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

[David Franklin]

I've already mentioned that some movements that are natural in WCS really aren't in MJ, in large part due to the footwork. It's very difficult to prove that something's impossible because there's bound to be someone out there who can do it of course.

Sure. And I'm aware I'm kind of providing a moving target. The thing is, we've had debates about whether you can "stick WCS stuff into MJ and end up with all the virtues of WCS", and the Westies are pretty clear that you can't. And I agree as well, because that's sort of what I've done, and I'm sure what I dance is still basically MJ.

One example of something that's relatively simple in WCS that is very difficult* in MJ is leading the follower in an anticlockwise spin from the closed position of a first move, using only the hand on the shoulderblade to turn her.

This is a good example of something that doesn't work, but it doesn't exactly feel "core". On the other hand, I suspect the underlying reason is pretty 'core'. How do you lead it in WCS? Is it essentially "absence of leverage"?

Perhaps a better counter to the "WCS/Lindy is a subset of of MJ" argument is in the vice-versa part of the quote above. If you can't find anything you can do in MJ that you can't do in WCS or Lindy, then presumably that makes MJ a subset of the WCS/Lindy superset as well. I'm pretty sure two entities being subsets of each other is a logical fallacy**

No, it can also be the case that the two subsets are actually equal. Note that set theory as we're using it here is very "all or nothing" about whether something is included, so if WCS does "A" 99% of the time, and "B" 1% of the time, while MJ does "A" 1% of the time and "B" 99% of the time, in set theory terms, both dances allow A and B and we don't see any difference between the dances. In real-world experience, this is nonsense, of course.

Firstly, the slow count is still used in classes here, but we lead on the "&" as well. It drives me nuts - I wish we'd just do away with it entirely and count the beats properly. In all honesty, I've never really understood how you can get away without leading on each beat anyway.

It's not that there isn't a lead on the '&' counts, but you don't typically lead anything "significant" (compare with the 1-beat lead concept in WCS). MJ follows tend to freak out if you lead significant direction changes on the '&' count, even though once they're used to the concept, it doesn't seem to be anything like as much of a problem. [And of course, you then get the 'moving target' problem - because after a while it is part of MJ after all!].

[straycat]

In MJ, you step on every second beat.

Since when?
Assuming that you mean you only step on every second beat...

[straycat]

A better example might be leading on every beat as opposed to 'standard' MJ where you lead only on the downbeats.

MJ or Lindy, it matters not... I use a continuous lead. I've never come across leading only on downbeats - could you explain further?

[straycat]

Is it really true that MJ is a 'superset' of WCS and Lindy in a 'mathematical' sense?

If not, what are the things in WCS/Lindy that are incompatible with MJ? That is, not just "if you do this, it looks more like WCS than MJ", but more "if you do this, it will not work in MJ". (Or vice-versa)

Even if there is nothing in Lindy that 'will not work in MJ', I simply do not agree that this would make MJ a superset of Lindy. Unless I've missed something, the only argument presented to support this is the idea that the dances are defined purely by their 'rules'... and we've already shown how this simply isn't the case.

Here's one for you - I've given an example of something fundamental to Lindy (the pulse) that doesn't exist in MJ. How does that fit with the superset theory?

[David Franklin]

MJ or Lindy, it matters not... I use a continuous lead. I've never come across leading only on downbeats - could you explain further?

Look at how MJ is taught - "Semicircle and step back. Step in. Turn the lady out. Turn the Lady in. Push and raise to turn the lady. Step in to return. Step out". (or something like that - I am dreadful at writing moves out - it's the wrong bit of my brain or something).

Each part takes 2 beats, each part is pretty much taught as "start here, and end here". Yes, there is (or can be) a continuous lead, but with most follows, once one of those '2-beat sequences' is started, it is going to run on to completion almost whatever the lead does.

I'm not saying you can't lead significant changes on 1-beat quanta, but for most followers, it is disproportionately difficult - it's obviously "going against the grain for them".

[David Franklin]

Even if there is nothing in Lindy that 'will not work in MJ', I simply do not agree that this would make MJ a superset of Lindy.

Well, OK, but then you're not using the word in the same way that I am (and I wouldn't really use the word this way either, but I am running with the way bigD was using it).

Unless I've missed something, the only argument presented to support this is the idea that the dances are defined purely by their 'rules'... and we've already shown how this simply isn't the case.

I don't think that's the argument here.

Put it another way;

You agree (surely) that 'partner dancing' is a superset of Lindy.

So if MJ isn't a superset of Lindy, then there must be some concrete reasons why not. And that reason is going to have more to do with MJ than with Lindy - because it pretty much has to be "you can't do this in MJ, because..."

Which is what I've been looking for answers to, because I think it's an interesting question.

Here's one for you - I've given an example of something fundamental to Lindy (the pulse) that doesn't exist in MJ. How does that fit with the superset theory?

If it doesn't exist in MJ, then (on a set theoretic level), it must be incompatible with MJ and you're in the "will not work in MJ" case.

Which, despite your opening paragraph, I would have thought must be the case. If it's fundamental to dancing Lindy, and it doesn't exist in MJ dancers, surely it is something that doesn't work with MJ.

[geoff332]

Since when?
Assuming that you mean you only step on every second beat...

Since it was invented, as far as I'm aware. Certainly as long as I've done it. The basic count is on every second musical beat. As with all dances, you break the basic pattern for variation, but count in MJ is every second beat. And the vast majority of people do step on every second beat.

Ballroom Jive is danced using single beats and swing triples. Swing triples put three pulses in a single beat, but rest the second pulse, giving you the syncopated feel. While you can use these variations in MJ, they are not fundamental to the dance, they are variations.

In terms of which is a superset and which is a subset, the argument is that all forms of jive are subsets of MJ. One could equally argue that MJ is a subset of Ballroom Jive - that, by introducing the appropriate variations to make ballroom jive look like MJ; this is a logically identical claim. Following those premises, we have the position that MJ and Ballroom Jive are equivalent.

If that is not true, then at least one of the premises must be false. Given the two premises are logically identical (Y contains X is X is an acceptable variation of Y), then if one is false, both are false.

[David Franklin]

Since it was invented, as far as I'm aware. Certainly as long as I've done it. The basic count is on every second musical beat. As with all dances, you break the basic pattern for variation, but count in MJ is every second beat. And the vast majority of people do step on every second beat.

Agree with all but the last sentence, but the last sentence is the critical one here. And (with the possible exception of beginners), I think you'll find the majority of people do step on every beat (certainly the majority of followers).

[straycat]

If it doesn't exist in MJ, then (on a set theoretic level), it must be incompatible with MJ and you're in the "will not work in MJ" case.

Which, despite your opening paragraph, I would have thought must be the case. If it's fundamental to dancing Lindy, and it doesn't exist in MJ dancers, surely it is something that doesn't work with MJ.

OK - what I meant by "doesn't exist" is "isn't taught". Actually - more than that - isn't taught, or advocated or practiced. The pulse being a good example. But you can still dance MJ if you put a pulse in - so I don't really see it as incompatible.

I'm not saying you can't lead significant changes on 1-beat quanta, but for most followers, it is disproportionately difficult - it's obviously "going against the grain for them".

Here's another good example - (and thanks for that explanation, by the way - that does make a lot of sense)
Lindy doesn't have any such convention, and if I ever did adhere to it in MJ, these days I'm so Lindy conditioned, that I suspect I ignore it.

So, interestingly, if one follows the rule-based model, this is an example that shows (if I get this right) that Lindy is not a subset of MJ, since it's a rule that restricts MJ... and not Lindy. Being me, I look at it a bit differently - I can and do lead significant changes on 1 (and, very very occasionally, 1/2) beat quanta (and yes, I'm aware this could be considered a bold claim, but I am making it.) Partly by using a continuous connection so that I know where my partner's weight is, and do not wrong-foot her, partly
by appropriately prepping any 'significant' leads, and very much using tension/compression & body leads. So from my perspective, it works just fine in MJ.

I'm not 100% sure how this affects the whole superset / subset debate,

[NZ Monkey]

This is a good example of something that doesn't work, but it doesn't exactly feel "core". On the other hand, I suspect the underlying reason is pretty 'core'. How do you lead it in WCS? Is it essentially "absence of leverage"?

Actually, this one is led with compression.

Normally when the leader takes his follower down the slot for some sort of throwout from closed, by beat two his centre is still a little ahead of his followers centre.

In order to lead the anticlockwise turn, on the second step he shifts his weight back a little up slot (i.e. almost to where he started from), so that his centre is now in line with the followers.

From the followers point of view, this is not only holding back one side of her body, but as long as she's maintained a good frame it creates quite a noticeable compression in her left shoulder/arm/shoulder blade. That pressure acts like a spring, causing her to unwind turning anticlockwise. The leader can help a bit by turning his body slightly during the release if it's needed, but if it's done right that shouldn't be necessary.

Most MJ follows will release their arm soon as they're stepped forward, and those that don't have typically never been asked to turn that way from this position before and can't interpret the lead.

[David Franklin]

Actually, this one is led with compression.

Normally when the leader takes his follower down the slot for some sort of throwout from closed, by beat two his centre is still a little ahead of his followers centre.

In order to lead the anticlockwise turn, on the second step he shifts his weight back a little up slot (i.e. almost to where he started from), so that his centre is now in line with the followers.

From the followers point of view, this is not only holding back one side of her body, but as long as she's maintained a good frame it creates quite a noticeable compression in her left shoulder/arm/shoulder blade.

I'm not really understanding this - where is the compression coming from?

[To add detail: I was taking your original statement to mean "I can lead this using only a standard 'hand on the shoulder blade' connection". And the difficulty I was foreseeing was "Hmm... you really want compression to lead this, and you can't apply compression with a 'hand on the shoulder blade' connection, so this must be something clever in WCS". But now you're saying you do have compression.

I can see ways of getting compression by using a non-standard connection at the shoulder blade. When I do this, it's generally 'cheating' because I can't lead what I want any other way.]

[NZ Monkey]

I'm not really understanding this - where is the compression coming from?

[To add detail: I was taking your original statement to mean "I can lead this using only a standard 'hand on the shoulder blade' connection". And the difficulty I was foreseeing was "Hmm... you really want compression to lead this, and you can't apply compression with a 'hand on the shoulder blade' connection, so this must be something clever in WCS". But now you're saying you do have compression.

I can see ways of getting compression by using a non-standard connection at the shoulder blade. When I do this, it's generally 'cheating' because I can't lead what I want any other way.]

No, I simply meant that you’re not allowed to use the other hand to spin your partner out with like you would in a return.

The compression is in the shoulder. Imagine clipping a wall with your shoulder when running and you’ll get a more violent version of the same idea. It’s an odd feeling because the follower isn’t being pushed anywhere, but it’s still a compression. Her body wants to go forward because that’s where you’ve told it to go on beat 1, but by beat you’ve told one side of her body that it’s not going forward after all by compressing that shoulder (i.e. moving your centre back in line with hers rather than staying in front of it). In fact the follower may even perceive it as a stretch rather than a compression depending on how flexible she is in the muscles around the shoulder and upper arm that get engaged there.

[David Franklin]

Sorry - still not really following this.

Can you tell me which (body) part of the lead is in compressive contact with which part of the follower?

[NZ Monkey]

I'll PM it. This is probably derailing the thread too much.

[straycat]

I'll PM it. This is probably derailing the thread too much.

I think we crossed that line a long time back. Thread split, anyone? Pretty please?

Plus - I'd like to see the answer too. I think I know what the compression feels like - it sounds very much like the Lindy pop turn... but it also sounds like you lead it a little differently. Does the turn start on 2? Or is the compression on 2 the prep?

[David Franklin]

OK - what I meant by "doesn't exist" is "isn't taught". Actually - more than that - isn't taught, or advocated or practiced. The pulse being a good example. But you can still dance MJ if you put a pulse in - so I don't really see it as incompatible.

Well, what I was meaning is if pulsing lets you do things in Lindy due to better connection, etc., then surely that side of it is not going to work in MJ (because the follow won't do her side correctly). So although simply pulsing might not be incompatible with MJ, pulsing and using all the consequences would be.

So, interestingly, if one follows the rule-based model, this is an example that shows (if I get this right) that Lindy is not a subset of MJ, since it's a rule that restricts MJ... and not Lindy.

Yes. Well up until the bit where you said "actually, I can do it in MJ without any problems".

Being me, I look at it a bit differently - I can and do lead significant changes on 1 (and, very very occasionally, 1/2) beat quanta (and yes, I'm aware this could be considered a bold claim, but I am making it.)

I must admit, I'm very surprised to hear you claim this when dancing with MJ followers. Because I've certainly experienced a fair degree of "***?" responses when I've tried it. That is, things went wrong not because of the lead (IMHO), but because the follow started thinking "You're leading on the wrong beat" and trying to stop me and get back to standard MJ timing.

[NZ Monkey]

I think we crossed that line a long time back. Thread split, anyone? Pretty please?

Plus - I'd like to see the answer too. I think I know what the compression feels like - it sounds very much like the Lindy pop turn... but it also sounds like you lead it a little differently. Does the turn start on 2? Or is the compression on 2 the prep?

OK then, I've posted the PM below. Minus the part where I bad mouth Lindy Hoppers of course

I don't know what a Lindy pop turn is, but "pop" does seem like a fitting term for what I'm trying to describe. The compression on the 2 is definitely a prep. The footwork for the followers is the standard 6 count, but I'm not 100% certain my partner would say the turn actually starts on the 3. It'd be pretty close to it either way.

If you imagined pushing a pencil sideways along a frictionless surface so that it isn’t rotating at all, and then making one end run into your finger, the pencil would keep moving forward only now it will be rotating. That’s the basic idea with this lead, except that in practice you can’t just stop moving and expect her to sail though the turn nicely on her own. She probably doesn’t like being called a rigid body either….

Remember that she’s in a closed position at the moment, so her arm is resting on the outside of yours and she’s hopefully using this to help maintain a nice connection through her whole frame. When you step to place your centre next to hers rather than ahead of it on the second beat, her arm and shoulder are going to end up just a little bit behind your centre as her chest opens up a bit more. It’s the sort of position you might get if you were stretching your own pec against a wall, except that the follower isn’t straightening her arm to make it better.

The differences in distance I’m talking about here are really small by the way but she’s essential walked into this position, which means the momentum change comes quite quickly. You need to let this position get loaded up like a spring before releasing, and it’s this release that makes the follower spin off rather than the leader pushing or stirring her around.

The compression is that build up. It isn’t compression in the obvious way a sugar push is though. The leader is only applying it on one side, so the natural response should be rotation if the follower isn’t thinking too hard about it.

When my partner and I started working on this the whole position felt very cramped and it took a bit of figuring out just how much allowance for error we had in each phase for it to be truly lead and follow. It feels very easy when you’ve got the connection, but you both need to be quite connected to your own centre and it pretty much has to be body led. I think part of the trouble I have leading it in MJ is just that actually – the followers either aren’t used to particularly sensitive leads, or just don’t trust themselves to follow something subtle that they don’t recognize.

As an aside, another thing I find to be a massive difference is leading the follower with her left arm. In WCS it’s just another arm, but in MJ it’s the “wrong” one and usually results in a Wurlitzer or a roll-in from a Wurlitzer (whether I wanted one or not). I have had to catch many women throwing themselves into dips or leans from there…..

[bigdjiver]

I have been trying to come up with something that is part of Lindy but would not be acceptable as MJ, according to my limited understanding of both.

Way, way back I now remember an MJ lesson where we were allegedly taught a move derived from Lindy. As I recall the partners split and did opposing independent shimmying circles away from each other meeting back where they started after a few beats, all hopefully synchronised.

I would definitely label this as non-MJ.

As for the spinning pencil turn I have my own take on that which I used several times at the Bedford Corn exchange last Friday.
R to R
Lead twists into mans nelson position, arm behind his back, lead and follow side to side.
Walk around, lead going backwards, follow forwards
At the right psychological moment, (when the follow is just starting to wonder "what is this") and when the follow is in position to spin, I release right hand and using my shoulder on the top of the follows right arm I spin couter clockwise, sending her into a spin.

[straycat]

I don't know what a Lindy pop turn is, but "pop" does seem like a fitting term for what I'm trying to describe.

Thanks for that. I slightly misunderstood your previous explanation - from this one, I'd say it is pretty much the same as the pop turn. I've not tried leading it in MJ, but I agree that doing so would likely be a tough proposition.

[David Franklin]

I don't know what a Lindy pop turn is, but "pop" does seem like a fitting term for what I'm trying to describe. The compression on the 2 is definitely a prep. The footwork for the followers is the standard 6 count, but I'm not 100% certain my partner would say the turn actually starts on the 3. It'd be pretty close to it either way.

What you've posted makes a lot more physical sense than what I'd been imagining. I think I'd have to try it to see where it goes wrong with MJ follows, and from what you said, it wasn't actually that simple to get working with a fixed WCS partner.

Way back in the distant past, Viktor used to teach a move like this at Ceroc - I don't remember the exact details, but it was similar, albeit with probably a much less subtle 'pop' of the chest/shoulders to start the move. I do remember that no-one could get it to work in freestyle (except Viktor).