MJ critique class: would you?

[Gav]

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!! I didn't mean it like that. What I was looking for was a 'more balanced' view across 'mortals' and 'Gods'.

Only kidding, it's take more than that to shut me up lol.

Actualy, Gav, I find your postings from the Lindy perspective an excellent extension of the debate ... after all, the roots of my Ceroc dancing are in the Lindy/Ceroc I originally learnt in London under Simon Selmon.

I guess that would explain your slightly bent knees and back better than trying to match your followers eye level.

If I wasn't learning Lindy Hop now I might have nothing to say, I just think that it is worth bearing in mind that whilst looking for a 'recognised' dance to compare MJ to/aspire to, ballroom isn't necessarily the only/best way.

[ant]

When my hand is on my partner's back I have at least eight points of contact with my partner; fore-arm, thumb pad/wrist, base of hand (from pinky to wrist), crowns (were fingers join palm) and the finger tips themselves.

The strongest movement to physically move my partner towards/away is through my fore-arm by bending my elbow. To rotate them I use the wrist/palm connection. The fingers I use to 'listen' rather than lead... if your fingers "dig in" when splayed, then they are going to dig in when closed - not a very good argument.

I suspect it is only 4 points of contact and not eight as invariably you will only have one hand behind the followers back.

However that means that there are four points to dig into your partners back. When the fingers are together they are much less likely to claw and so much less likely to dig in.

Bending your elbow is a release, tightening mechanism and does not relate to the finger arguement,especially when you are trying to stop a collision.

[ant]

Unfortunately, you think wrong.

I can't speak for WCS, but in Lindy Hop the aim seems to be that all leads come from the core, and that has little if anything to do with 'visual effect' and everything to do with effective leading.

I think you'd be surprised at how similar the principles of Lindy are to AT. I've seen a Lindy Hopper switch from Lindy to AT and back again in freestyle and it actually looked perfectly natural (of course it has to be an appropriate piece of music :rolleyes .

Hey Gav is this a pick on ant day or something.

Look at the second part of the post when you will see the lead coming from the core. If you look at Gadgets post he was talking about movement of the body to provide a visual lead.

Originally Posted by Gadget
If you want an exercise to practice, then lead a follower with your hands clasped behind your back

This is an exercise done regularly in Tango and visual leads in open embrace in tango are commonly used. For instance if you can initiate the required step in the follower without stepping yourself then you have a free leg to continue the sequence you had in mind.

I agree to lead round yourself as a leader the visual effect will come from the body initiated by the core but for a forward or backward movement there will need to be a different type of lead when there is no contact.

[Gav]

Hey Gav is this a pick on ant day or something.

Yes.

Look at the second part of the post when you will see the lead coming from the core. If you look at Gadgets post he was talking about movement of the body to provide a visual lead.

No. There's no need for me to look at that because my post quoted the bit of your post that was suggesting that swing dance only used body leads to look good!
Please do try to read peoples posts before defending yourself unnecessarily with irrelevant references ant.

[straycat]

Could someone explain body leading in Mj, west coast or salsa to me?

Since the body-leading is a particular obsession of mine, and since everyone seems to look at this area differently I might as well add my own thoughts on this. This is the lindy perspective, but it amounts to the same thing, imo, in each of these dances.

A body lead is a lead that originates in the leaders' body, not in their arm. In slightly more detailed (and idealistic) terms, to perform a good body lead, you need to connect your own core to your partner's, and move their core by moving your own. Clearly, you need a point of contact with your partner to do this, whether it be a handhold, arm on the back, etc. Done well, this kind of connection gives you a two-way communication between you and your partner of incredible depth, subtlety and power. To my mind, the vast majority of Lindy and MJ moves can be (and in the case of Lindy, need to be) body-led.

One key thing about body leading is the need for physical relaxation. It's easy to assume that if both lead and follow tensed up and locked their frames, a body lead would become easier, but in fact, quite the reverse is true - it's as if you're putting a blockage between you and your partner, and it becomes very hard to feel the aforementioned subtle communication. Relaxation is essential - and it's amazing just how good (and even powerful) a lead one can achieve without barely any engagement of the arm muscles.

I sometimes refer to body-leads as a kind of Bruce Lee thing - the art of leading without leading - you move your partner by moving yourself.

It can still be done badly, and a good arm-lead is definitely preferrable to a bad body-lead, but overall, body leading is a technique which can add an almost limitless extra dimension to anyone's dancing.

[straycat]

It would be really usefull to see the contributors put video (of themselves?) on this thread to demonstrate the application of their words.

Make up your mind. When I suggested that, you said it was unnecessary

[ant]

Yes.

At long last

Originally Posted by Gav
No. There's no need for me to look at that because my post quoted the bit of your post that was suggesting that swing dance only used body leads to look good!
Please do try to read peoples posts before defending yourself unnecessarily with irrelevant references ant.

Gav, I think you have got the wrong end of the stick here. My reference to visual lead was descibing body movement being picked up visually by the follower which induces a step as opposed to inducing a step through body contact. It was not meant to suggest in any way that swing dance only used body leads to look good!

For instance in tango I can move my body either left or right by engaging my core only, without stepping. The follower will pick this up and step in the required direction even when we are not in contact.

IMO the part of Gadgets post I was referring to was about visual leads. The exercise referred in that part of the post was about inducing a movement in the follower without contact. Infact contact was specifically excluded and that is the part of the post I highlighed.

[Alan Doyle]

A body lead is a lead that originates in the leaders' body, not in their arm. In slightly more detailed (and idealistic) terms, to perform a good body lead, you need to connect your own core to your partner's, and move their core by moving your own. Clearly, you need a point of contact with your partner to do this, whether it be a handhold, arm on the back, etc. Done well, this kind of connection gives you a two-way communication between you and your partner of incredible depth, subtlety and power. To my mind, the vast majority of Lindy and MJ moves can be (and in the case of Lindy, need to be) body-led.

I agree with you

[straycat]

although I think the emphesis is more on the visual effect in separated partner dances such as swing as opposed to the follower feeling a change in your body due to their closeness in Tango

Gav, I think you have got the wrong end of the stick here. My reference to visual lead was descibing body movement being picked up visually by the follower which induces a step as opposed to inducing a step through body contact.

Thanks for explaining that - I did misunderstand your original post. However - one would still be wrong to assume that body leads used in swing dance (or WCS :devil are in any way visual in nature.

[ant]

Thanks for explaining that - I did misunderstand your original post. However - one would still be wrong to assume that body leads used in swing dance (or WCS :devil are in any way visual in nature.

You were not the only one.

I made that comment because I assumed that part of Gadgets post was referring to swing dance and these types of visual lead were were normal in swing dance.

Incidentally I agree with your general desciption of body leads, However I think that there are different types of body lead and it was this distinction that Gadget was trying to bring out and I was then trying to dovetail into Tango which was mentioned in Jim's original question.

It does however seem we are going off topic but body leading does seem to be of interest to people.

[NZ Monkey]

I think there's a fair bit more than that. Most obviously, if you want your body to be reasonably still, you're going to end up arm leading (c.f. the J/T clip). There's one sequence I lead that is obviously "very arm leady" because of this (I grant you it probably feels a little awkward because of it).

I won't debate anything else in your post, because I see where you're coming from and I can't say you're wrong.

You can generate a surprising amount of movement in your partner with very little body movement of your own even when trying to body lead though - provided you both have a good connection. For a couple of dance related clips that illustrate this see http://www.youtube.com/user/BoogieInBet ... lYpKReeSS4 and http://www.youtube.com/user/BoogieInBet ... yn_OwI0ir4. In both clips you don't really notice the guys body movements because they're so small, but it makes a very clear difference to the dancers themselves.

On another note, although not with the result you really want when dancing - here's another demonstration of the amount of force that can be generated with practically no arm movement and very title body movement: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxlzDNGD ... re=related

[jim]

Doesn't all of this depend on what you're trying to achieve with your MJ?
If the intention is to make it look more "ballroom-y", then I couldn't argue with you, but what if it's not?

I did have a little go at lindy recently.

I liked the fact that I was told to keep a straight back and put the bend in the knees.

I liked the fact that I got told to lead off the shoulder blade not the waist.

And I liked the fact that the teacher kept his fingers closed on the back all the time just like my ballroom teacher.

I specifically noticed because I had been woundering if i'd taken to much from ballroom and I was wondering if I was dancing to 'formally'.

Then my salsa teacher flew a salsa couple over from france to do a demo and that guy had his fingers closed as well. That's 'salsa' couldn't acuse those guys of being to 'ballroom'.

And now I thinks it's just generally good practice in what ever dance I'm doing to try and 'control my fingers'.

[Gadget]

IMO the part of Gadgets post I was referring to was about visual leads. The exercise referred in that part of the post was about inducing a movement in the follower without contact. Infact contact was specifically excluded and that is the part of the post I highlighed.

It was: I see body leads as a separate entity from frame and core - although it's easier to accomplish body leads when using the core and leading from it, the understanding of a frame and how to lead from the core is not essential to being able to body lead.

Similarly, the core and frame can drive arm leads and any other lead you want - it's not tied solely to body leads.

To me, a lead directly influences my partner: Engaging a frame and leading from the core enable that lead to be communicated with a bit more control and subtly; but the frame and moving from the core directly influence my body so that I can lead better - it's a step removed. (*)

I agree 100% that it'a all beneficial to your dancing, but I think that the concept of body leads can be used as an introduction to the core, frame and all that stuff. And I think that only using the core and frame for body leads is a waste.

(* understanding your own 'core' also helps the realisation that your partner has one too; you should try to lead that bit of the follower - using the contact points with your partner to direct the core rather than moving the arms for your partner to follow... Subtle difference and probably won't make any sense unless you are already doing it.)

[straycat]

And I liked the fact that the teacher kept his fingers closed on the back all the time just like my ballroom teacher.

Coincidentally, Dave & Ursi (blues & lindy gods) covered this briefly at a workshop this weekend - Dave's take was that he really wasn't bothered.

He was simply at pains to make sure no-one was trying to use their fingers on their partner's back to lead - he preferred a lead that came through the lower palm / wrist, which is a lot more comfortable for the follower.

I agree that visually, closed looks better... but I'm not really that fussed either.

[straycat]

It was: I see body leads as a separate entity from frame and core - although it's easier to accomplish body leads when using the core and leading from it, the understanding of a frame and how to lead from the core is not essential to being able to body lead.

I disagree here - to me, good body-leads are generated from your core. Frame.... means different things in different dances, and for simplicity's sake, I'm not going to get into that here.

And I think that only using the core and frame for body leads is a waste.

My goal is to use my core for every part of my dancing - to generate every single movement from my core. It's not easy, but it opens up so many possibilities in one's dancing. Very much worth it.[/QUOTE]

[straycat]

With respect to many fo the comments made, Dave F is probably the only one that I know that has 'a rep'. It would be really usefull to see the contributors put video (of themselves?) on this thread to demonstrate the application of their words.

OK. I shall comply Finally put something on YouTube that I'm not 100% unhappy with, although it was filmed about 18 months ago. I'm not asking for a critique (particularly as this is slow Lindy, not MJ) - but don't let that stop anyone who has any particular comments to make...

[Gadget]

I'm not asking for a critique (particularly as this is slow Lindy, not MJ) - but don't let that stop anyone who has any particular comments to make...

{Edit: whatcha posting here for if not a critique? }

Since it's Lindy, I can't really put forward anything but the sketchiest comments:

- The main thing I found was that there was very little discipline in floor positioning: could be that the lead didn't have a defined ending or location to move the follower to, or could be that the lead just followed the follower over the floor or could be hundred other things.

... just about everything else I spotted could be attributed to either not starting a movement facing each other or being off each other's axis or general positioning.

From someone who doesn't know Lindy, I would say it looked like a cross between MJ and Lindy: weight on the toes and bouncy steps - I would expect Lindy to have a bit more dynamics with more bent knees, more contrast between open and closed and a dynamic change between the two; could be my expectations, could be the music?

[straycat]

{Edit: whatcha posting here for if not a critique? }

Just responding to Gus' request. So I can comment about other people with a clear conscience

It's interesting that what others see is often so different from what one sees oneself. Your points about positioning are completely valid, for example - but I don't tend to worry about that in Lindy - at least not when we have the whole floor to play with. With a few other people on there, it becomes a different matter.

A few of my own thoughts on it.
1) My posture. Awful. 'Nuff said.
2) Inconsistent bounce. Bounce in Lindy is a key thing for getting the lead and connection with partner, floor & music right, and ... I'm not doing it very well.
3) Rock steps. Often too big, and often, I put my weight onto my heel when I do them (a habit I've since - I hope - shed). This may not sound like a big thing, but it can kill the tension / stretch between moves, and gives very inconsistent signals to the follower.
4) While I'm doing a lot with the music, there's far too many little leg flicks and suchlike which don't come from my core, and which I don't communicate with my partner. They amount to me getting carried away with the music, at the expense of the dance as a whole.

[DJ Mike]

Honestly, I would not care one bit for this sort of class - I do MJ because it's fun, it's simple, and it's sociable, and I certainly have no aspirations of mastery or perfection. To me that would suck all the fun and reason out of why I started doing MJ in the first place!

[Prian]

Honestly, I would not care one bit for this sort of class - I do MJ because it's fun, it's simple, and it's sociable, and I certainly have no aspirations of mastery or perfection. To me that would suck all the fun and reason out of why I started doing MJ in the first place!

This is the reason I do not do competitions. I feel they take away some of the fun element. IMHO