Learning Blues...

[David Bailey]

I've no idea what the difference is either - are you going to enlighten us with a video?

Christ, no, that'd involve actual work.

But I think that what the MJ world calls "Blues" is effectively, grinding. Whereas "Proper Blues" / "American Blues" / "Whateveryouwanttocallit Blues" seems to have more clear rules about posture, more clearly-defined musical styles, and so on.

Not to mention the hats.

[geoff332]

Not to mention the hats.

If only there were a word that rhymed with 'hat' that we could use to describe people who wear them...

On a less serious aside, I like your project of learning a new dance each year. Although you're mostly confirming my view that it's all just dancing...

[frodo]

.Whereas "Proper Blues" / "American Blues" / "Whateveryouwanttocallit Blues" seems to have more clear rules about posture, more clearly-defined musical styles, and so on.

Makes sense. A modern jive derived blues variant always was going to have less technique.

.But I think that what the MJ world calls "Blues" is effectively, grinding.

Not just slower dancing without the concertina action (as in different from MJ).

The majority of lessons don't appear to be about grinding.

[David Bailey]

On a less serious aside, I like your project of learning a new dance each year. Although you're mostly confirming my view that it's all just dancing...

The way I see it, a new dance form every year gives me the opportunity to diversify, it gives some context and breadth to my own experience, and I get to see how other teachers approach their own dance forms.

I may even try Kizomba next year, who knows...

[straycat]

If only there were a word that rhymed with 'hat' that we could use to describe people who wear them...

I wear a hat a lot of the time.

If that helps any...

[Whitebeard]

I've no idea what the difference is either - are you going to enlighten us with a video?

Here are two videos which I see as being very much within the spirit of what we refer to as MJ Blues. Yet they originate from a dedicated Blues group (young and enthusiastic) in the American North West. I believe this helps to show that the Blues dance form encompasses a much wider spectrum of style variations than is generally recognised and acknowledged.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vquqYc93mGg&list=UUV0R5uYojN5Tw6x_lvD7uaQ&index=1&feature=plcp



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2YXCra5EuA&list=UUV0R5uYojN5Tw6x_lvD7uaQ&index=2&feature=plcp

How I love that pared down to the essence guitar of Colin Lake.

And here is a video of a more traditional Blues form, from a dedicated Blues group based in London, which breaks away to some extent from the Lindy influence and approaches perhaps more than normally toward an MJ Blues style, but is still typically rather faster and more animated, danced more openly (room for lots of those dratted baby Jesus‘), has more footwork, and tolerates flat caps.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YzEl2vlaDo&list=UU1PdnBNmvFMfojRYTrArGcA&index=1&feature=plcp

Great Band!

[Rocky]

Week 2........

Well, there are some issues I would take with some of the technique you have described - but as you recognize, it may just be that your description of it isn’t as accurate as it could be.

... But I think that what the MJ world calls "Blues" is effectively, grinding. Whereas "Proper Blues" / "American Blues" / "Whateveryouwanttocallit Blues" seems to have more clear rules about posture, more clearly-defined musical styles, and so on..

Makes sense. A modern jive derived blues variant always was going to have less technique..

Ok, well I’m obviously going to take exception to the idea that American Blues is somehow more ‘proper’ than UK based blues.. And Frodo’s comment I’m afraid typifies a lot of the same old rubbish that has been repeated over and over again with regard to MJ too. MJ/Ceroc is a very technical dance. It combines frame, core, compression, connection, leverage, momentum and footwork and all of those elements are taught to varying degrees by numerous teachers. Less is taught in beginners classes because the focus is on simply getting people moving in the hope that they will at least come back a second time. However, there are numerous workshops that teach the technical aspects of the dance if people want to learn it..

As regards Blues I personally think that US style Blues (just like Lindy in fact) has the potential to look like a ‘comedy’ dance even if it’s performed at a competent level. The exaggerated posture and movement along with the ‘self expression’ stuff that is taught generally leads to something that I (and many others who have commented before on this subject) find embarrassing to watch. It has also lead to this odd style of blues (and I have no idea where it came from) that has lead a certain number of people to develop and teach that involves people ‘dancing’ to extremely slow blues by going from one pose to another followed by a wiggle or a mince, or whatever and a shuffle of the feet.. very strange...

Our own style of Blues has developed over the 10 years we have been teaching it and I would say has evolved more in the last couple of years as we have refined the major elements of technique. Our method of teaching is all about core, frame, connection and the synchronicity of weight transfer in both open and closed hold, and also in transition. Learning these techniques in conjunction with a series of moves that highlight them is the only path to being able to express the musicality that is a defining principle of the dance. I’m not going to bore you any more with it, but I would say that if anyone has the impression that UK based Blues is not about technique, then they need to think again – we’re running 3 workshops at Newbury this year with the intro (Groove The Blues 1) on 12th May. If anyone doubts what I’ve said then maybe you should book one of the workshops and come down and see for yourself.

Finally, as regards ‘grinding’. When Lucky (Lucky Skillen) was last over a couple of weeks ago I was fortunate in being invited to see the documentary he is working on regarding the origins of dancing in the US. In it he features the last ever interview with Frankie Manning before he died. Frankie, as I’m sure many of you know, was one of the founding fathers of Blues and Lindy dancing in the US, and his recollection of Blues is that it was ALL about grinding... That said, as Frodo mentions, most teachers don’t teach people to grind in Blues workshops these days. Our personal focus is on social blues dancing with either a counter balanced hold with no body contact at all, or a closer hold with upper body contact only.

[straycat]

Here are two videos which I see as being very much within the spirit of what we refer to as MJ Blues. Yet they originate from a dedicated Blues group (young and enthusiastic) in the American North West. I believe this helps to show that the Blues dance form encompasses a much wider spectrum of style variations than is generally recognised and acknowledged.

I'm not sure the US blues scene is the best one to use as MJ blues examples (although I admit there's not a lot of videos to choose from there)
Might it be better to look at the leading teachers?
Nigel & Nina
[video=youtube;VqD41yhEdQk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqD41yhEdQk[/video]

David (Rocky) & Val
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNFlW9r5H6o

For traditional(?) blues, well - here's a couple of competition videos that are quite fun:
Blues Shout
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRVTZzVfWHw

Lone Star Championships
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqfwRl2hvQY

For an off-the-cuff distinction, I'd say that MJ blues is generally more move-based, whereas US / standard / traditional / whatever you want to call it is very much movement-based.

[David Bailey]

Ok, well I’m obviously going to take exception to the idea that American Blues is somehow more ‘proper’ than UK based blues..

Well I'm not even sure there is such a difference. I'm just a beginner.

Based on observation, however, there's clearly "what MJ dancers dance socially and call it Blues", and there's "what Blues dancers dance socially", and they're obviously different beasts. Well, mostly. Whether that implies that "MJ Blues" is different, I don't know. And whilst obviously plenty of people in the MJ world have been teaching Blues for a long time, I don't see much evidence of MJ dancers actually adopting a "authentic" (?) Blues style in MJ rooms.

Even at Sara White's thing on Saturday, a lot of people were doing slow-motion Jive - "moondancing MJ" as one person called it. And that's with a crowd of extremely high-quality dancers, too.

Also, I note that on the Ceroc Storm schedule , there's an explicit class called "Ceroc to Blues: Adapt your Ceroc Dancing to work in the Blues Room". Which certainly seems to imply that Ceroc, at least, think there's a difference between "Proper Blues" and "MJ Blues". (I'd go to the class, but it's on at 10:45am on a Sunday morning, so I suspect that's unlikely)

I’m not going to bore you any more with it, but I would say that if anyone has the impression that UK based Blues is not about technique, then they need to think again

Yeah, I'm not sure Frodo's comment is reasonable either.

Our personal focus is on social blues dancing with either a counter balanced hold with no body contact at all, or a closer hold with upper body contact only.

Blimey, where's the fun in that?

[Rocky]

I'm not sure the US blues scene is the best one to use as MJ blues examples (although I admit there's not a lot of videos to choose from there)
Might it be better to look at the leading teachers?...

Hmmm... well I don't think the clips really help - ours is just a 'walk through' to a random piece of music and the other 3 are performances. As I've said I absolutely believe in teaching simple moves to reinforce the use of technique and as you can see we are just simply going through the 3 basic positions and showing how you can seamlessly coordinate weight transitions from closed to open hold and back in again.

...For an off-the-cuff distinction, I'd say that MJ blues is generally more move-based, whereas US / standard / traditional / whatever you want to call it is very much movement-based.

I guess this description is fair although I would say that the last video had quite a lot of reliance on moves rather than just movement.

... Also, I note that on the Ceroc Storm schedule , there's an explicit class called "Ceroc to Blues: Adapt your Ceroc Dancing to work in the Blues Room". Which certainly seems to imply that Ceroc, at least, think there's a difference between "Proper Blues" and "MJ Blues". (I'd go to the class, but it's on at 10:45am on a Sunday morning, so I suspect that's unlikely)

Well, yes that is something we started to introduce last year and is now being taken up by other teachers - we called it X-Style Blues. It's really a first step into Blues for people who are nervous of the genre and just shows them how they can take moves they already know and 'Bluesify' them. I don't actually know what Steve is going to teach at Camber but it is really about stylizing the moves rather than just doing slow Ceroc.

... Blimey, where's the fun in that?

There is little 'fun' in that, but that comes later on the dance floor! It just makes for a more comfortable environment for everyone to learn in that's all...

[straycat]

Hmmm... well I don't think the clips really help - ours is just a 'walk through' to a random piece of music and the other 3 are performances. As I've said I absolutely believe in teaching simple moves to reinforce the use of technique and as you can see we are just simply going through the 3 basic positions and showing how you can seamlessly coordinate weight transitions from closed to open hold and back in again.

Aye - it's hard to find MJ blues equivalents to the competition videos. To try and balance things out, here's a US clip of a workshop summary. (Chris & Campbell )
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0fnbpUK88U

I guess this description is fair although I would say that the last video had quite a lot of reliance on moves rather than just movement.

Fair point - being a comp (and with regular partners, hence more preparation possibilities), that's inevitably going to happen to some degree or other.
Interestingly, the ones who were pretty much 100% movement based won - Evita (in red) & Jeremie - and the worst (IMO) offenders came in third.


Back to something you said earlier:

Learning these techniques in conjunction with a series of moves that highlight them is the only path to being able to express the musicality that is a defining principle of the dance.

I wouldn't agree that this is the only way. It's a perfectly good way, but there's other good methods for achieving the same ends.

[Rocky]

Back to something you said earlier:

I wouldn't agree that this is the only way. It's a perfectly good way, but there's other good methods for achieving the same ends.

Well, that depends how you define 'musicality'. You can teach people the structure of blues music until the cows come home but that doesn't mean that they will be able to interpret that structure through the medium of dance with a partner. If you take Chris and Cambells class as an example it was all about moves - no doubt they were covering a lot of technique too in the class, but technique has no value unless you can apply it somehow. How else can you affect your partner if you cannot move her to the feeling of the music?

You can't be a great musician unless you know the structure of scales and chords, all of which give shape to the music. You can't be a great writer unless you have a vocabulary and know how to contruct sentences and paragraphs to give life to the words - so how can you be a great dancer unless you know how to move yourself and your partner in unison to the changes in the music?

[David Bailey]

Well, that depends how you define 'musicality'. You can teach people the structure of blues music until the cows come home but that doesn't mean that they will be able to interpret that structure through the medium of dance with a partner.

I've done loads of musicality classes. I've taught musicality classes, for that matter. And I still don't know what the best way of teaching musicality is.

I think the way that works best for me (as a student and teacher) is individual tuition. Because you can assess the way a person "thinks" about the dancing, and tailor the tuition that way. Yes, of course that rule applies to all teaching, but musicality seems to be one of those things that is so individual, subjective and personal, that group classes seem to be more limited in this area than in other areas.

Some people will learn by examples, some by structure, some by general "listen to the music" advice. To be honest, though, I'm not in favour of a "musical analysis" approach - I don't think it really works for dancers. Whenever I hear people talk about beats, bars and phrases, my brain turns to mush.

Weirdly, singing the melody during the class also helps to teach (I say "weirdly" because I really really can't sing at all).

[Franck]

One of the problems with teaching musicality, or more to the point, applying musicality in dancing, is that you need a much larger vocabulary of dance, as well as more complex grammar. If all you know are a few basic words (read moves, or basic movements / patterns) then you'll only be able to produce the dancing equivalent of texting, even if you can hear great variation in the music. Once you have a larger vocabulary, and the technique to be able to influence / control your own body, as well as that of your partner, you'll be able to interpret the music with more and more subtlety.
I have seen the results of musicality workshops where dancers were told that as long as you 'feel' the music, you'll be musical. Unfortunately, unless you first invest in learning the technique of dancing, expressing musicality will remain a bit like 'not saying anything whilst staring' makes you mysterious and interesting...

[straycat]

Well, that depends how you define 'musicality'. You can teach people the structure of blues music until the cows come home but that doesn't mean that they will be able to interpret that structure through the medium of dance with a partner. If you take Chris and Cambells class as an example it was all about moves - no doubt they were covering a lot of technique too in the class, but technique has no value unless you can apply it somehow. How else can you affect your partner if you cannot move her to the feeling of the music?

I'd say it depends on how you define 'moves'. You can teach musicality off the back of micro-blues, which I don't consider to use 'moves' per se... (but others might see that differently) I personally have attended musicality workshops in both blues and lindy that were move-based, and ones that were not.

Please note - I'm not trying to argue which approach is best - just that other approaches exist, and are perfectly valid.

One of the problems with teaching musicality, or more to the point, applying musicality in dancing, is that you need a much larger vocabulary of dance, as well as more complex grammar.

Why so? You can teach or learn musicality purely with weight-shifts and walking your partner round a room, and I've seen people do some wonderfully creative, musical and connected dancing using no more tools than that.

[Franck]

Why so? You can teach or learn musicality purely with weight-shifts and walking your partner round a room, and I've seen people do some wonderfully creative, musical and connected dancing using no more tools than that.

Well, several reasons, first of all, what you describe above is already technically complex, it might appear simple, but connected dancing, weight-shifts and walking your partner around the room implies a great technical base for both dancers, which is what I meant by being able to influence / control your own body and that of your partner.
Second, everyone's perception of musicality will vary, so one technique doesn't fit all, in order to be musical (to your own satisfaction) you need to learn the vocabulary, grammar and self control to be able to express what you feel.
Finally, indeed you can be musical by clapping your hands to the beat, or doing really basic stuff, but that isn't what most people aspire to when they want to learn 'musicality'. Most people have already achieved the 'dancing to the beat' and occasionally hitting breaks stages of dancing but they want more. They want to be able to be on phrase, hit accents, add contrast, lead one thing whilst following another instrument with their own body, isolate body movements, communicate what moves them in a piece of music, etc.
All the above take a lot of good technique and a good dance vocabulary (moves, movements, footwork, accents, body isolation, connection, etc.) before they can be included into any dance. In my experience, people don't struggle to hear the music, they struggle to translate it into movements they would be happy with.

[Rocky]

I've done loads of musicality classes. I've taught musicality classes, for that matter. And I still don't know what the best way of teaching musicality is..

We've taught it many times and in different formats and what we've found is it's best to teach the concept of musicality within the framework of moves. Once people understand that music has a definite structure that usually repeats eg. Intro, verse, bridge, chorus, middle 8 etc. then what they need is a range of moves that enables them to interpret the changes. For example moves that allow you to drag aspects of them to still hit a break if you start too early. Moves that enable you to dynamically change the speed of a move to still hit a break if you start too late. Double dips and quick fix stops and accents that let you respond quickly to changes if you're not able to think too far ahead etc. etc. Footstep patterns to pick up back beats or changes in the music, light and shade to reflect the dynamic changes inherent in bridges and musical breaks..

I'd say it depends on how you define 'moves'. You can teach musicality off the back of micro-blues, which I don't consider to use 'moves' per se... (but others might see that differently) I personally have attended musicality workshops in both blues and lindy that were move-based, and ones that were not.

Please note - I'm not trying to argue which approach is best - just that other approaches exist, and are perfectly valid.


Why so? You can teach or learn musicality purely with weight-shifts and walking your partner round a room, and I've seen people do some wonderfully creative, musical and connected dancing using no more tools than that.

Yes, of course musicality can take various forms and everything you describe can be used musically. However, it's important to have variation in what you do. Some tracks are all about grinding, some are about very little movement at all, some are very lyrical, some are about dynamic changes. Some tracks are about intimacy, and some tracks are about fun. But unless you have a vocabulary that can describe how you feel and what you want to convey you're going to be pretty shackled.

Franck's point about having an extensive vocabulary and about having an understanding of complex grammar is therefore very valid. But it's important to note that this does not mean that you would execute complex moves with this knowledge. The very best musicians and dancers are those that have a wide breadth of knowledge of their genre that allows them to express the perfect moment in just a single note or a simple touch. Very few people can do this intuitively. Instead it comes from a thorough understanding of structure and technique. Great guitarists practice their scales, chords and both their left and right hand technique constantly and in doing so it allows them to cut loose when they improvise because all of that knowledge and technique comes to bear in the moment. It’s the same with dancing. Practicing figures, movement and technique allows you to be totally free to create the moment with your partner because you will have an implicit knowledge of not only how you move your body, but also how your movement directly affects your partner.

Of course you can run an entire workshop on walking. You can run an entire workshop on micro blues and standing still – but neither of those or going to make you a very rounded dancer. Just as learning how to use punctuation is not going to make you a great writer. Having a library of moves that specifically fit the dynamic structure of Blues music is effectively the meat (or cheese if you’re a veggie..) in your Blues dancing sandwich – everything else is just additional filling that adds to the taste experience. However, with that analogy in mind, there is no doubt that an inspired filling can lift the sandwich to extraordinary heights and tickle your taste buds and a bad filling can induce vomiting..

[Gerry]

A lot of people go on about dancing being a conversation between the two dancers but there is a third person that should be directing the conversation which is the music. As dancers we may have a nice catalog of moves but if we are not talking the same language how can we interpret the music and decide which move we should use.
I have been to lots of musicality classes and I understand phrasing, lyrical musicality etc but I still find that the music just doesn't tell me what to do even though I love music and listen to different genres all the time. ;-(((((((((((((((

[Franck]

A lot of people go on about dancing being a conversation between the two dancers but there is a third person that should be directing the conversation which is the music. As dancers we may have a nice catalog of moves but if we are not talking the same language how can we interpret the music and decide which move we should use.
I have been to lots of musicality classes and I understand phrasing, lyrical musicality etc but I still find that the music just doesn't tell me what to do even though I love music and listen to different genres all the time. ;-(((((((((((((((

The "speaking the same language" analogy you use can be stretched a little bit further.

In a way, learning 'moves' is the equivalent of using a phrase book when travelling, you get many useful phrases, which allow you to communicate when abroad. Those phrases will not be perfect to every situation, but still help.

The other thing you mention is musicality classes, workshops and phrasing, lyrical, etc... This is the equivalent of taking a course on creative writing in a foreign language, you are told how it should feel, sound / look, and many stylistic tricks used by the best writers in that language...

What appears to be missing from the above is 'grammar' and 'vocabulary'.

Grammar is the necessary technique you need for partner dancing, this will include connection, spacial awareness and body positioning, lead & follow skills, weight distribution, momentum, etc. Once those grammar rules are assimilated, everyone's dancing improves significantly.

Vocabulary is the range of body movements you can produce personally (i.e. shoulder shimmy, footwork patterns, arm extensions, head flicks, etc.) combined with the movements you can properly lead or follow and the different patterns you can create with your partners using those movements, it will start with the 'basic' step in and out and will develop into complex series of basic movements (that are led and followed, not pre-agreed).

Once you have learnt the skills above to a sufficient degree, you might find that musicality comes naturally, and effortlessly!

[David Bailey]

So, I've been a bit lax on the Blues classes recently, but I did a Blues masterclass thing with Ruby and Jaye at Storm over the weekend.

I took some notes during the masterclass, and here's what we covered:

We covered posture: knees soft, "zigzag" offset feet, and leader's arm around follower's waist. All of which - especially the arm placement - is difficult for me as it's unlearning some habits.

We covered walking forwards and - again a tricky one - backwards.

We did "doubles": which is the bouncing side-to-side step movement. I'm slooowly getting used to these movements, but again it feels a bit unnatural.

We did "singles": basically weight transfers but with feet slightly further apart.

We did a "squash everyone in the corner" exercise also, to teach us good floorcraft - I do a similar thing in my workshops, but they were explicitly encouraging couples to move into spaces in a Brownian motion thing, which was different.

Some nice technique points:
- If you're a relaxed follower, you gain more sensitivity to your partner's signals because you're not focussing on tensing your muscles.
- There's no real "line of dance", but neither is there an expectation to stay in the same place. So I'm not sure where that leaves the movement convention...

We did a rockstep turn, which I liked - I promptly filed the numbers off and used it in my own Tango class on Monday

We did triple-steps, then rotating triple steps.

And then we finished.

It was great - both Jaye and Ruby are lovely people, and the class was very friendly and very useful.