Connection is...

[straycat]

A couple of recent conversations with Freya have led me to wonder: what does connection mean to everyone else?

What does everyone know about it?
How important is it to you in your dancing?
Do you see it as a useful tool, or something that permeates every part of your dancing?

What it means to me should be pretty obvious, as I keep harping on about it at every possible turn - but I thought I'd start a quick (public) poll, and throw it open to the floor.

[Miguel]

What it means to me should be pretty obvious,....

It is....Connection (dance) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connection_(dance))

[Caro]

connection.... I see different levels to it:

- my own connection through my body, i.e. you just don't move my hand if you move my hand (well, that's not entirely true all the time, but time constraints require a bit of oversimplification!)
- connection with my partner, the first level for me would me matching what's his doing to provide connection (which could just be looking at him if we're not touching), then maintaining it throughout the dance. And also at times initiating a different level / sort of connection because I either want the dance to change a little or I just want to play on my own.
- connection to the dance and the music, i.e. not only hearing what's being played and how I could play with it, but also trying to find out what my partner's hearing and what he wants to dance to (whether he wants both of us to dance to the same thing or is willing to let me dance to something else for a little while)

Connection is different in different dances, as explained by many people in other threads on AT / WCS.

The more I dance (blues, AT and WCS) the more I realise that there are unknown (to me that is) depths of connection... and that's both very exciting and frustrating (as the deeper you get, the more you want and the rarer the occasions to go as deep.... if that makes sense?). I posted a thread about what that frustration can look like a while ago here (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/lets-talk-about-dance/9744-could-partner-dancing-really-solo-activity.html).

But to me, in a few words, it is both what enables the dance to happen, and a holy graal... (edit: typed that before you posted the poll, and now realises it's spelt grail :wink: )

[straycat]

It is....Connection (dance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connection_(dance))

You're telling me it doesn't exist :really:

Does that mean I don't exist either? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/straycat264) :sick:

You seem to, but in a rather ambiguous way. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/miguel) Who / what exactly are you? :confused:

[Gadget]

Physical connection, or an empathic connection, or an emotional connection?

I think that as a lead, you have two main connections that pull you similtaneously - one with your partner and one with the music.
But you also have one where you are trying to pick up on the connection your partner has with the music, and that pulls you as well.

The physical connection and empathic connection with your partner allows you to influence these other connections. For them to influence you, you also need a connection within yourself.

The physical connection within a dancer is often referred to as 'frame'.
The physical connection used to move that frame is normally 'lead' and/or 'follow'
How this physical connection is manipulated is normally 'technique'
Manipulating your own is 'style'
When to use the physical connection is 'conveying musicality'
Creating a connection with the music is 'musicality'
Creating a connection with your partner's musicality, using your connection to influence it and respond to it: that's 'dancing'.

...:confused: so which connection are we talking about then?

[MartinHarper]

Connection is ....

... a catch-all term used to mean lots of different things, thus enabling people with little real understanding of dance (eg, me) to appear wiser than they are.

(Gadget missed "visual connection", which is how we can lead/follow without touching)

[Jamie]

I can't really describe connection... It just.. is. Does that make sense? :tears:

Aparently I have "good connection" :D

[Trouble]

I can't really describe connection... It just.. is. Does that make sense? :tears:

Aparently I have "good connection" :D

yeah you do. :love:

Connection is so important when dancing because without it your just jiggling about in time to music.

That eye contact, that little touch, that little smile, that moving together, that perfect break, those little close sways, those bashful come get me eyes.....ooooooh i could go on for ages.

Cant beat it when it happens. :awe:

[Gadget]

(Gadget missed "visual connection", which is how we can lead/follow without touching)bugger.

also missed the 'rapport' with your partner. :na:

[Gav]

bugger.

Not in the current context, but google would probably come up with a forum for you to discuss that kind of conection. :na: :D

[straycat]

Physical connection, or an empathic connection, or an emotional connection?

The physical connection within a dancer is often referred to as 'frame'.
The physical connection used to move that frame is normally 'lead' and/or 'follow'
How this physical connection is manipulated is normally 'technique'
Manipulating your own is 'style'
When to use the physical connection is 'conveying musicality'
Creating a connection with the music is 'musicality'
Creating a connection with your partner's musicality, using your connection to influence it and respond to it: that's 'dancing'.
...:confused: so which connection are we talking about then?

We're talking about ... most of the above.
We're talking about the connection that gives two-way communication between leader and follower - that let you both shape the dance together.

For me - that's both a physical thing (yes frame, amongst other things), and an emotional / spiritual thing. I am not really talking about your connection to the music, or to the floor, but I am talking about the ability to communicate those aspects of your dancing (amongst other things) to your partner. On the other hand, it's definitely different things to different people - which is one of the fantastic and infuriating things about the whole topic...

[Freya]

Ok Since I'm partly to blame for this startingly long Poll, :eek: I guess I should actually post.

As most people have pointed out there are a lot of different meanings to Connection with re: to dancing.

Alot of us talk about it being the 'Holy Grail' as Straycat put it! But is it something we really have to work at or does it come naturally?

I think to a certain degree that we all will have a natural connection. However the difficult part is maintaining this connection and using it to have a fantastic dance. And this is the bit that requires work and lots of patience.

Oh another question, how do we explain it to newer people to make them want to come to these workshops that are being held??? And Off the Moves, Moves, Moves Path?

[MartinHarper]

For me - that's both a physical thing (yes frame, amongst other things), and an emotional / spiritual thing.

I'd prefer to put the emotional/spiritual thing into an entirely seperate box to the physical/visual thing. Maybe one with flowers on it. Eg:


In Blues the connection is much more metaphysical. You have to look deep, deep into her eyes and penetrate the very depths of her soul. Only then have you truly achieved a "blues connection."

(I ain't saying it don't exist, just that it's prone to mockery)

[Ghost]

Alot of us talk about it being the 'Holy Grail' as Straycat put it! But is it something we really have to work at or does it come naturally?

I think to a certain degree that we all will have a natural connection. However the difficult part is maintaining this connection and using it to have a fantastic dance. And this is the bit that requires work and lots of patience.

I reckon both ways work. Just as some people prefer to learn music the structured way and some prefer to just experiement and see what works (See Phoebe in Friends)


Oh another question, how do we explain it to newer people to make them want to come to these workshops that are being held??? And Off the Moves, Moves, Moves Path?
Chocolate :yum:

Get them to dance with someone who's good at connection and explain that the dance is good because of it.

We're talking about ... most of the above.
We're talking about the connection that gives two-way communication between leader and follower - that let you both shape the dance together.

Ok BIG CATCH to this. Connection is wonderful, but if you don't understand the information it's rather limited :tears: .

Oh and connection is being in touch with "The Force" - it connects all living things :cool: (Quantum Physicists may express it slightly differently)

[StokeBloke]

I can't really describe connection... It just.. is. Does that make sense? :tears:
Nope. But the day you start to make sense is the day I'm going to quit Jaime :hug: :rofl:

I have not been dancing long, and what I think is connection seems to keep shifting. You feel so in tune with your partner - a oneness that you feel cannot be bettered....... then it is! I wonder if it's wise to question and examine it too closely for fear of breaking it. Rather, just sit back and enjoy it :flower:

[robd]

...the conduit for lead and follow.

[Trouble]

...the conduit for lead and follow.

eh!! :confused: :confused: :confused:

[JonD]

... the reason I love partner dancing.

(If I start waxing lyrical about my definition/understanding/thoughts on connection I'll be here all night and everybody would be bored rigid by the result. I'll go dancing instead.)

[Tiggerbabe]

...the conduit for lead and follow.
Nice one Rob, I like it. :D

[FoxyFunkster]

A couple of recent conversations with Freya have led me to wonder: what does connection mean to everyone else?

What does everyone know about it?
How important is it to you in your dancing?
Do you see it as a useful tool, or something that permeates every part of your dancing?

What it means to me should be pretty obvious, as I keep harping on about it at every possible turn - but I thought I'd start a quick (public) poll, and throw it open to the floor.

I recently experienced a real lack of connection when i danced with someone i used to really enjoy dancing with....i noticed that she was in a world of her own....she wasn`t really interested in dancing together as such, but i guess it`s something i`ve only recently discovered this due to the amount of hours spent dancing in the various blues rooms, trying to establish connection.... one of the things i love most about WCS is that simple patterns can look amazing when 2 people have that dance chemistry/connection....it can look simply amazing.....i think essentgially it`s about respones to what each other is doing...i believe that is one of the main reasons the blues thing is becoming ever more popular.

[Gadget]

Alot of us talk about it being the 'Holy Grail' as Straycat put it! But is it something we really have to work at or does it come naturally?
I think that it can come naturally, just as some people are naturally musical and some people naturally move with music... and others don't. But each element and fascet involved in "connection" can be developed independantly, so it really dosn't matter too much.


Oh another question, how do we explain it to newer people to make them want to come to these workshops that are being held??? And Off the Moves, Moves, Moves Path?
Get them to 'feel' more?
Feel the music, feel their partner {:rolleyes: out of the guttter you!}, and feel the flow of movement.

How to do that? listen to the music, close their eyes and concetrate on touch, try and move with grace? dunno. Depends as much on the person as exactly what you are trying to convey I think.

[LittleSal]

I think that it can come naturally, just as some people are naturally musical and some people naturally move with music... and others don't. But each element and fascet involved in "connection" can be developed independantly, so it really dosn't matter too much.


Get them to 'feel' more?
Feel the music, feel their partner {:rolleyes: out of the guttter you!}, and feel the flow of movement.

How to do that? listen to the music, close their eyes and concetrate on touch, try and move with grace? dunno. Depends as much on the person as exactly what you are trying to convey I think.

I have to agree that to some it is more natural that others and that you need to hear and feel the music etc.Connecting well with a partner especially one who is in tune with you makes for a great dance experience!:grin:
When I was learning Tango our teacher made us dance with each other with our eyes closed to get us to concentrate on the music and the whole "being " of the dance it was a really interesting experience and taught us a lot.

[Caro]

For me - that's both a physical thing (yes frame, amongst other things), and an emotional / spiritual thing.

indeed... :yeah:
although my experience tells me the later doesn't happen very often / with a lot of partners...
I think if you want the second sort of connection to happen, you need both partners to be 'open' to the possibility of it and that something extra special that's a bit... undescriptible really.


Aparently I have "good connection" :D

Therefore, can connection really be an absolute thing (i.e., "I have it") ?
I guess you can have the physical connection with almost everybody (i.e. tension / compression, a minimum level of eye contact), but as I said, can you really 'connect' and really dance with every partner?



But is it something we really have to work at or does it come naturally?

I think to a certain degree that we all will have a natural connection. However the difficult part is maintaining this connection and using it to have a fantastic dance. And this is the bit that requires work and lots of patience.


I'd say both: to me the natural connection you are refering to relates to the emotional / spiritual sort,
Whereas to get the physical connection, you need it to be explained and then work on it (and different people will have different abilities with regards to how fast they learn that)



Oh another question, how do we explain it to newer people to make them want to come to these workshops that are being held??? And Off the Moves, Moves, Moves Path?

to me it's a bit of a catch 22, you can't really understand what connection (and dancing) is about until you have actually experienced it... or at least a little of it.
So somebody talking about connection to a person who would just be very much into the 'moves moves moves' phase and haven't got a clue what you are talking about would be close to a waste of time... (unless you're really convincing...:whistle: ). Another thing is that, that 'connection discovery' moment is very much part of each individual's own learning path and will come naturally (hopefully, if exposed to enough good dancers / dances)... you can make it happen faster (recommending a workshop for example) only to a certain (limited) extent.





I recently experienced a real lack of connection when i danced with someone i used to really enjoy dancing with....i noticed that she was in a world of her own....she wasn`t really interested in dancing together as such ...

that's an example of what I am talking about, it seems that she wasn't available to connect on any other level than the physical one...

I think while everybody has the ability to connect physically (i.e. leading / following moves), connecting emotionally into the dance requires to 'open up' to the possibility of it (i. e. make yourself available for it) and also can be ruined quite easily (bad day, somebody bumping into you, wrong tune, hand bounce... the list is endless).
Which also means that you have to 'risk' a bit of yourself into the dance...
I know that I find that sometimes difficult to do, and that depends both on factors inherent to me, and on my partner.

.... am I making any sense here? :confused:

[spindr]

Connection is...
...finding a place between you -- where you can dance *together*.

That place can be a joint handhold with compression between you.
That place can be a joint handhold with tension between you.
That place can be a shared axis between you.
That place can be along a line of sight between you.
Etcetera, etcetera...

Both of you need to be looking for the same place -- or you won't connect (obviously).

Both of you need to want to dance together -- or you won't connect (obviously).

SpinDr

[MartinHarper]

I don't know to what extent physical connection is important in MJ. Long-term MJ dancers often spend a lot of time learning to dance with the thinnest sliver of physical connection they can. Those aren't actions of people who are genuinely sold on connection as a vital dancing skill.

[Gadget]

I don't know to what extent physical connection is important in MJ. Long-term MJ dancers often spend a lot of time learning to dance with the thinnest sliver of physical connection they can. Those aren't actions of people who are genuinely sold on connection as a vital dancing skill.
Those are the people who are trying to learn the subtalties of communication - you can't have communication without connection.

[straycat]

I don't know to what extent physical connection is important in MJ. Long-term MJ dancers often spend a lot of time learning to dance with the thinnest sliver of physical connection they can. Those aren't actions of people who are genuinely sold on connection as a vital dancing skill.

...but are those people actually missing out on one of the best aspects of partner dance? Personally, I feel they are - that the reason they aren't sold on connection is the fact that they don't know enough about it.

'Course - these could be the arrogant ravings of a born-again connection-cult evangelist :grin:

Stray - raving born-again connection-cult evangelist

[David Bailey]

I don't know to what extent physical connection is important in MJ. Long-term MJ dancers often spend a lot of time learning to dance with the thinnest sliver of physical connection they can.
Yeah - I used to do that. I think it's a bit simplistic now.

"Fingertip dancing" is a very good practice exercise, because it means you learn to lead without bad habits like yanking and "death grips" - and followers learn to follow without being pushed. "No contact" dancing is even better for that exercise.

But that doesn't mean "fingertip dancing" is always good - just that it's a good way of avoiding bad yanking / lazy dancing.

Once you've got out of that habit, then you can establish as much or as little physical connection as you want - appropriate to the dance, your partner, and the music. I've been much more connected physically to my partners since learning AT, for example.

[Freya]

I don't know to what extent physical connection is important in MJ. Long-term MJ dancers often spend a lot of time learning to dance with the thinnest sliver of physical connection they can. Those aren't actions of people who are genuinely sold on connection as a vital dancing skill.

Ok I'll Bite at this one! I have one example! Franck...! (I'm sure there are others but his is the only one I've experienced!) He doesn't need a strong physical connection, he sometimes leads with a minimalist touch. The "Connection" with the partner is There!!

Franck...If I remember from his workshops on connection...Describes matching the pressure of your partners touch as a vital part of connection. if the lead puts a lot of pressure through the hands then you respond with an equal amount! If you have 4 points of contact ie ballroom hold...hands, elbows and hands/backs then the pressure exerted through these 4 points should be matched! If the lead is leading you lightly with one finger tip then you should respond appropriately.

Part of Connection is about being more aware of the touch and what the partner is trying to convey!

I think that being able to lead with the lightest of touch is good and an example of good connection...however I think it's also important to be able to adjust and adapt the touch as required! And This is Excellent connection!!!

(I may be wrong though!)

[David Bailey]

Ok I'll Bite at this one! I have one example! Franck...! (I'm sure there are others but his is the only one I've experienced!) He doesn't need a strong physical connection, he sometimes leads with a minimalist touch.
Well, to be fair, he's not done AT :devil: :na:


Franck...If I remember from his workshops on connection...Describes matching the pressure of your partners touch as a vital part of connection. if the lead puts a lot of pressure through the hands then you respond with an equal amount! If you have 4 points of contact ie ballroom hold...hands, elbows and hands/backs then the pressure exerted through these 4 points should be matched! If the lead is leading you lightly with one finger tip then you should respond appropriately.
I'm not sure about that one - it may be a genuine difference between dances, but "mirroring contact level" is not advice I've heard elsewhere.

"Acknowledge the contact", certainly, but "match the pressure"? Sounds like a recipe for a wrestling match to me; I think that's maybe a little bit inflexible as a rule...

On the other hand, it may be useful as a general rule of thumb, along the lines of "It's always the leader's fault when things go wrong" - not exactly true, but a good teaching mechanism.

[Tiggerbabe]

I think that being able to lead with the lightest of touch is good and an example of good connection...however I think it's also important to be able to adjust and adapt the touch as required! And This is Excellent connection!!!

(I may be wrong though!)
No, you're not. Those people who are "dancing with the thinnest sliver of physical connection" could quite possibly be more connected than two people dancing in a "ballroom frame".

The followers job is to match what they are given, and this will vary from lead to lead.

[Tiggerbabe]

"Acknowledge the contact", certainly, but "match the pressure"? Sounds like a recipe for a wrestling match to me; I think that's maybe a little bit inflexible as a rule...
I don't see why, David, if a lead has a very light pressure inside my hand, on my shoulder, my back, wherever..... I will match it, if he has a stronger pressure I will match that too, at no point (unless I want to hi-jack, and we'll not go there :na: ) will I give him more pressure than he's giving me.

[Tiggerbabe]

At Franck's workshops he always asks the leads/followers to match pressure and then asks the lead to make it lighter, and lighter until it's almost a whisper. This is not about proving how strong you are.

[David Bailey]

No, you're not. Those people who are "dancing with the thinnest sliver of physical connection" could quite possibly be more connected than two people dancing in a "ballroom frame".
Yes, in that a lot of people use a strong physical connection as a crutch to aid balance and hide poor technique.

And seeing two dancers dance an entire AT track with no body contact at all, but with full lead-and-follow, is just... well, "impressive" sums it up quite nicely to me.

But, all other things being equal, a pair of dancers will have a better connection with a closed hold than an open hold. Touch is more important to connection than vision to connection.

In fact, an equally valid exercise (and more fun!) is to dance with eyes closed (assuming you have space!), because that teaches you to read body signals rather than, say, following footwork or visual cues.

So, to misquote Jeff Goldblum in Jurassic: "just because you can, doesn't mean you should".


The followers job is to match what they are given, and this will vary from lead to lead.
Careful, you'll be joining the "anti-hijacking" camp at this rate :devil:

(Wow, look at us, talking about dancing. Hmmmf, it'll never catch on.)

[David Bailey]

I don't see why, David, if a lead has a very light pressure inside my hand, on my shoulder, my back, wherever..... I will match it
OK, so how do you match a pressure on your back, without going off-axis?

The point I was trying to make is that the follower should never be off-balance - so "matching pressure" is OK, but I'd prefer it phrased as "acknowledging pressure, but not to silly extremes".

[Tiggerbabe]

And seeing two dancers dance an entire AT track with no body contact at all, but with full lead-and-follow, is just... well, "impressive" sums it up quite nicely to me.
I'm sure it's been mentioned before but it is not only AT dancers who can do this.


But, all other things being equal, a pair of dancers will have a better connection with a closed hold than an open hold. Touch is more important to connection than vision to connection.
I'll disagree with this, they will have more "points of connection" in the closed hold, it doesn't mean that they are more "connected"


In fact, an equally valid exercise (and more fun!) is to dance with eyes closed (assuming you have space!), because that teaches you to read body signals rather than, say, following footwork or visual cues.
Agreed, we do this in the workshops too, to make people aware of their partner's weight transfers. But visual connection shouldn't be dismissed, it's a powerful tool.

(Wow, look at us, talking about dancing. Hmmmf, it'll never catch on.)
Hey it might :hug:
First you have to have inner connection, then you need connection with the floor (which your partner can then feel through you) and then you have connection with your partner.

[Tiggerbabe]

OK, so how do you match a pressure on your back, without going off-axis?
If I feel my partner's hand/arm on my back, I "give" him my back. I resist his "pull" by "pushing" my back into his hand/arm.

[David Bailey]

I'm sure it's been mentioned before but it is not only AT dancers who can do this.
Yeah, but AT dancers are better than you plebby MJ-ers :na: :rofl:


I'll disagree with this, they will have more "points of connection" in the closed hold, it doesn't mean that they are more "connected"
OK, I'll rephrase it as "they can have a better connection because they have more opportunities to communicate with each other". Yes, it doesn't automatically mean they'll be better connected, in the same way as a Ferarri driver may not be able to win over a Mini driver - you've got to know what to do with the tools you're given.


First you have to have inner connection, then you need connection with the floor (which your partner can then feel through you) and then you have connection with your partner.
I hate to bang on about this, but the more you talk like this, the more you sound like an AT technique teacher... :D


If I feel my partner's hand/arm on my back, I "give" him my back. I resist his "pull" by "pushing" my back into his hand/arm.
But my question was, how do you do this without losing your axis?

[Lory]

But my question was, how do you do this without losing your axis?

We're not talking about AT here David!

In MJ we're allowed to oppose each others weight. We do it all the time to create different dynamics and speed.

You simply can't create the same speed from a perfectly centred axis, as you can from using your partners opposing weight!

Does that make sense?

[David Bailey]

We're not talking about AT here David!
Speak for yourself, personally I'm on a mission to rename this the DavidJamesTango forum. Catchy name, I'm sure it's a winner :)


In MJ we're allowed to oppose each others weight. We do it all the time to create different dynamics and speed.
You're allowed to do it in AT too actually ... :innocent:


You simply can't create the same speed from a perfectly centred axis, as you can from using your partners opposing weight!

Does that make sense?
It does, I think, but I'm not sure it's relevant to "connection" - you're talking about spinning technique I assume, which is a more specialised area...

[Freya]

But my question was, how do you do this without losing your axis?


If I feel my partner's hand/arm on my back, I "give" him my back. I resist his "pull" by "pushing" my back into his hand/arm.

From a Follower's POV!

It's difficult to do...Or I find it difficult esp depending on the lead! But from what I've gathered and learnt. You don't 'lean back' into his hand which would take you off balance and lose your axis! you adjust your position so that you can maintain the contact giving reciprocal pressure!

So if the lead has the hand on your back in quite a close embrace then you maintain the close position. If he moves his hand backwards and opens up the embrace then you move to maintain the contact by taking a step backwards or out! Maybe I've over simplified it a bit, but the contact has been maintained. If you 'lean' into the hand or don't move your feet then you will lose the axis and consequently the balance.

Tiggerbabe maybe able to explain this better!

Ok from a slightly different POV...

In AT last night I think we were doing Boleo's. One of the things the teacher got us to do was for the lead to pivot the follower by walking around them! In the embrace the lead could easily take the follower off her axis and consequently she would lose balance! (Ok I'm really new to AT) If the Lead could move round me and maintain my axis then I would turn beautifuly. The main thing I noticed when doing this is that if the lead kept their body facing my body then it would work. however if they twisted their body my body twisted and I would lose balance.

If it was a good lead and I 'gave them my back' as TB said then the connection was alot better and the move felt alot smoother! :grin:

(I'm sorry really not explaining it very well!)

[Lory]

It does, I think, but I'm not sure it's relevant to "connection" - you're talking about spinning technique I assume, which is a more specialised area...

Nope, I'm talking about connecting (in the physical sense), with all parts of your body that come into contact with your partner (I can feel the jokes coming already)

As Tiggerbabe said, if you feel a hand on your back, you should push your back into the hand, to match the pressure and make a good connection.

One example is the penguin walk turns, here we're use centrifugal force, to create the speed, by leaning back into each others arms

But another example, which is NOT spinning, is a move called a 'slingshot' where the woman travels across, in front of the man and lands with her back in his arm, (he leans the opposite way) she's then propelled back across him. And if done properly, the lady feel a whoosh :na:

[Tiggerbabe]

But my question was, how do you do this without losing your axis?
As Freya has said, I'm not leaning back into his hand/arm so that he is holding me up.
I feel his hand/arm and match the contact he's giving me. From this position if he moved forward I would move back to maintain the connection.

[robd]

DJ, it's a shame you didn't manage to get to Teddington on Sunday for Franck's workshops. The 'match the pressure' ethos would make a lot more sense in conjunction with the exercises we practiced there. I do have a belief, however, that different dances require different methods of obtaining and maintaining connection though I have neither time nor understanding at present to elucidate further :grin:

[David Bailey]

As Freya has said, I'm not leaning back into his hand/arm so that he is holding me up.
But how do you match pressure then? Is there some sort of Expanding Back Trick? :eek:


I feel his hand/arm and match the contact he's giving me. From this position if he moved forward I would move back to maintain the connection.
Fair enough - but if he reduced the pressure on your back suddenly, would you fall back? In other words, would you be leaning away from him?

[Caro]

In AT last night I think we were doing Boleo's.


I think you might want to say volcada here :wink:

[Freya]

I think you might want to say volcada here :wink:

Nope...We did them in the intermediate class...We did something else in the beginners! I think they were definately Boleo's!

You know how we did volcada's and then she add the twisty thing first to add momentum? Well that's what we did in the 1st class!

[Lory]

Is there some sort of Expanding Back Trick? :eek:


YOu may well scoff but that's EXACTLY what Hiedi had us all doing on Weds at WCS! I joke not! :na:

[MartinHarper]

"Acknowledge the contact", certainly, but "match the pressure"? Sounds like a recipe for a wrestling match to me.

Well, due to Newton's laws, it's impossible not to match the pressure. But that isn't what the saying means. The point is that the follower should attempt to match pressures, rather than immediately moving to relieve pressure. This prevents her being "flighty" or "out of control". She still goes places, because the follower can never "match pressure" as fast as the leader can apply pressure, and when her hand/back/whatever does move, then she responds to that movement.

Having said all that, this is a Lindy saying and I don't know whether it applies to MJ.


Touch is more important to connection than vision to connection.

In MJ, I'd agree, though vision still matters. In Lindy I'd say that they're equally important.
Vision is a great leading mechanism, because vision is very good at detecting asymmetry. Better than touch, even.


OK, so how do you match a pressure on your back, without going off-axis?

By "sitting into it". The head is still above the hips, and the hips still above the feet, so all is still well with the world.

[Tiggerbabe]

Fair enough - but if he reduced the pressure on your back suddenly, would you fall back? In other words, would you be leaning away from him?
No, if he reduced the pressure then I would give him less.
I'm resisting the "pull" by not collapsing on top of him, I still maintain my own balance.

[MartinHarper]

If he reduced the pressure on your back suddenly, would you fall back?

If he reduced the pressure slowly, the follower would reduce the matching pressure slowly, and stay still.

If he reduced the pressure suddenly, the follower's back would move backwards. The follower would recognise this as a lead to move backwards, and would proceed to travel backwards at the indicated speed until lead otherwise.

Again, this is in Lindy. I don't hear enough MJ teachers talking about technique to make judgements on its applicability.

[Tiggerbabe]

If he reduced the pressure slowly, the follower would reduce the matching pressure slowly, and stay still.

If he reduced the pressure suddenly, the follower's back would move backwards. The follower would recognise this as a lead to move backwards, and would proceed to travel backwards at the indicated speed until lead otherwise.

Again, this is in Lindy. I don't hear enough MJ teachers talking about technique to make judgements on its applicability.
This is exactly what happens, Martin :hug: Thankyou.

[Caro]

You know how we did volcada's and then she add the twisty thing first to add momentum? Well that's what we did in the 1st class!

that's what it was supposed to be then :rofl:
none of the guys lead a boleo on me yesterday, that's for sure :na:

[ducasi]

But, all other things being equal, a pair of dancers will have a better connection with a closed hold than an open hold. Touch is more important to connection than vision to connection.
On the fingertip vs. ballroom grip...

It's easier to tickle with one finger than a whole hand. You can put more subtlety into your connection through fingertips than whole hands.

(Oh, and I think you'll find that Franck has done a bit of Argentinean Tango in his time.)

[MartinHarper]

A whole hand connection can lead tilt, and thus lead footwork. A fingertip connection can't. Since MJ is "no footwork", I guess there's no advantage in a whole hand connection on that score, but the possibility is there.

[David Bailey]

On the fingertip vs. ballroom grip...

It's easier to tickle with one finger than a whole hand. You can put more subtlety into your connection through fingertips than whole hands.
Once again, "fingertip leading" demonstrates good technique, it's good practice, and it's even usable in a social situation. But it's like riding a bike with no hands - yes, it takes skill, yes, it's great to develop balance, but that doesn't mean it's something you should do all the time.

Neither is it a "necessary development" in your social dancing evolution - "ever lighter leads" is not the be-all and end-all. "Ever-clearer leads", yes, but that's not the same thing.

I've seen and had some lovely dances with little or no body contact.

But I've never had an earth-shatteringly intense dance with someone, without a good level of touch involved.

Denying the power of touch, and its ability to raise the level of intensity in a dance, is just silly IMO.


(Oh, and I think you'll find that Franck has done a bit of Argentinean Tango in his time.)
Well, he had to learn good technique somewhere - God knows, you won't learn it in Ceroc... :na:

[Tiggerbabe]

Well, he had to learn good technique somewhere - God knows, you won't learn it in Ceroc... :na:Well, not if you only go for the freestyle :na:
The man that Franck credits most, doesn't do AT (ttbomk) David B :respect:

[NZ Monkey]

It's easier to tickle with one finger than a whole hand. You can put more subtlety into your connection through fingertips than whole hands.

Jordan and Tatiana made a point of saying that many people thought that having a light connection was better than a heavy one. They stressed that having a strong connection was the thing that was important and specifically taught the basic hand hold so that vitrually the entire palm and all the fingers remained in contact thoughout the patterns.

I know it's WCS, but I can't see how Ceroc would be any different in this respect.

and nobody can really argue that they don't have great connection :whistle:

[Lynn]

I'd say both: to me the natural connection you are refering to relates to the emotional / spiritual sort,
Whereas to get the physical connection, you need it to be explained and then work on it (and different people will have different abilities with regards to how fast they learn that) :yeah: Connection to me means the physical technical stuff first and foremost - and that's the part that I can work on, improve and be responsible for (see below). The other sort of connection to me is almost always a 3 way thing - me, partner and music and sometimes, in certain dances its just all there and it works - lovely when it happens - you can't 'make' it happen - though having good physical connection is a good place to work from.


First you have to have inner connection, then you need connection with the floor (which your partner can then feel through you) and then you have connection with your partner.Good summary.


If I feel my partner's hand/arm on my back, I "give" him my back.This is something I really need to work on (one of my 'working on at the moment' items). Frame and internal connection (with yourself) seems to be key here - if your arm is not connected properly then your shoulder is too far forward to give your partner your back properly. So I'm trying to do the 'up, back and down' thing (from J&T) so that my shoulder is in the right place.

[David Bailey]

Jordan and Tatiana made a point of saying that many people thought that having a light connection was better than a heavy one. They stressed that having a strong connection was the thing that was important and specifically taught the basic hand hold so that vitrually the entire palm and all the fingers remained in contact thoughout the patterns.
:yeah:
The problem is the "strong", to lots of people, means death-grips and yanking.
Is "clear" a better descriptive term?

[Lynn]

Jordan and Tatiana made a point of saying that many people thought that having a light connection was better than a heavy one. They stressed that having a strong connection was the thing that was important and specifically taught the basic hand hold so that vitrually the entire palm and all the fingers remained in contact thoughout the patterns.

I know it's WCS, but I can't see how Ceroc would be any different in this respect.

and nobody can really argue that they don't have great connection :whistle:Are we talking strong lead or strong connection here? Does the level of connection vary in WCS? I know that lead does in that the man leads the woman forward but doesn't need to continue with the same degree of lead so does this affect the connection?

(Hey, DJs brought lots of AT into this thread, why not have some WCS too?)

[ducasi]

It's easier to tickle with one finger than a whole hand. You can put more subtlety into your connection through fingertips than whole hands.


A whole hand connection can lead tilt, and thus lead footwork. A fingertip connection can't. Since MJ is "no footwork", I guess there's no advantage in a whole hand connection on that score, but the possibility is there.


Once again, "fingertip leading" demonstrates good technique, it's good practice, and it's even usable in a social situation. But it's like riding a bike with no hands - yes, it takes skill, yes, it's great to develop balance, but that doesn't mean it's something you should do all the time.

Neither is it a "necessary development" in your social dancing evolution - "ever lighter leads" is not the be-all and end-all. "Ever-clearer leads", yes, but that's not the same thing.


Jordan and Tatiana made a point of saying that many people thought that having a light connection was better than a heavy one. They stressed that having a strong connection was the thing that was important and specifically taught the basic hand hold so that vitrually the entire palm and all the fingers remained in contact thoughout the patterns.

My point wasn't that you should only use fingertips – especially if you end up tickling your partners!

Different situations require different levels of connection. Sometimes a single fingertip is enough – when you want to communicate a subtle lead, the subtlety of fingertip beats a firm grip. At other times, a full palm-to-palm grip is necessary – drops and lifts usually require that strength of connection.

For most dancing, the standard "fingers in a pint glass" hand-hold is just about perfect.

To add to the connection, either spreading your fingers inside your partner's hand against their palm and fingers, or by resting, lightly your thumb on the back of their fingers, gives you the ability to have both a tension and compression connection simultaneously.

This can add an extra level of precision to your leading.

(Oh, all this is from the point of view of the leader. :))

[Caro]

The problem is the "strong", to lots of people, means death-grips and yanking.
Is "clear" a better descriptive term?

I don't think so, clear doesn't relate to strenght / intensity of connection, i.e. you could perfectly have a very clear fingertip connection.
If I was to look for an other adjective in lieu of strong, I'd say intense - think intensity as a quantity of electric current here. And although you could in theory having a lot of 'current' passing through just one finger, touching through the whole hand and fingers (as NZM said in ref to WCS) just provide more chances to pass on more current.


Are we talking strong lead or strong connection here? Does the level of connection vary in WCS?

Strong connection - you can have a very light lead with a strong connection (may be easier to think tango here for an easier illustration).

And yes the level of connection varies in WCS - that's the key to the whole dance. Example on an right side under arm turn (what's the proper name for that again?), as you are lead forward there is actually very little connection on 2, 3 and 4 - only through the length of your fingers (which must 'cup' the lead's). There's very little tension in your arm at this stage. Then as you square up to anchor, that's when you build up again the connection from your center to your hand.
I lead WCS recently for the first time and it was a fantastic eye-opener to me as to how important is that anchor step and the fact that the follow has to 'sit into her hips' - I could actually feel when it was or wasn't happening. When it wasn't happening, my lead was rubbish - I needed it to initiate the next pattern properly.

As the teacher said (is it Russel?), a triple step on the spot isn't an anchor step.

[NZ Monkey]

Are we talking strong lead or strong connection here? We're talking about a strong connection. As Caro said, you can have a strong connection and a light lead.


My point wasn't that you should only use fingertips – especially if you end up tickling your partners!

Different situations require different levels of connection. Sometimes a single fingertip is enough – when you want to communicate a subtle lead, the subtlety of fingertip beats a firm grip. At other times, a full palm-to-palm grip is necessary – drops and lifts usually require that strength of connection.
If the alternative to a fingertip lead is a firm grip then I agree with you here, but you don't have to have a firm grip to be using the whole of your hand to connect with your partner. The more of your hand is being connected with your partner the ''louder'' the connection is. In other words, you're more sensitive to what your partner is doing and therefore capable of laeding more subtly to an outside observer.

It doesn't feel quite as ''cool'' as leading by the fingertips because it seems less difficult, but the more I think about it the more I'm becoming convinced that this doesn't matter. The point of a lead is to communicate intentions very clearly to your follower and having a wide connection like the one I described earlier makes a big difference in doing this. Perhaps Caro or another follower who's felt the difference can comment from their side of the experience?

[Lynn]

Strong connection - you can have a very light lead with a strong connection (may be easier to think tango here for an easier illustration).
Thanks Caro - thinking AT does help as I understand connection better in AT (doesn't mean I can do it sadly!)


And yes the level of connection varies in WCS - that's the key to the whole dance. Example on an right side under arm turn (what's the proper name for that again?), as you are lead forward there is actually very little connection on 2, 3 and 4 - only through the length of your fingers (which must 'cup' the lead's). There's very little tension in your arm at this stage. Then as you square up to anchor, that's when you build up again the connection from your center to your hand. Good, that's what I thought, that the connection varies through different parts of the move and is 'built up' again as you get to the end of the slot. There is soooo much I am learning and have to learn.


I lead WCS recently for the first time and it was a fantastic eye-opener to me as to how important is that anchor step and the fact that the follow has to 'sit into her hips' - I could actually feel when it was or wasn't happening. When it wasn't happening, my lead was rubbish - I needed it to initiate the next pattern properly. Yep, it really helps me understand better what I need to be doing as a follower, when I attempt to lead. And at the end of the anchor step, on the 'and' before the '1' a very slight move of the centre of your frame backwards helps to get that 'intensity' of connection for the lead forward on the 1 (if I've understood it correctly)?

[FirstMove]

So, to summarise this thread so far....

Connection is dancing like Franck, or Dave B. No-one else knows what it is, or if they do then they're not telling.

:confused:

[MartinHarper]

Sometimes a single fingertip is enough – when you want to communicate a subtle lead, the subtlety of fingertip beats a firm grip.

Could you give us an example of the sort of move/movement/pattern/thing that you would prefer to communicate with a fingertip lead?

[ducasi]

Could you give us an example of the sort of move/movement/pattern/thing that you would prefer to communicate with a fingertip lead?
Franck has mentioned in workshops how David B can lead things like turns just by "walking" his fingers across the back of his follower.

Inspired by this, (e.g., in a blues-style "sway" position) I have led slow turns and other slight movements with fingertips on my partner's arm or back.

I don't think the subtlety of movement is as easy to convey in a normal handhold.

Another example would be to lead "nothing" where the heightened attention from the follower required for a fingertip lead makes the connection stronger.

It's not something I would use for, say, a pretzel. ;)

[David Bailey]

Franck has mentioned in workshops how David B can lead things like turns just by "walking" his fingers across the back of his follower.
Yes - it's a lovely move, I've been trying to use that one recently. At the moment, I need a very good follower to help me lead it, but at some point hopefully I'll be able to lead it properly.

But I'm still in the "more contact gives more intense connection" camp. ("intense" is a great description, nice one Caro)

Although, as a learning technique, it's probably a good idea to go through the fingertip phase first, to teach how to lead.

[Caro]

The more of your hand is being connected with your partner the ''louder'' the connection is.

Great one NZM, I really like the idea of sound level as a metaphor for connection.
Finger tip connection = whispering, provided the follow isn't deaf (:na: ) it can be just as clear as a fuller connection through the whole hand / arm / back / body - depending what the hold (embrace) is.


It doesn't feel quite as ''cool'' as leading by the fingertips because it seems less difficult, but the more I think about it the more I'm becoming convinced that this doesn't matter. The point of a lead is to communicate intentions very clearly to your follower and having a wide connection like the one I described earlier makes a big difference in doing this. Perhaps Caro or another follower who's felt the difference can comment from their side of the experience?

not sure... to me it refers to different dances... since fingertip connection was explicitely forbidden to me by my WCS master (:waycool: ), I've never explored what it could look like in WCS. (Wrong would be my guess :wink: ).

And it's true that most advanced leads in MJ tend to use the fingertip connection for at least part of most dances.... and it's great fun to explore with them how far they can go in the whispers before we reach the point where I am 'deaf' (i.e. can't follow anymore). I guess this varies a lot with the follows and guys must have good fun trying to find out :D .
Also it tends to suit better slower and more subtle music (than, say, a dance / pop track where the beat is very loud and thumpy).

I'd struggle to imagine a 'fingertip dance' to a fast, pop / dance track for example, I guess the amount of interfering noise coming from the speed of the dance makes me less likely to hear a whisper.


Yep, it really helps me understand better what I need to be doing as a follower, when I attempt to lead. And at the end of the anchor step, on the 'and' before the '1' a very slight move of the centre of your frame backwards helps to get that 'intensity' of connection for the lead forward on the 1 (if I've understood it correctly)?

Sounds like it Lynn!!! :clap: Welcome to the dark side!!! :D

[Ghost]

Just to add some more metaphors......

Amir uses "profound" instead of strong which I personally like, though it's suited more to Jango / Tango.

"Deep" is good too.

I also like the sound version, but view connction as other's have said as being able to communicate, so I'm more interested in removing / not adding background noise. I differ on the whisper / shouting simply because on an empty dance floor to a slow track it's nice to have the feeling of "whispering" - like being in a library or a cathedral. Whereas other times the feeling of singing along at the top of your voice is more what I want.

I noticed a while ago was the women I found it easiest to get connected with were the ones I found it easiest to chat with. Partly from this is where my "dancing manhattens for a track chatting" came from. I found that if I was losing connection with someone during a dance, concentrating on the feeling of what it would be like if I were talking to them helped a lot. You know the feeling when you've just taken an inbreath to say something - only you say "moves" rather than words.

It's a little different but I've also had dances where I've said aloud what I was leading slightly before I led it (at the women's requests I hastily add) in both Ceroc, Jango and, to my surprise, AT (I've had women telling me which moves to lead in AT :rofl: ). Again it helps with the feeling of connection.

It's probably easier to try it, than for me to write a few more pages trying to explain it.

[Tiggerbabe]

Finger tip connection = whispering, provided the follow isn't deaf (:na: ) it can be just as clear as a fuller connection through the whole hand / arm / back / body - depending what the hold (embrace) is.A connection can be a "whisper" regardless of where/how it is applied, even through a whole hand. When the lead (or the follower in some instances) increases the volume, then their partner knows something different is about to happen.

[Tiggerbabe]

It's a little different but I've also had dances where I've said aloud what I was leading slightly before I led it (at the women's requests I hastily add) in both Ceroc, Jango and, to my surprise, AT (I've had women telling me which moves to lead in AT :rofl: ). Again it helps with the feeling of connection.
It does? How exactly? When I have danced with someone who tells me what move they are away to do, I don't think it's ever made me feel more connected with them :confused:

[Lynn]

It does? How exactly? When I have danced with someone who tells me what move they are away to do, I don't think it's ever made me feel more connected with them :confused:Hm, it might make me feel less connected, even if just for a second or so, as it would make me think about the move itself or part of move - rather than following what I was being led. That would give me less focus to 'listen' to the lead. And if the lead told me he was going to lead something, then led it differently than I was expecting, then I could actually be confused.

Unless a lead is showing me something new or explaining something to me of course - then its helpful, but not connected.

[Caro]

A connection can be a "whisper" regardless of where/how it is applied, even through a whole hand. When the lead (or the follower in some instances) increases the volume, then their partner knows something different is about to happen.

hmm... very true... then I'll rephrase: through fingertip connection, the lead is like a whisper. Assuming none of us can get a lot of force applied through their fingertips.
And also, fingertip connection is more prone to whispering leads than fuller forms of connection (just because when you have a more intense connection, it would be silly not to use it to speak normally rather than whispering on purpose - except if you do want to do just that. Hell it's really complicated now with all the subtleties!!!)

[Caro]

When I have danced with someone who tells me what move they are away to do, I don't think it's ever made me feel more connected with them :confused:

it ruins the connection if anything to me. Either the lead isn't able to lead the move hence he has to name it, or he thinks I'm not a good enough follow to get it - either way I won't like it :na: Plus there's a good chance I won't know the name of the move and go :confused: (assuming I've understood what he said in the first place :blush: ). Good way to make sure I'll mess up.

[Freya]

Yup I hate it too!!! And I agree with Caro that if they have to talk through the moves then their eith not a very clear lead or they think I'm crap! Or a combination of the Two!

Shhhh Don't tell anyone I'm crap! *wink*

Don't do it! IMOFI It ruins the dance!

[MartinHarper]

Either the lead isn't able to lead the move hence he has to name it, or he thinks I'm not a good enough follow to get it - either way I won't like it.

Ghost did specifically say "at the women's requests", so I don't think these possibilities apply.

[Caro]

Ghost did specifically say "at the women's requests", so I don't think these possibilities apply.

indeed - but wasn't talking about Ghost specifically, just remembered what it felt like to me and how it affected connection when it happened with a couple of leads. But that wasn't clear :wink: .

[Lynn]

hmm... very true... then I'll rephrase: through fingertip connection, the lead is like a whisper. Assuming none of us can get a lot of force applied through their fingertips.
And also, fingertip connection is more prone to whispering leads than fuller forms of connection (just because when you have a more intense connection, it would be silly not to use it to speak normally rather than whispering on purpose - except if you do want to do just that. Hell it's really complicated now with all the subtleties!!!)Whispering leads - I like that. Though the context in which I think of whispering leads is often the one with most intense connection - such as close embrace tango. There is such a level of connection that only the smallest of whispers, a tiny movement from the lead, is enough to communicate. And I am listening, oh so carefully, for those whispers.

[Tiggerbabe]

Ghost did specifically say "at the women's requests", so I don't think these possibilities apply.
Yes, but he said that it helps the feeling of connection, and I (along with Caro) am curious as to how it possibly could, and why they would want him to tell them what he was about to lead. :really:

[Caro]

Though the context in which I think of whispering leads is often the one with most intense connection - such as close embrace tango. There is such a level of connection that only the smallest of whispers, a tiny movement from the lead, is enough to communicate.

Indeed. If you are sufficiently connected in an AT context you can even respond to the intention - i.e. just before the actual leads happen. Had a fantastic and quite mind blowing experience of that just yesterday (will post more in the learning tango thread).
I guess with practice and technique you should also be able to respond to whispering intentions... and we'd be getting close to mind-reading there!

[Lynn]

Yes, but he said that it helps the feeling of connection, and I (along with Caro) am curious as to how it possibly could, (And me!)

[Lynn]

Indeed. If you are sufficiently connected in an AT context you can even respond to the intention - i.e. just before the actual leads happen. Had a fantastic and quite mind blowing experience of that just yesterday (will post more in the learning tango thread).
I guess with practice and technique you should also be able to respond to whispering intentions... and we'd be getting close to mind-reading there!Yep. Lovely. I think you can get the same effect in 'micro blues' as well.

[Ghost]

So, to summarise this thread so far....

Connection is dancing like Franck, or Dave B. No-one else knows what it is, or if they do then they're not telling.

:confused:
Ok this is where I was coming from. If you have no connection in the first place, how do you get some? For me the feeling of talking works as a starting place (as opposed to actual talking). For the deeper stuff I'd have to start writing about sunsets :awe:


It does? How exactly? When I have danced with someone who tells me what move they are away to do, I don't think it's ever made me feel more connected with them :confused:


Ghost did specifically say "at the women's requests", so I don't think these possibilities apply.
:cheers:

Yes, but he said that it helps the feeling of connection, and I (along with Caro) am curious as to how it possibly could, and why they would want him to tell them what he was about to lead. :really:

In all the cases they were new and learning. And it was specific to them. I'm not enamoured of the idea of women learning to recognise moves, but if that's what they want to do :flower: . One lady was so overwhelmed by the whole thing she just wanted me to say "Step left. Step back etc". It helped her relax and stop worrying. You know when your following isn't working and you get stressed and in doing so become more disconnected and then your following is worse and so on? ( I think the last guy she was dancing with may have been rather critical that she couldn't follow his "advanced" moves :tears: ) She was in such a tiz that if I'd just lead she would have been totally disconected from me. By agreeing to say what each step was, I was also implying that I was willing to dance with her; so she felt safe to relax which let us get connected. Not in a deep profound way, but definitely preferable to where she was 10 seconds ago. And obviously for my "Step left, step right" to be useful she had to be connected to what I was saying. Likewise she still had to stay connected to follow the actual length of each step etc. After about 30 secs I was able to stop saying each move out loud and just lead her :grin:

Other ladies have wanted to learn the names of moves and so wanted me to say the name as I did it, as opposed to my saying the name to indicate what they were supposed to do.

Others were wanted to know if they had got the hang of following moves and preferred to name a move and get me to lead it and then deciding whether to do it again or move onto another one. This is particularly interesting when they can remember the names of the moves, but not which name goes with which move. So again it's a case of "please lead a first move and we'll see if I can follow it" rather than "please lead a first move because I'm going to do the follow to it now regardless". Which is important because I've been known to lead the wrong move :blush:

In each case I was establishing a better connection by agreeing to dance with them.


Shhhh Don't tell anyone I'm crap! *wink*
I'm very comfortable chatting to you :flower:


Don't do it! IMOFI It ruins the dance!
:yeah: Strictly by request - although it is a good practice exercise in giving a clear lead for each step if you can name each part slightly before you lead it, but only under practice conditions. In freestyle it's probably "Justifiable homicide" for the follow :devil:

[David Bailey]

Connection is dancing like Franck, or Dave B. No-one else knows what it is, or if they do then they're not telling.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume that Amir could hazard a guess too. :wink:

As indeed could any number of (admittedly mostly non-MJ) dance teachers.

[ducasi]

As indeed could any number of (admittedly mostly non-MJ) dance teachers.
Only because most dance teachers are not MJ teachers. :whistle:

[David Bailey]

Only because most dance teachers are not MJ teachers. :whistle:
No, because unfortunately, the level of training available to MJ teachers (in terms of teaching dance technique) is, well, non-existent compared to other disciplines.

For example, if you take forms like ballroom, you've got:
The Council for Dance Education and Training
International Dance Teachers Association
English Amateur Dance Association
Imperial Society of Teachers of Dancing
etc.

You've got syllabi, you've got disciplines, you've got volumes of research and technique.

In MJ, you've got... err... the Ceroc Book Of Moves.

[MartinHarper]

If you have no connection in the first place, how do you get some?

Everyone has some connection skills. We start learning that stuff in childhood, holding hands to cross the road. This is just as well, as it's impossible to lead/follow anything if you genuinely have no connection.

[Ghost]

Everyone has some connection skills. We start learning that stuff in childhood, holding hands to cross the road. This is just as well, as it's impossible to lead/follow anything if you genuinely have no connection.
:yeah: Basically you can apply connection skills you've already learned to Ceroc. Which is why I don't think it's a skill restricted to the "chosen few". Realising this however is another matter, as is realising that connection is important in the first place.

[Lynn]

Everyone has some connection skills. We start learning that stuff in childhood, holding hands to cross the road. This is just as well, as it's impossible to lead/follow anything if you genuinely have no connection.Interesting comment as it made me think about a past hobby of mine which was riding. I had to communicate with my pony through touch with legs, hands and voice. I read his feelings about things through how he moved and responded. And I could lead him round an open yard/field with only a light hand on his upper neck (without headcollar or bridle).

I'm not saying men are like animals (:wink: ) but it did make me think about connection and communication.

[Gadget]

With Ducasi's talk of fingertip leading being a 'whisper', I read that as the intensity of the connection more than simply applying it to the physical part of the lead. The way to increase the intensity people seem to be putting forward is to increase the pressure/strength (and change to a 'hand' hold rather than fingertip hold).

I think that the fingertips can feel the lightest of touches (You can tell immediately when you loose contact, no matter how light the connection. You can feel the draught from passing air with your fingertips.) Why increase the pressure?
If you want to increase the intensity of the connection, then you simply add more points of contact that all say the same thing. No heavier or lighter, just working together. This {I think} is the secret to DavidB and Franck's great connection - clarity is achieved through every contact point or signal being given working towards the one, unified goal.
In a hand hold, they are not leading with their hand, but with at least three contact points within the hand, each of the fingers, and their whole body movement: each connection whispering to the follower where to move. Their subtlety comes from varying some of these connections and providing shades of leading rather than a simple 'clear lead' that the rest of us mere mortals are trying to achieve.


{PS: Freya, quoting Franck as having a good connection is cheating: that's his speciality. :na:}

[ducasi]

With Ducasi's talk of fingertip leading being a 'whisper', I read that as the intensity of the connection more than simply applying it to the physical part of the lead. The way to increase the intensity people seem to be putting forward is to increase the pressure/strength (and change to a 'hand' hold rather than fingertip hold).

I think that the fingertips can feel the lightest of touches [...]
I didn't and wouldn't describe fingertip leading as a "whisper". I compared it to tickling, to show how a fingertip can sometimes beat the intensity of a whole hand – so quite the reverse to whispering. :)

[Caro]

With Ducasi's talk of fingertip leading being a 'whisper'...

It's me who compared fingertip connection / lead to a whisper, building on a connection / sound metaphor from NZM. Do I post in invisible ink :tears: ?

[Ghost]

It's me who compared fingertip connection / lead to a whisper, building on a connection / sound metaphor from NZM. Do I post in invisible ink :tears: ?
Yup :flower:

:yeah: to keeping all the leads coherent though - or if not, then keeping them "silent"

[Terpsichorea]

I recently experienced a real lack of connection when i danced with someone i used to really enjoy dancing with....i noticed that she was in a world of her own....she wasn`t really interested in dancing together as such, but i guess it`s something i`ve only recently discovered this due to the amount of hours spent dancing in the various blues rooms, trying to establish connection.... one of the things i love most about WCS is that simple patterns can look amazing when 2 people have that dance chemistry/connection....it can look simply amazing.....i think essentgially it`s about respones to what each other is doing...i believe that is one of the main reasons the blues thing is becoming ever more popular.

There is nothing more frustrating then dancing with a woman who is in a world of her own, gazing off into the middle distance. Apart from anything else, it's plain rude - if you're dancing with someone, you should at least have the decency to signify that you're aware of their presence.

[Freya]

If you're dancing with someone, you should at least have the decency to signify that you're aware of their presence.
Nah they might get the impression that you actually like them and enjoy dancing with them! :eek: :whistle:

[Tiggerbabe]

There is nothing more frustrating then dancing with a woman who is in a world of her own
Or man! It's not only girls who do this. :(

[David Bailey]

Or man! It's not only girls who do this. :(
One interesting point of divergence between dance styles is the "eye contact" thing.

For example, some salsa styles have very little eye contact - although often it's the salsa snobs themselves who provide little contact. And in AT, eye contact is typically discouraged (the woman either looks at the guy's chest, or has her forehead against the guy, and the guy typically looks in front of him). So I notice that I now spend less time on eye contact in MJ, unless I remind myself that I should be looking at my partner.

So, if a partner suddenly changes their eye-contact habits, it may simply be that he / she is learning a different dance with different conventions.

Note: I write this in the full knowledge that I may get Ducasi'd ( :na: ) for mentioning other styles, but it's relevant because it highlights the differences. And it's one (rare) example of where common practice in AT may result in poor practice in MJ.

[Tiggerbabe]

in AT, eye contact is typically discouraged (the woman either looks at the guy's chest, or has her forehead against the guy, and the guy typically looks in front of him). So I notice that I now spend less time on eye contact in MJ, unless I remind myself that I should be looking at my partner.

So, if a partner suddenly changes their eye-contact habits, it may simply be that he / she is learning a different dance with different conventions.

Interesting point, David (although I already knew about the eye contact, or lack thereof in AT, it's the same with smiling during the dance, right? :wink: )

It's also very different from beginners not looking at you because they're too busy concentrating on all of the other things they're trying to do. :hug: I still usually manage to get some eye contact from them though :D

[Freya]

Good Point David

It can also go the other way...One girl keeps constant eye contact throughtout the dance hardly blinking and it's kinda freaky!!!!!!

[David Bailey]

Interesting point, David (although I already knew about the eye contact, or lack thereof in AT, it's the same with smiling during the dance, right? :wink: )
Possibly, although in my case, it's mainly because I'm concentrating too hard on not falling over to activate my Smile Muscles.


It can also go the other way...One girl keeps constant eye contact throughtout the dance hardly blinking and it's kinda freaky!!!!!!
Again, this could be due to any number of things - concentration, nervousness (rabbit-in-the-headlights effect), or whatever.

Unfortunately, there's no "eye contact" etiquette consistently taught in MJ classes, so people don't really know what they should / should not be doing. And when you're trying to get your feet / hands to move, eye contact

There's a good "eye contact" thread here (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/beginners-corner/2205-eye-contact.html)...

[ducasi]

Note: I write this in the full knowledge that I may get Ducasi'd ( :na: ) for mentioning other styles, but it's relevant because it highlights the differences. And it's one (rare) example of where common practice in AT may result in poor practice in MJ. No complaints from me. :na:

I have no problem with the occasional mention of other dance styles, where they are used to compare and contrast against MJ.

But I dislike people talking about technique in other dances styles without acknowledging any possibility that in Modern Jive things might be different.

:flower:

[bigdjiver]

There are two different, but related, forms of connection being discussed here. The first is the physical, and the other mental, or even, I would say, spiritual. The spiritual is a very intense, almost overwhelming, experience. My guess is that it comes from a mix of attraction, experience and harmony. The leader and follower both feeling together that the chosen response to the music is the "right" one. The feeling of being "at one".
I wonder if the MJ ethos of "moves" works against this. Perhaps the more possible responses to the music that are known to both partners the less likely they are to agree which response is "right", and feel "as one".

[Ghost]

Perhaps the more possible responses to the music that are known to both partners the less likely they are to agree which response is "right", and feel "as one".
Which raises the question - should follows be concentrating on following the lead or the music? Or following the music through the lead? Or following the lead through the music?

[MartinHarper]

Which raises the question - should follows be concentrating on following the lead or the music? Or following the music through the lead? Or following the lead through the music?

As answered here:
Following the music or following the lead... (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/lets-talk-about-dance/10581-following-music-following-lead.html)

[straycat]

Which raises the question - should follows be concentrating on following the lead or the music? Or following the music through the lead? Or following the lead through the music?

Surely the music, the lead, the follow, the connection - they should all be as one? All contributing to the whole, to the harmony, rapture and sheer infinity of the moment as it stretches back and forth through ages past, present and future. There is no lead, there is no follow, there is no music - there is simply a united whole.

Two glasses of wine and suddenly it all seems so clear to me.

[Ghost]

Surely the music, the lead, the follow, the connection - they should all be as one? All contributing to the whole, to the harmony, rapture and sheer infinity of the moment as it stretches back and forth through ages past, present and future. There is no lead, there is no follow, there is no music - there is simply a united whole.

Two glasses of wine and suddenly it all seems so clear to me.

Sounds good to me :respect:

[MartinHarper]

Sheer infinity of the moment as it stretches back and forth through ages past, present and future. There is no lead, there is no follow, there is no music.

How come I only get that feeling in bad dances?

[Dorothy]

Connection to me.... is everything.
Without it we are not dancing.

[straycat]

How come I only get that feeling in bad dances?

Maybe you don't drink enough?

[Ghost]

Maybe you don't drink enough?

Or too much....

It's strange how alcohol affect's different peoples' connection in different ways.

[straycat]

Or too much....

It's strange how alcohol affect's different peoples' connection in different ways.

On a vaguely serious note, if I drink, my connection goes out the window - so the old adage about not drinking and jiving definitely holds true for me.

[Freya]

On a vaguely serious note, if I drink, my connection goes out the window - so the old adage about not drinking and jiving definitely holds true for me.

Yeah if you have one drink then you relax and connection improves...Two and it goes out the window!

On the other hand this sounds like a new thread!

[bigdjiver]

It is some time since I have felt "connected" when doing classic MJ. Yesterday I was singing to myself a song I wrote when I was jolted by the lines:
"In the thrill of discovery
we forget just who we are"
and it occured to me that one of the elements of "connection" for me had been, not just shared experience, but shared discovery. Some of the elements had been new partners, new tracks and new moves working properly for the first time. I gained a new insight into why some of my partners had been very obviously "connected" in what for me had been a very good dance, and a near miss.
For me it had been "Its all been said, Its all been done before".