feel-good argument in a lot of ways, but acts to devalue MJ in it's own right in my opinion.

[bigdjiver]

... I think the argument is roughly along the lines of "if anything goes in MJ, then everything can be described as MJ". It's a nice fuzzy feel-good argument in a lot of ways, but acts to devalue MJ in it's own right in my opinion.

What single element of WCS could you include in a dance at a MJ event that would make someone say "That is not MJ"?
e.g. If I do a rock step its not MJ?
Dance in a slot? Triple step? Anchor? Whatever?

I should also make it clear that I am not devaluing MJ. It is a dance, and in the hands of good dancers it can look superb. It may, or may not, need borrowed techniques to make it so, but one of the glories of MJ is that you are allowed to borrow techniques.

There is a world full of dances that are not WCS, Tango, Lindy etc, but are great dances in their own right.

[geoff332]

I think the argument is roughly along the lines of "if anything goes in MJ, then everything can be described as MJ". It's a nice fuzzy feel-good argument in a lot of ways, but acts to devalue MJ in it's own right in my opinion.

I think this says it all:

Expertise in one field does not carry over into other fields. But experts often think so. The narrower their field of knowledge the more likely they are to think so.

MJ is MJ. WCS is WCS. Ballroom is ballroom. Salsa is salsa. They have some things in common and some things that are different. Some people can do all of them, some one, and some none.

The other great quote line to keep in mind is: "if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a nail." If the only dance you know (or like) is MJ, then every dance starts to look like MJ. But this is a function of the observer, not the dance.

[bigdjiver]

I think this says it all:MJ is MJ. WCS is WCS. Ballroom is ballroom. Salsa is salsa. They have some things in common and some things that are different. Some people can do all of them, some one, and some none...

An elephant is an elephant, a pig is a pig, a donkey is a donkey.

They are all quadrapeds. They are all mammals. They are all vertebrates.

In my view Lindy, ballroom jive, WCS are all jive dances. As they are all contemporary they are all Modern Jive dances.

Robert Austen's modern jive championships incorporated any form of jive, and that is the way I would like to see MJ used. At an MJ event people would be free to do Lindy or WCS or Bugg or any other jive form.

"I do MJ" would then be a similar statement to "I do ballroom", whereas "I do Ceroc MJ" would be a narrower claim.

[geoff332]

In my view Lindy, ballroom jive, WCS are all jive dances. As they are all contemporary they are all Modern Jive dances.

Spoken like a true expert in Modern Jive.

[NZ Monkey]

What single element of WCS could you include in a dance at a MJ event that would make someone say "That is not MJ"?
e.g. If I do a rock step its not MJ?
Dance in a slot? Triple step? Anchor? Whatever?

What single element of LA style Salsa would you say would make it noticeably different from WCS at a WCS event?

Both dances have triple steps, slots, and syncopation in their basics which on paper at least makes them seem even more closely related than WCS and MJ. Of course, paper doesn't reflect the reality in the slightest, and the same word can have roughly the same meaning but importantly different subtleties or connotations in each scene.

I should also make it clear that I am not devaluing MJ. It is a dance, and in the hands of good dancers it can look superb. It may, or may not, need borrowed techniques to make it so, but one of the glories of MJ is that you are allowed to borrow techniques.

There is a world full of dances that are not WCS, Tango, Lindy etc, but are great dances in their own right.

Yes, but they also have easily identifiable characteristics of their own.

To take it to an extreme: if anything goes in MJ, and therefore anything can be described as MJ, then modern jive becomes simply another term for partnered dancing. As a classification for the ease of conversation it's next to useless in this form. Further to that, it's a term for partnered dancing that virtually only MJ dancers understand.

I think that line of reasoning devalues MJ.

[straycat]

What single element of WCS could you include in a dance at a MJ event that would make someone say "That is not MJ"?
e.g. If I do a rock step its not MJ?
Dance in a slot? Triple step? Anchor? Whatever?

If, while dancing MJ, I were to put triples in, or anchor - or lead a standard Lindy shape - yes, you could have some justification in saying it's still MJ.

If, however, given the right music and a partner who can follow it, I use my Lindy technique to lead a full-blown swingout (Lindy Turn)... I'm not doing modern jive. While I can 'fake' a swingout in MJ with many MJ followers, the techniques to do the move properly are not part of Modern Jive. If I am combining all the movement and connection techniques needed to do that move.... it's not MJ.

There is a world full of dances that are not WCS, Tango, Lindy etc, but are great dances in their own right.

I think I missed the part where anyone disputed that

[straycat]

In my view Lindy, ballroom jive, WCS are all jive dances. As they are all contemporary they are all Modern Jive dances.

That's something of a stretch.

If you can show me classes labelled as 'modern jive' which teach Lindy, ballroom jive, WCS and 'Ceroc-style' MJ properly, I'd be prepared to concede the point on this.

Failing that, you can't simply make these dances into 'modern jive dances' simply by declaring it to be the case.

[bigdjiver]

... Yes, but they also have easily identifiable characteristics of their own...

as do elephants, pigs, dogs, etc but they are all vertebrate quadrapeds.

We could get around the difficulties by defining MJ as the jive based dance that does not meet the criteria for any of the formalised jive dances, which is the way the term is commonly used. We define MJ by what it is not, rather than by what it is.

...To take it to an extreme: if anything goes in MJ,...

I never said that

...I think that line of reasoning devalues MJ...

My part in this discussion was triggered by the concept of subsets of dancing.

We need a Venn diagram. I do not have the drive to produce one.

I conceive a big circle containing dance. Inside is a smaller circle labelled partner dance. Inside that lead & follow dance.

Inside this circle are interlinked circles, with labels like "requires 3/4 time signature" "requires close hold" "requires footwork more complex than walking and turning around." Where those circles intersect you might expect to find the label "Waltz".

An expert in WCS might be brave enough to draw such a diagram that has the label WCS in the middle of some intersecting circles. Only if there is some dance feature of WCS that is prohibited in MJ can you make WCS as a dance not a dance subset of MJ.

Which is where we come back to MJ being regarded by some as a flawed variant of other dances. "Its like WCS only you don't have to dance in a slot / can use very basic footwork/ etc"

If you looked at such a diagram you could see instantly the strength of MJ. There is so much more room to play.

[NZ Monkey]

as do elephants, pigs, dogs, etc but they are all vertebrate quadrapeds.

We could get around the difficulties by defining MJ as the jive based dance that does not meet the criteria for any of the formalised jive dances, which is the way the term is commonly used. We define MJ by what it is not, rather than by what it is.

This illustrates my point above quite well actually. The broader a definition is, the less useful it typically becomes. Defining MJ as what it is not makes it particularly broad. Defining it by what it is not, and then claiming that dances which it doesn’t exclude are a subset of MJ is misguided at best.

I never said that

Not in so many words, but you did say:

In my view Lindy, ballroom jive, WCS are all jive dances. As they are all contemporary they are all Modern Jive dances.

…Which amounts to the same thing. Personally I find the assertion that several dances which developed earlier than MJ, and independently on a different continent are forms of MJ arrogant.

Only if there is some dance feature of WCS that is prohibited in MJ can you make WCS as a dance not a dance subset of MJ.

Although quoting myself feels a little tacky:

if anything goes in MJ, and therefore anything can be described as MJ, then modern jive becomes simply another term for partnered dancing. As a classification for the ease of conversation it's next to useless in this form. Further to that, it's a term for partnered dancing that virtually only MJ dancers understand.

It seems to me that you want to make the circle on that Venn diagram so large that it effectively becomes the one that encompasses all of the partnered lead/follow dances in 4/4 time. Once you’ve drawn that circle you’ve defined MJ is such a broad way that actually naming a specific dance the same thing is laughable.

Which is where we come back to MJ being regarded by some as a flawed variant of other dances. "Its like WCS only you don't have to dance in a slot / can use very basic footwork/ etc"

It’s worth noting that I don’t know of anyone who dances WCS who thinks that. Likewise Lindy, Ballroom, Latin American, Salsa or Hustle, all of which you could make similar statements about.

In fact, the only people I know of who make claims like that only dance MJ. I think Geoff has a point with his hammer and nail analogy.

If you looked at such a diagram you could see instantly the strength of MJ. There is so much more room to play.

I dispute that this is the case in practice. There is an enormous amount of freedom of expression in far more tightly structured dances than MJ, and that structure gives the dancers the tools to really explore that freedom of expression. MJ’s accessibility is it’s strength, but it’s also it’s Achilles heel IMO.

[Gadget]

What is at the "core" of any dance style?

1 ) self control: the ability to move your body where you want it to be, to make it follow the patterns and shapes you have in your head.

2 ) communication: the skill to understand how to communicate your intent to your partner and how to read her intent.

3 ) Music/timing/rhythm: being able to use the first two in expressing the music.

It's relatively easy to develop skills in any of these disciplines when you have a "right" and "wrong" way to do something: Ballet I think must be about the best teaching for self control. Perhaps Tango for becoming one with your partner. And I think maybe Ballroom for matching movement to rhythms. I'm pointing to these because (from what I know) each of these styles has quite strict rules for "right" and "wrong" in those areas.

If you take someone from one discipline into another, they will be looking at how they can apply the techniques they know from their style into the new one. But the techniques from MJ do not have the "right" and "wrong" so ingrained and bound by rules - technique within MJ (when taught) is taught as technique; a "why" that can be applied to lots of things.

I think a good MJ dancer should be able to pick up just about any dance style because they should have a general grounding in the common aspects of any partner dancing - all they need to do is apply a specific set of rules/guidelines/constraints that define that dance. A good dancer of any other style has to drop the constructs that their technique has been built around and apply the techniques with a different set of rules.

~
I should also make it clear that I am not devaluing MJ. It is a dance, and in the hands of good dancers it can look superb. It may, or may not, need borrowed techniques to make it so, but one of the glories of MJ is that you are allowed to borrow techniques.

"Borrow techniques"? MJ does not borrow - it may use techniques that other dances use, but it uses them in an MJ context: The source is immaterial, as are the similarities. It does on occasion borrow styling from other dance forms, but I am of the opinion that technique is global and holds a shared source.

If you can show me classes labelled as 'modern jive' which teach Lindy, ballroom jive, WCS and 'Ceroc-style' MJ properly, I'd be prepared to concede the point on this.

Failing that, you can't simply make these dances into 'modern jive dances' simply by declaring it to be the case.

If I told a WCS couple to ignore the follower's slot and dance off their own parallel slot; if I told them to remove triples and drop the anchor step; if I told them to stop stretching so far from their partner; could they? what would they be dancing? If you strip it back so that all that's left is the self control, connection technique and musicality, then there is very little separating it from MJ.

All I have done is remove the rules; I've not added anything to their knowledge. This is how other dances can be seen as sub-sets of MJ: remove the rules that define them as that dance and what you are left with is MJ.
It therefore follows that if you put constraints on your MJ and focus on developing within the guidelines of a particular style, then you can build upon this base and find other dance styles.

Just because I can fit parts of these dances into the MJ framework, does not mean that they are subsets of MJ. I can quite happily do the reverse, and incorporate MJ into, say, Lindy, should I so choose - and this doesn't make MJ a subset of Lindy. It just means I'm good enough at Lindy and at MJ to do this.

I'm interested in that statement: what exactly do you do to insert MJ into Lindy? You have to stop following the 'lindy rules' - but do you actually follow any other rules in their place, or just 'do the moves'?

( for being good enough to swap styles - if I could I wouldn't be asking )

[NZ Monkey]

I think a good MJ dancer should be able to pick up just about any dance style because they should have a general grounding in the common aspects of any partner dancing - all they need to do is apply a specific set of rules/guidelines/constraints that define that dance. A good dancer of any other style has to drop the constructs that their technique has been built around and apply the techniques with a different set of rules

"Borrow techniques"? MJ does not borrow - it may use techniques that other dances use, but it uses them in an MJ context: The source is immaterial, as are the similarities. It does on occasion borrow styling from other dance forms, but I am of the opinion that technique is global and holds a shared source.

I think that&#8217]directly[/i] related to lead/follow conventions, timing or musicality. They are directly related to self-control however.

If I told a WCS couple to ignore the follower's slot and dance off their own parallel slot]Ignoring the obvious quip that MJ dancers very rarely have self-control, connection or musicality in the first place, I’d say that you’d also be removing the character that makes the dance interesting.

That said, I don’t think it’d be possible to do it anyway. Connection and musicality are great buzzwords, but I think you’ll find that they carry quite different connotations in different dances. If you took your WCS example above and applied it to American Smooth dancing, I think the end product would both look and feel quite different to result of the WCS experiment. In other words, there must be more going on there.

All I have done is remove the rules]Here you’re trying to imply links that aren’t really there, and define MJ as, essentially, 4/4 time lead-follow partnered dancing of any nature. That’s a category that transcends even the usual groupings of Swing, Latin American, Ballroom etc. that already only have tenuous links to each other sometimes. I think it’s far too big a stretch to make to be honest - especially from someone who lacks a very strong background in anything other than MJ in the first place.

[straycat]

I think that between us, we've now utterly derailed the thread.

Time for a split, maybe?

[bigdjiver]

... All I have done is remove the rules; I've not added anything to their knowledge. This is how other dances can be seen as sub-sets of MJ: remove the rules that define them as that dance and what you are left with is MJ...

[straycat]

All I have done is remove the rules; I've not added anything to their knowledge. This is how other dances can be seen as sub-sets of MJ: remove the rules that define them as that dance and what you are left with is MJ.

I'll restate what I and NZM have already said. Forget this 'rules' idea. It's a fallacy. Dances like Lindy and WCS are not, in my opinion, defined by 'rules'.

I'm interested in that statement: what exactly do you do to insert MJ into Lindy? You have to stop following the 'lindy rules' - but do you actually follow any other rules in their place, or just 'do the moves'?

( for being good enough to swap styles - if I could I wouldn't be asking )

Well - as I'm not following any 'lindy rules' in the first place, I simply don't think of it like that. I'd just lead the moves.

I'll do what I should have done earlier, and ask a couple of questions: what exactly do you think these rules are? Are you thinking along the lines of 'thou shalt dance lindy with either basic 6-count or 8-count footwork?' 'thou shalt preface thy moves with rocksteps' etc? That's my assumption, but perhaps you mean something else entirely.

And do you mind my asking how much experience you (and BigD) have with the dances in question (Lindy, WCS, Ballroom Jive and any other relevant ones)?

[Agente Secreto]

I think that between us, we've now utterly derailed the thread.

Time for a split, maybe?

Was that a spelling error, did you mean spliff