What is Modern Jive and how does it compare to WCS?

[NZ Monkey]

I know this has been a contentious question over the years. An excellent resource from Australia has just been released attempting to answer that question, where this has been a burning issue in competitive circles for a number of years now.

[video=vimeo;39591061]http://vimeo.com/39591061[/video]

Not everybody will agree with the details presented here, MJ being a mutable beast. This video does the best job of explaining its essential essence that I've seen though, and by no small margin either. For what it's worth, this is a very good representation of my understanding of MJ.

I hope it can be used as a resource for those interested, and perhaps as a tool for reflection for those of us who have spent far too long debating those same questions on this board ourselves.

NZ Monkey

Edit: Credit goes to Robert Winter of CMJ Australia for producing this.

[Andy McGregor]

In this clip the offbeat/halfbeat/upbeat are all the same thing. As far as I can tell - confuses the hell out of me. The timing of MJ is really simple - until you start giving 3 different names to the same thing Otherwise it's a well explained teaching of the way MJ is done down under.

[Whitebeard]

H
Gosh, that's awful isn't it? ..... no more than marching to music!!

[Andy McGregor]

H
Gosh, that's awful isn't it? ..... no more than marching to music!!

It's MJ and in MJ there's a weight change on every beat. If you are not changing weight on every beat in your basic MJ there is a good chance that you are not doing MJ the same way as 95% of dancers. It's not marching because there's many times where you step-in-place. Consider the rock-step, you only move your right foot but your left (or the other way around, obviously) foot does 3 things without moving:

1. Weight on left foot
2. Left foot stays where it is with no weight (it's now on the right foot)
3. Weight comes back on to the left foot.

Not marching at all, it's dancing Modern Jive and (almost ) everyone does MJ that way. My assertion is that people who do their MJ a different way are mostly doing a different dance*.

[Rant Mode}My current hobby horse is the people who come to my classes who've been elsewhere and learned different footwork for their MJ, mostly from self-taught dance teachers. You can't dance MJ with them properly because you can't predict what foot will be bearing their weight. Those self-taught dance teachers are inventing dances and calling them "Modern Jive" - one dance teacher I know has re-invented a dance that's a bit like the timing for a Rumba with a silly kick instead of a weight change - you can't turn those people in the middle of their kick and you can't predict where the kick will come because it's not in any particular place in the bar, it's on a back-step which can come anywhere depending on the number of beats in the move [/rant]

*N.B. The old fashioned LeRoc has different footwork from the way MJ is taught at 95% of classes. However, this is consistently different.

[straycat]

Otherwise it's a well explained teaching of the way MJ is done down under.

So how does that compare to the way it's taught over here?

[Andy McGregor]

So how does that compare to the way it's taught over here?

So how does that compare to the way it's taught over here?

It's the same as some UK teachers but very different from the way I teach MJ. If you want to see how I teach MJ you'll need to come to one of my classes. There's others who teach the same as me, most notably David Plummer. But he's not the only one. However, the footwork timing is the same as my teaching and the same as I observe on the dance floor.

I'd say the main difference between my teaching and the video is the concertina action. I really don't teach it at all - the guy stepping forward right as the lady steps forward left is, IMHO an opportunity for a collision or one foot on top of the other. And both partners stepping back/apart at the same time creates most of the the bad MJ habits that I see in real life;

Straight arms
Shoulders raised towards the ears
Shoulders over the toes or even in front of them
Sticking out bottoms
Breaking the frame

It's not just me being a overly picky teacher, much of the above is likely to put a strain on the back and shoulder joints.

.. add stepping back with the toes raised, tapping instead of changing weight and bouncing the hand and you've got most of the commonly observed bad habits in MJ.

Robert doesn't do any of those things because he's a good dancer. He and his partner step back a short distance so they can keep their elbows pointing at the floor. However, most of the people who come to MJ classes can't dance at all. As a consequence they over-do everything, including stepping apart so far they end up with straight arms - and that is what causes bad dancing - lack of two-way feedback from the teacher is what makes those bad movements become bad habits.

The other notable difference is that I teach MJ starting on the 1 rather than the 8. Having been taught to count from 1 as a child I think counting should start at 1. I'm especially confused by people who start counting and call beat 1 "5" and even more confused when they call beat 3 "6" as they are giving an odd numbered "down-beat" an even numbered count But once you're going it doesn't matter where you started counting.

N.B. I haven't seen Mr Winter for over 10 years - he's not aged at all, just gone all beardy!

[Whitebeard]

It's not marching because there's many times where you step-in-place. Consider the rock-step, you only move your right foot but your left (or the other way around, obviously) foot does 3 things without moving:

1. Weight on left foot
2. Left foot stays where it is with no weight (it's now on the right foot)
3. Weight comes back on to the left foot.

Not marching at all, it's dancing Modern Jive and (almost ) everyone does MJ that way. My assertion is that people who do their MJ a different way are mostly doing a different dance*.

Andy, I was remarking on the video in which the MJ dance does appear in this snapshot to be no more than a march and no stepping in place or simple weight transfers are to be seen.

Don’t get me wrong; I think this is a very worthy attempt to get to the bottom of the essence of MJ and, naturally enough, this commentator does so from an Australian viewpoint. And, just as surely, we find that this differs from the UK experience and practice in its details

Unfortunately I have hearing issues, compounded by the less than perfectly recorded sound and Aussie accent, and may misinterpret or miss some remarks. However, I appreciated the very clear visual illustration regarding upbeats and downbeats as well as mention of the different counting methods

When it came to demonstrating actual dance movements, I was far less impressed and this is where my ‘marching to music’ remark came to mind. What appears to me to be a very rigid, inflexible, and prescriptive methodology, makes its mark known.

That methodology appears to be:

Thou shalt step on every beat.

Thou shalt step right foot on every downbeat.

Thou shalt step left foot on every upbeat.

In reality, I’m sure Robert must be accentuating the high stepping leg action to better illustrate the methodology and am confident that his normal dancing is much more varied and smooth; more akin to the UK experience. However there do appear to be quite fundamental differences in the way MJ is interpretted and taught in the two countries.

[Andy McGregor]

Andy, I was remarking on the video in which the MJ dance does appear in this snapshot to be no more than a march and no stepping in place or simple weight transfers are to be seen.

Don’t get me wrong; I think this is a very worthy attempt to get to the bottom of the essence of MJ and, naturally enough, this commentator does so from an Australian viewpoint. And, just as surely, we find that this differs from the UK experience and practice in its details

Unfortunately I have hearing issues, compounded by the less than perfectly recorded sound and Aussie accent, and may misinterpret or miss some remarks. However, I appreciated the very clear visual illustration regarding upbeats and downbeats as well as mention of the different counting methods

The timing of the movements with the music does seem a bit juddery on my laptop too. No idea why.

IMHO the discussion of different counting methods does nothing to clarify and much to confuse a beginner. I like counting on every beat, 1,2,3,4, etc. It's clear and it's consistent with other partner dances.

When it came to demonstrating actual dance movements, I was far less impressed and this is where my ‘marching to music’ remark came to mind. What appears to me to be a very rigid, inflexible, and prescriptive methodology, makes its mark known.

I regard this as clearly defined. Mr Winter has clearly defined the footwork for MJ. This makes it easy for a beginner to know what is correct and what is wrong - it's so much better than the rubbish I hear about there being "no footwork" in MJ.

That methodology appears to be:

Thou shalt step on every beat.

Thou shalt step right foot on every downbeat.

Thou shalt step left foot on every upbeat.

The "methodology" above describes the lady's weight changes. The guys are opposite. However, there doesn't have to be a step, just a weight change. And once you've mastered the basics you can, of course, vary your weight changes to fit the moves/music/mood/etc.

My guess is that Robert is taking an actual step to clearly show the weight changes. In line dance these back steps would be called "Coaster" steps. When I'm teaching I teach the ladies to take a rock-step as I described earlier in this tread. The weight changes are the same as Robert's but the foot movements are not.

In reality, I’m sure Robert must be accentuating the high stepping leg action to better illustrate the methodology and am confident that his normal dancing is much more varied and smooth; more akin to the UK experience. However there do appear to be quite fundamental differences in the way MJ is interpretted and taught in the two countries.

I do not think the "UK experience" is smooth at all. In general it's jerky, bouncy and most of all, exuberant fun! I've been to a lot of classes around the UK and quite a few weekenders - most people are still dancing with a bounce and too far apart - my mission to fix this continues ...

.. but keep the fun element! We're getting more and more smooth dancers all the time in the UK. At one time even Dave Plummer was not smooth. Here's what he wrote on the Facebook Dancers Forum.

I can’t remember the year, but a while ago at Camber Sands I saw 3 men dancing differently to the rest of the 1700 dancers there. They stood out to me. I approached one and asked what style he was dancing. He told me it was Modern Jive. My reply was, “it looks nothing like what I do” to which he replied “That’s because you’re doing it wrong”. He then proceeded to tell me all the flaws in my dancing… which I took on the chin as I had asked him. His name was Andy McGregor. I remember Andy saying he had been heavily influenced by Nigel Anderson & Nina Daines – two excellent teachers who teach many styles very well.

This meeting with Lazy Dave was around about 2002: my MJ had, by then, been influenced by Nigel & Nina. I'd seen them dance at the 1997 LeJive Champs at Hammersmith Palais and this showed me that MJ didn't have to be the bouncy dance I'd been taught. This was an epiphany for me - I'd been ballroom dancing for many years but had been told to ignore all those rules for MJ and had swallowed the "no footwork" story with all it's sub-scripts of bouncing, frame breaking, over-turning and dancing too far apart with my shoulders up around my ears and a sticking out bottom! Seeing Nigel and Nina dance sort of gave me permission to apply the "rules" I'd learned at Ballroom & Latin classes.

In my opinion you need rules to make the dance simple. If there's one rule it's easy to learn. If the rule is "do what you like" there's an infinite number of options and this can be very confusing, especially to beginners. Even the "you can move either foot" is doubling the options compared to there being only one correct foot.

[straycat]

Out of interest, how do the WCS - savvy folk on here find the video's representation of WCS and it's distinguishing characteristics? Fair, spot on, terrible, a little superficial? I know it's not an entirely fair question, given that the video is intended to be very much MJ - centric, but I'm still curious.

[NZ Monkey]

Fit-for-purpose.

As you say, it's not really a fair question. The video has a very specific purpose, and that isn't a treatise on the intricate details of WCS. But it's accurate, clear and gives a good basis for a non-WCS dancer in the MJ world to determine if what they're seeing is MJ or WCS. It also does it quickly and simply, which counts for a lot in practical terms.

We've had problems in NZ in recent years where competitors have been disqualified or marked down for dancing WCS, when they've never even taken a class in their life. A lot of people rip moves of WCS clips on youtube, which I suppose can lead to the impression they're doing a different dance if the judges recognise it. Mostly though there's just a lot of ignorance around the dance, and I'm convinced that a significant chunk of the MJ community thinks WCS is nothing more than smoothish MJ. In Australia WCS has had an even greater influence on MJ in last four or five years, and the same issues have really come to a head there recently.

[Andy McGregor]

Mostly though there's just a lot of ignorance around the dance, and I'm convinced that a significant chunk of the MJ community thinks WCS is nothing more than smoothish MJ. In Australia WCS has had an even greater influence on MJ in last four or five years, and the same issues have really come to a head there recently.

This situation has been around for many years in the UK. Some people seem to have the mind-set that MJ is "just dancin'". The "there is no footwork" school has contributed to this. The logical conclusion from there being "no footwork" is that there can be no wrong footwork.

Here in the UK a clear definition of the footwork of MJ has still not been agreed by the LeRoc Federation. All they ask is that each teacher is "consistent" in their teaching and many versions of footwork are acceptable as MJ/LeRoc. I do not agree with this, but it's not the reason I'm no longer a member of the LeRoc Federation.

My own opinion, just in case I need to repeat it, is that there is very clear footwork in MJ. Robert's video at the start of this thread shows that footwork. However, I think the discussion of the counting methods confuses the issue and you have to decode this before you can see the footwork. I'm hoping Robert produces a second version where the counting is clear. Maybe I'll do one myself - I just need the time.

[straycat]

Some people seem to have the mind-set that MJ is "just dancin'". The "there is no footwork" school has contributed to this. The logical conclusion from there being "no footwork" is that there can be no wrong footwork.

... so you're not happy when people allude to the lack of proper footwork in MJ ...

Would you like to talk about this?

[Whitebeard]

... so you're not happy when people allude to the lack of proper footwork in MJ ...

Would you like to talk about this?

Of course he would!

[straycat]

Of course he would!

Just trying to help.
I just think that if he got it into the open a little more - really talked about the depth of his feelings on the matter, he could put the whole thing behind him, and finally be able to move on with his life...

I'll get my coat...

[Franck]

Just trying to help.
I just think that if he got it into the open a little more - really talked about the depth of his feelings on the matter, he could put the whole thing behind him, and finally be able to move on with his life...

I'll get my coat...

No, I agree, I'd love to hear more...

Especially as I subscribed to the "there is no set footwork* in Modern Jive" school of philosophy...

* Which doesn't imply "no footwork" or that some patterns or figures can benefit (very occasionally) from a change in footwork...

[straycat]

No, I agree, I'd love to hear more...

Especially as I subscribed to the "there is no set footwork* in Modern Jive" school of philosophy...

* Which doesn't imply "no footwork" or that some patterns or figures can benefit (very occasionally) from a change in footwork...

I suppose I'm of the "do you seriously call that footwork?" philosophy... but I imagine I'm in a bit of a minority on that score.

[Franck]

I suppose I'm of the "do you seriously call that footwork?" philosophy... but I imagine I'm in a bit of a minority on that score.

Yes, I would be of that school of thought too, but I know what Andy means by 'footwork'...

The thing is, like you Straycat, I love footwork, there are so many cool things that can be done...

[Andy McGregor]

Yes, I would be of that school of thought too, but I know what Andy means by 'footwork'...

The thing is, like you Straycat, I love footwork, there are so many cool things that can be done...

I can see a seed of doubt. My work here is done. Thank you Robert Winter for helping plant that seed

[Franck]

I can see a seed of doubt. My work here is done. Thank you Robert Winter for helping plant that seed

That's far too cryptic Andy... What seed, what doubt? You'll have to be more specific.

[Andy McGregor]

That's far too cryptic Andy... What seed, what doubt? You'll have to be more specific.

I can see it starting to eat away at you. I can only guide you. Enlightenment must come from within. The next stage for you is to watch people dancing at your next weekender and learn from them. As teachers we prepare our students to join the world of modern jive - go out into the world and watch and learn.

Cryptic enough for you? I'm aiming for pragmatic.