WCS - a newbie's perspective

[David Franklin]

Stupid question 2: why?

One practical point (from a not very good WCS dancer, so make of it what you will). With a triple step, you have 3 weight changes you can use to adjust your position and tension, and therefore the feel. With the tap, you only really have 1 weight change. If the follower takes a bigger step than you were expecting, it's harder to adjust.

I'd also say that I find the 'tap' to be a less 'grounded' way of doing the step. I personally prefer to feel more "down, back and into the floor". (Again, I may be completely wrong on this).

[David Bailey]

If you're already good, not really.

Speaking from the point of view of the leader, even if you're not it doesn't make a lot of difference in the sugar push because your first triple is practically on the spot. In the whip though it's a much more clear a lead if you're virtually square across the slot just before touching down on the four. It's even better if you get the movement smoothly.

Basically, it's a lot easier to get your body where it needs to be in three steps instead of one. Having that rhythm in muscle memory will help with other variations where you need to move later too.

My 2 cents.

Fair enuff - as I said, I found the triple step a bit more natural with the whip also. I guess that a triple step gives more flexibility in terms of positioning also. And as I said, the whole "not transfer weight on a step" concept drove me nuts, argh...

[Vidar]

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS WCS MUSIC sorry about shouting.

The beauty of dancing WCS music is the variety of music that can be used.

Eek... at risk of making you shout some more, I'm a little confused. In the run up to Southport (post #36 of the "Scorch 2011" thread), you said

I see that Craig Addison is doing two WCS sets over the weekend, I am wondering who is going to be giving him a heads up on what type of music works??

(plus a note afterwards saying that you thought his set was top notch, and you told him so.)

Why would you think anyone needed to give Craig a heads up on what works for WCS, if you're now saying that everything works? In fact, if WCS can be danced to anything, why were there separately billed sessions for it at SP?

I'm not being funny here: I'm genuinely curious as to what you were getting at there. I've heard so many dancers and organisers treat WCS music as a separate (if commonly overlapping) group from modern jive music, that even if you *can* dance both dances to any music, it seems there is a common understanding of what does and doesn't constitute WCS music.

[Gerry]

Eek... at risk of making you shout some more, I'm a little confused. In the run up to Southport (post #36 of the "Scorch 2011" thread), you said



(plus a note afterwards saying that you thought his set was top notch, and you told him so.)

Why would you think anyone needed to give Craig a heads up on what works for WCS, if you're now saying that everything works? In fact, if WCS can be danced to anything, why were there separately billed sessions for it at SP?

I'm not being funny here: I'm genuinely curious as to what you were getting at there. I've heard so many dancers and organisers treat WCS music as a separate (if commonly overlapping) group from modern jive music, that even if you *can* dance both dances to any music, it seems there is a common understanding of what does and doesn't constitute WCS music.

Ok, good point, sorry about the shouting. In the instance of Craig and his set, when ever I have heard his sets he has played alot of club music which I just don't like, if I did dance to it I would just dance MJ.

I suppose the music that works for WCS is music with a BPM between 90 and upto 120 ish BPM. The music can vary between genres, vocals etc. If you want I can send you a play list of music that I would put together for a set if I was playing, just PM.

Again sorry for the shouting

[David Bailey]

I suppose the music that works for WCS is music with a BPM between 90 and upto 120 ish BPM. The music can vary between genres, vocals etc. If you want I can send you a play list of music that I would put together for a set if I was playing, just PM.

Surely "not being able to clearly-define the music for the dance" is a weakness, not something to be proud of?

I mean, it's pretty obvious what is "classic MJ" music - even more so for salsa and AT of course.

I loved the music they played last week - in fact I'll ask for the playlist and post it here.

[Caro]

Whether it is standard depends what you've been taught.

What I've learnt is of course standard - what others learn is a variation.

I'd disagree with that, in WCS it is true there are a lot of different ways of teaching and even the top pros don't always agree on the detail, however in the context of this thread and basic footwork, all teachers (I have seen, which is quite a few) will tell you that basic footwork is step step triple triple (6 beat basic) and and step step triple step step triple (8 beat basic).

Stupid question 2: why?

Basically, it's a lot easier to get your body where it needs to be in three steps instead of one. Having that rhythm in muscle memory will help with other variations where you need to move later too.

I think that's exactly right, the steps help you be at the right place at the right time and once you get that ingrained in your dancing it is much easier to syncopate and change it all without affecting your lead or the shape of the pattern. Same goes for follows.
As Gerry said, you have to learn the basic rules before you can mess with them confidently.

[frodo]

Surely "not being able to clearly-define the music for the dance" is a weakness, not something to be proud of?

IMO One of the better things is the (potential *) range of music it can be danced to.


If you're dancing in one dance style all evening (it would be less of an advantage as one dance among X during an evening).

It can be boring if the music has to all fit within a distinctive box.


Here one dance allows you to express a variety of music, which adds depth.


* Unfortunately some DJs haven't always taken account of this.

[frodo]

That might be the ballroom variation of the dance

From this post on a relevant thread on another forum it looks reasonably likely (and possibly standard within that variation).

http://www.dance-forums.com/showpost.ph ... stcount=45

[David Bailey]

IMO One of the better things is the (potential *) range of music it can be danced to.


If you're dancing in one dance style all evening (it would be less of an advantage as one dance among X during an evening).

It can be boring if the music has to all fit within a distinctive box.


Here one dance allows you to express a variety of music, which adds depth.


* Unfortunately some DJs haven't always taken account of this.

Well.... I'm hesitant to express an opinion on WCS, but as a general principle, I think that there's a plausible case to say that the more you can dance to a "wide range of music", the less developed the dance itself becomes. You're sacrificing depth for breadth - the dance is jack-of-all-trades, master of none.

So I'm not sure that a wide range of musical styles - which I'll take your word for it that WCS allows - is necessarily a good thing.

[David Bailey]

From this post on a relevant thread on another forum it looks reasonably likely (and possibly standard within that variation).

http://www.dance-forums.com/showpost.ph ... stcount=45

Good link. Blimey, I completely forgot there was a WCS section on dance-forums...

And looking at that thread, yes, it does seem that my class was more of a ballroom-y approach. Which I'm quite comfortable with at the moment.

[David Bailey]

So, I did my second class last night - woo, I'm an expert

We re-visited the Sugar Push at the start for about 10 minutes. I did try the double-chasse version, but weirdly, I think I like the tap-and-step version better; at least for now. For me, I could control it better than the double chasse motion - admittedly this may simply be because it's what I'm more used to. But I think now I've got that step very roughly incorporated into my muscle memory now; and I even started to try to put some lead-and-follow into the movements.

We didn't really review the Whip this time - we briefly covered it, but only separated. Hopefully we will explore it next week.

Instead, we covered the American Spin. Interestingly, I found that for my steps, the double-chasse was much better for me than the tap-and-step; I kept on losing the timing with the tap-and-step but was fine on double-chasse. Another "gotcha" was that, after coming out of an anti-clockwise turn, I felt a natural "urge" to step forward, and my partners similarly wanted to step back - this is probably a MJ thing, but I think it's a little strange to expect people to step forward straight after a turn anyway, as the natural momentum is for stepping backwards. That said, when I did emphatically lead a forward step it worked, so it's probably just something to learn as a habit.

We did a lot of dancing and practicing these movements - I finally managed a couple of freestyle dances. The look of concentration on my face was, apparently, a sight to behold...

Generally, I'm happy with the way the classes are going - obviously I have no basis for comparison with other classes, but my general feeling is that I'm learning stuff and that the stuff I'm learning is usable to dance to music, so that seems to be a good sign.

Oh, and for the AT class... we did the Basic 8 with a forward ocho. Which, and this is weird, is precisely what I taught to my Sunday evening lot also. So I can't really criticize too much (well, I could... but I won't). One interesting tidbit from that, which I'd not encountered for ages, was the concept of the man crossing his leg behind as the lady crosses in front. I'm a bit agnostic as to whether that actually helps or not, but it's nice to see a bit of a decoration for the man. Anyway, that's enough AT talk.

Size-wise, the numbers were about the same as last week (25-ish), which is pretty good going - I'd have thought it'd plummet, as these things usually do after the first night, but in hindsight the relatively low-key launch means they can build their numbers more organically. And it's nice that we're almost all beginners together, so we've not really had enough time to develop snootiness. I'm sure we will, of course

[Lory]

Another "gotcha" was that, after coming out of an anti-clockwise turn, I felt a natural "urge" to step forward, and my partners similarly wanted to step back - this is probably a MJ thing, but I think it's a little strange to expect people to step forward straight after a turn anyway, as the natural momentum is for stepping backwards.

Did you not 'anchor' after the turn?
Sometimes one can be led into a turning anchor. By this I mean, by the time ones finished turning, you've reached the 'stretch' and there for there no more rope left to step back, if you get my drift?

[David Bailey]

Did you not 'anchor' after the turn?

Dunno. We've not done those yet. They sound like high-level complex things to me.

Sometimes one can be led into a turning anchor. By this I mean, by the time ones finished turning, you've reached the 'stretch' and there for there no more rope left to step back, if you get my drift?

Um, not really. You speak a strange language, knowledge of which I have not got.

[Lory]

Dunno. We've not done those yet. They sound like high-level complex things to me.




Um, not really. You speak a strange language, knowledge of which I have not got.

OK, In very basic terms, an anchor is 3 little steps (a triple step) in which you and your partner travel away from each other, to reach a point of leverage or 'stretch' as its more often called nowadays.
I'm surprised that this hasn't been mentioned in your class yet, as IMO its fundamental to wcs

The stretch, is what gives WCS the dynamic 'look' and feel

[NZ Monkey]

OK, In very basic terms, an anchor is 3 little steps (a triple step) in which you and your partner travel away from each other, to reach a point of leverage or 'stretch' as its more often called nowadays.
I'm surprised that this hasn't been mentioned in your class yet, as IMO its fundamental to wcs

The stretch, is what gives WCS the dynamic 'look' and feel

You know, I don't talk about the anchour step until about the third class when I'm teaching either. It's extremely important, but beginners have a lot to take in already....... and Rome wasn't built in a day.

Of course, if this is the Evil Ballroom Variation of the dance they may not teach it at all

We did a lot of dancing and practicing these movements - I finally managed a couple of freestyle dances. The look of concentration on my face was, apparently, a sight to behold...

And now you understand

[mikeyr]

As a newbie, I'm allowed to ask silly questions, so I will ask, does it really matter whether there's a tap or a chasse?

A tap step is not a variation its an odd syncopation (not all syncopations have more footwork). It basically means there is only a single weight change from step 2 to 4. Historically (20yrs ago) when the dance was danced to faster tempo music than is common today a tap step would have been the norm.

The triple (chasse) step is the accepted way in todays wcs of getting beginners to acheive correct body position ( particularly important for the final 2 beats of any pattern) and lead/follow at the basic pattern level. However once a level of mastery has been acheived, the footwork can be changed to fit the music. Take Paul Warden as an example. The UK's best WCS lead, I doubt if you'll see a basic triple step from him in social dancing.

There is a ballroom style of WCS (Corky Ballas still has several DVD's on sale). It is different to todays mainstream style, problems may arise in social dancing.

[mikeyr]

You know, I don't talk about the anchour step until about the third class when I'm teaching either. It's extremely important, but beginners have a lot to take in already....... and Rome wasn't built in a day.

Of course, if this is the Evil Ballroom Variation of the dance they may not teach it at all

And now you understand

I think they Coaster still in Ballroom style, gives it that old school 80's look

[Lory]

Of course, if this is the Evil Ballroom Variation of the dance they may not teach it at all

Well, I've never heard of Paul Alex (has anyone else?)

If not, its likely that he is teaching the Ballroom WCS version.

Good luck David

[David Bailey]

Well, I've never heard of Paul Alex (has anyone else?)

He's an experienced teacher - he's the owner of the Moonglow in Watford - but he's far more active on the ballroom front than on the WCS scene.

That said, I wonder if what we here think of as the WCS scene is simply our MJ-oriented subset of it...

If not, its likely that he is teaching the Ballroom WCS version.

Is there such a thing? The thread on dance-forums seemed to indicate that there was no agreement on this area.

[David Bailey]

So, last night I did my third whole lesson

This week, we revised the sugar push, the American spin, and the Whip - I finally worked out the Whip, the timing was throwing me at first but I got it working in the end. For a certain value of "working". I also attempted it anti-clockwise in freestyle, and that seemed to work OK also.

The main move this week was the shoulder-slide (I think that was the name, "shoulder-something" anyway. To be honest, I didn't like this move, there was too much faffing around, it felt artificial, and it finished with a 1.5-clockwise spin for the ladies in very short time, which was difficult to both lead and follow. (I eventually gave up and just led a half-turn, which seemed to work much better).

I'm sure it's a perfectly-reasonable move, but frankly this one just felt like a Ceroc routine more than anything else - difficult to explain, but it just felt a bit "forced" to me...

That said, I still very much enjoyed the class, I like the teaching style and the people are very nice.

The numbers are holding up pretty well - I'd say about a couple of dozen, so roughly the same as last week. I think the people who started it are, by-and-large, continuing with it, so turnover is maybe 2-3 people a week. Which, let's face it, is probably a retention rate that Ceroc would kill for. And that's with a session which is 80% class and 20% freestyle, so it seems to show that there is a market for people, based on mostly teaching.

Talking to a few people, they all seem very enthused about the classes, as am I. I'm fairly happy with the pace of teaching; and I'm starting to both get a feel for the music and the general feel of the movement.

The AT class did back ochos - to Paul's credit, he quite rightly stated that the leader should always take sidesteps when leading back ochos, something I only worked out myself 6 months ago. (Well, I say "worked out", I mean "was told by a teacher" )