PDA

View Full Version : Vertical tension: Right or Wrong?



happygoldfish
25th-June-2007, 10:03 PM
I've been to many venues, Ceroc and others. Almost all of them do the semi-circle and almost all of them have dancers who bounce.
My theory about why the semi-circle causes the bounce is that it involves a significant raising and lowering of the hand.
When I dance with ladies who are expecting the semi-circle they apply tension in an upwards direction on every step back, this pulls my hand upwards: after the step back, the ladies push my hand downwards - I get infected with the bounce.

What are people's views on vertical tension?

MJ teachers mention tension in almost every lesson, but, in my experience, they never spell out what sort of tension they want.

Ceroc teachers, for example seem to have no idea of the difference between tension and compression. Or of the fact that a hand or forearm can't be in both at the same time.

If my left forearm and my partner's right forearm are both horizontal and in line, it seems to me obvious that the only sensible tension (or compression) is longitudinal: that is, towards the follower's elbow.

But I often find the girl applying force either down or to her right (for some reason, this never seems to happen in a right-to-right hold). Even some Ceroc taxi-dancers do it.

I don't like this: it puts me off balance, and I don't see what advantage it has for the girl. :(

Surely downward pressure should be reserved for lifts and jumps?

Am I just being fussy about this? What do other people think? :nice:

Libellule
25th-June-2007, 10:32 PM
I have to admit, I'd never really thought much about vertical tension, I really just think about in a horizontal sense, and trust the will be enough to pick up any vertical movements. I'll have to see what I do next time a go dancing (fingers crossed that will be tomorrow).

TA Guy
26th-June-2007, 01:19 AM
I only apply tension when I start a move, and during a move if required. At the neutral points, E.G. Extended (stepped back) after the move has completed, there is very little if any tension other than that minimum necessary to maintain a connection. I don't really want any from my follow either. If she has tension (or leverage etc.) at that point, I will have to exceed that to start the move. If too much 'exceeding' is required from me, it becomes too unsubtle to lead properly. This applies to all tension, vertical or otherwise.

One move in which vertical tension screwed me up for a while was that sway like move where the lady is pulled inwards similar to a sway, but her hand brought to her right shoulder instead (sorry, not good with the names anymore :)). I do that move a lot now, but when I was first learning it, the follows occasionally had difficulty determining whether I was pulling them inwards for a sway, or the right shoulder move. Pretty sure that was because I had the vertical tension wrong. The difference is quite subtle compared to most MJ moves. If the follows were adding their own vertical tension, I imagine that move would become more tricky. Luckily, I have yet to come across a follow that has mucked it up for me. It's was always my own doing :) So I can't say followers vertical tension has ever been a problem.

Essay warning!!! :)

As regards the hand bounce. Well, me and AC come at that from two different viewpoints anyway. He despises it and seems to have problems dancing with it (judging by the use of the word 'infected' :)), I view it as a style and don't really care either way :)
I have a theory, recently formed, and probably completely wrong, about why some people really suffer when dancing with hand bouncers, and some seem to cope with no deterioration whatsoever.
It involves tension. And has nothing to do with how good or bad it looks :)
My theory goes like this. Some dancers have no problem with the hand bounce because the hand bounce is usually done at the point on a beat when the connection is neutral (I remember thats called 'passive connection'. I think?). At that neutral point, the hand bouncer inserts a bounce. It doesn't actually matter because that is a neutral point anyway (passive connection). A point of minimum tension and resistance, a point of minimum communication. The hand bounce may introduce noise, but who cares when there's so little communication being transmitted anyway? The bounce finishes, the leader introduces tension (leverage etc.) and starts the move or continues the move. All is good.... unless your 'neutral' points arn't so neutral after all. If the leader or follower maintains too much tension/resistance at the neutral points, a hand bounce will screw things up.
That's my current theory. Now all the people who deride the hand bounce will jump in and say 'not true, I do not apply too much tension'. There probably right, I have no idea how much tension is optimum at the neutral points. It certainly varies between dance styles, I couldn't put a figure on it and I'm not assuming I'm right and most certainly not saying they are using too much tension/resistance, just it's the best explanation I've thought of so far :)
It also fits in with something someone (christopher?) who experimented saying how 'going with the flow' was the best method of dealing with the hand bounce. What is 'going with the flow' except reducing tension and resistance ?
Cause and effect. The more tension you need in your passive connection points to maintain a connection, the more 'wall' you are giving the bounce to slam up against, the more you have for the 'bounce' to infect.
Of course, nothing will save you from the huge hand bounces that actually yank a shoulder around :) Excessive force anywhere is not good.

End of essay, time for bed :)

Whitebeard
26th-June-2007, 03:15 AM
As regards the hand bounce. Well, me and AC come at that from two different viewpoints anyway. He despises it and seems to have problems dancing with it (judging by the use of the word 'infected' :)), I view it as a style and don't really care either way :)



AC (?) or DC; who is that person ?

Anyway I'm with AC (?) on this one; even though I follow some of your reasoning and now just try reconcile myself to going with the flow rather than attempting to fight it. But is does mean that whilst I may be able to lead the moves these super metronomically bouncy followers are dictating the pace, timing, and musical interpretation of the dance. This, and they, I dislike intenseley.

Andy McGregor
26th-June-2007, 06:44 AM
AC (?) or DC; who is that person ?

Anyway I'm with AC (?) on this one; even though I follow some of your reasoning and now just try reconcile myself to going with the flow rather than attempting to fight it. But is does mean that whilst I may be able to lead the moves these super metronomically bouncy followers are dictating the pace, timing, and musical interpretation of the dance. This, and they, I dislike intenseley.AC could almost be me! I'm with Whitebeard on this one. The hand bounce is, to my mind, interference on the line. Although TA Guy does have a point that the interference with the dance is minimised if the hand bounce is given at points like the back-step. The question I have for TA Guy is, why bounce at all, "neutral point" or not?

MJ can be done without the bounce. Let's call this the "basic". Then the bounce could be added at an appropriate point in the music if it was felt that a bounce was required (which is never in my case). What I don't understand is the requirement for a constant bounce. For example, on Saturday night I was dancing to the long version of Havana by Kenny G (I was the DJ so we got the fabulous long version :innocent: ) in the Blues Room at Great Bookham. This is a very smooth song and I can not imagine anything bouncing anywhere while it is playing - two couples near me were bouncing up and down whirling their hands, etc. They were on the beat, but it all looked a bit inapproriate. To me it seems like some people can not stop bouncing. And that is what I think is completely wrong.

straycat
26th-June-2007, 07:17 AM
What are people's views on vertical tension?
Been racking my brains on this one, as I simply can't think of a time when I use any kind of 'vertical' tension for standard moves. I do remember being taught that on push-spins (for example) you push downwards to give momentum for the spin, but a) this isn't really a constant tension thing, and b) I don't think I do push-spins very much any more. If at all.

Certainly I'm happy to go out on a limb and say that for most standard moves, there's no need to apply any kind of vertical tension at all, and I think it would likely be counter-productive. If someone did it to me to any great extent, I'd have to do something to prevent it, as it can aggravate my back probems, and then I have to get the zimmerframe out :tears:


The hand bounce is, to my mind, interference on the line.
:yeah:
Put me with AM, WB and AC on this. Particularly as, unlike TA, I like to keep a some connection throughout moves - rather than giving a lead at 'key' points, I want to give a continuous smooth lead and connection that my partner can a) follow, and b) work off. A continuous hand bounce makes that much much harder for me to achieve.

Andy McGregor
26th-June-2007, 07:54 AM
I like to keep a some connection throughout moves - rather than giving a lead at 'key' points, I want to give a continuous smooth lead and connection that my partner can a) follow, and b) work off. A continuous hand bounce makes that much much harder for me to achieve.:yeah:

TA Guy
26th-June-2007, 10:39 AM
:yeah:
Put me with AM, WB and AC on this. Particularly as, unlike TA, I like to keep a some connection throughout moves - rather than giving a lead at 'key' points, I want to give a continuous smooth lead and connection that my partner can a) follow, and b) work off. A continuous hand bounce makes that much much harder for me to achieve.

I'm not quite sure what your getting at.

There is always connection. There is always some tension and resistance. The point is more about the differing amounts of tension and resistance at differing points in the dance.

If your suggesting you keep tension and resistance at constant amounts, I would suggest there are two things wrong with that;

Using the 'connection is a conversation' analogy, it's like constantly 'talking', your partner will never get to talk back because your always talking yourself. (or she can do it only by shouting over you).
During the actual execution of a move, during the middle of a lead, you don't want your partner doing the 'talking', you want her to follow your lead, you are talking. However, at passive points, your partner can 'do her thing'. Having passive points allows your partner to 'talk'.
Secondly, it's more tiring for the follow, because she always has to match your tension and resistance.

Relating it to the hand bounce, if you have passive connection points and your listening to your partner, if your partner happens to talk in the shape of a hand bounce, then it's no problem, because you are in listening mode. The problem occurs if she talks, and your already talking, or to put it the way I put it in my first post, it's a problem if she introduces tension to hand bounce and you already have too much tension there.

Twirly
26th-June-2007, 10:53 AM
I only apply tension when I start a move, and during a move if required. At the neutral points, E.G. Extended (stepped back) after the move has completed, there is very little if any tension other than that minimum necessary to maintain a connection. I don't really want any from my follow either. If she has tension (or leverage etc.) at that point, I will have to exceed that to start the move. If too much 'exceeding' is required from me, it becomes too unsubtle to lead properly. This applies to all tension, vertical or otherwise.

If you have little or no tension at the fully extended points in the dance, how is your follower to avoid "spaghetti arms"? Surely there has to be some tension there, or her arms would simply flop.

straycat
26th-June-2007, 11:19 AM
If your suggesting you keep tension and resistance at constant amounts, I would suggest there are two things wrong with that;

Using the 'connection is a conversation' analogy, it's like constantly 'talking', your partner will never get to talk back because your always talking yourself. (or she can do it only by shouting over you).
During the actual execution of a move, during the middle of a lead, you don't want your partner doing the 'talking', you want her to follow your lead, you are talking. However, at passive points, your partner can 'do her thing'. Having passive points allows your partner to 'talk'.

I submit that this depends entirely on how your conversations work. A conversation isn't a case of: I say something, she says something, I say something, she says something and so on.

Qualification here: what I'm describing is what works for me personally. Nothing more.
It's more a case that I say something, she absorbs that, and responds in a way that builds on what I said. I then take her response, incorporate it into what I was doing next, and reply, and so on. To lead, I'm adapting constantly to what she's doing. I can only accomplish this if we maintain a constant noise-free connection, because I will be 'listening' through that connection (hopefully) every bit as much as she is. We cannot achieve this if I'm leading with 'active' and 'passive' points - partly because I can't listen as well or respond as quickly with a 'passive' connection (maybe I need more practice?) and partly because I want her to be able to give input at all times. Not just 'when I say she can' - to me, that just isn't a dance of equals.



Secondly, it's more tiring for the follow, because she always has to match your tension and resistance.

Yes she does, but done correctly, there's no reason this should be tiring.



Relating it to the hand bounce, if you have passive connection points and your listening to your partner, if your partner happens to talk in the shape of a hand bounce, then it's no problem, because you are in listening mode. The problem occurs if she talks, and your already talking, or to put it the way I put it in my first post, it's a problem if she introduces tension to hand bounce and you already have too much tension there.

I BOING would BOING sugBOINGgest BOINGthat BOING a BOING hand BOING bounce BOING constBOINGantBOINGly BOING insBOINGertBOINGed BOING in BOING to BOING evBOINGerBOINGy BOING beat BOING of BOING a BOING dance BOING makes BOING it BOING much BOING hardBOINGer BOING to BOING listBOINGen BOING than BOING you BOING think. And BOING a BOING lot BOING less BOING fun.

TA Guy
26th-June-2007, 11:25 AM
AC could almost be me! I'm with Whitebeard on this one.


It is, sorry! Couldn't get to sleep cos me legs ached after dancing :) It was late, just a mistake. :)

I have no problem with Whitebeard at all, but for the most part, I believe the music dictates the beat and timing, so not quite sure what the issue is there. Of course, if the hand bounce is off the beat, not at a passive point, then you are screwed, same as any off beat dance, nothing unique to hand bounce there.
As to musical interpretation, don't both partners have the right to some musical interpretation? Perhaps a hand bouncer might think bouncy music is interpretated well by a bouncy hand. I think your allowed to have different opinions on what musicality suits what music :)


The question I have for TA Guy is, why bounce at all, "neutral point" or not?


Ah, well, as I mentioned above, perhaps the hand bouncer believes it's a good way to interpret bouncy music ? Perhaps it's a way to fill the 'gaps' at the passive points? To mark time?
Funnily enough, I think Jordan and Tatiana have something similar. Someone else noticed it on the Boston Tea Party clip. At the point where a MJ hand bouncer would insert a bounce, J&T do something as well, they twist their hands, like you would do to pull someone into a sway (only without actually doing it). I thought that was quite interesting, kinda marking time, perhaps that's what the hand bounce is ?


What I don't understand is the requirement for a constant bounce. For example, on Saturday night I was dancing to the long version of Havana by Kenny G (I was the DJ so we got the fabulous long version :innocent: ) in the Blues Room at Great Bookham. This is a very smooth song and I can not imagine anything bouncing anywhere while it is playing - two couples near me were bouncing up and down whirling their hands, etc. They were on the beat, but it all looked a bit inapproriate. To me it seems like some people can not stop bouncing. And that is what I think is completely wrong.

It's important to distinguish between the hand bouncers, and bouncy dancers. They are not the same thing. (tho obviously sometimes the two come together).
I don't know the answer, All I can say is one persons bad musical interpetation is another persons pride and joy :) Same with styles.

ducasi
26th-June-2007, 11:43 AM
What are people's views on vertical tension? It has its place...


Or of the fact that a hand or forearm can't be in both at the same time.
Not so – you can apply both tension and compression to the inside of your follower's hand by spreading your fingers so they can apply a force both forward and backwards. Franck teaches this in his workshops.


If my left forearm and my partner's right forearm are both horizontal and in line, it seems to me obvious that the only sensible tension (or compression) is longitudinal: that is, towards the follower's elbow.
Most of the time.


But I often find the girl applying force either down or to her right (for some reason, this never seems to happen in a right-to-right hold). Even some Ceroc taxi-dancers do it.
Your follower should only match your tension if she is trying to just follow you.


I don't like this: it puts me off balance, and I don't see what advantage it has for the girl. :(

Surely downward pressure should be reserved for lifts and jumps?

Am I just being fussy about this? What do other people think? :nice: Downwards pressure can be used for lots of nice subtle movements – again, stuff Franck teaches uses this.

Also to lead a stop, downwards pressure is sometimes useful, and this is where followers can use downwards tension to indicate they want you to stop, so they can hijack for a moment.

Anyway, for the most part, vertical tension should only be used as a deliberate part of a lead.

ducasi
26th-June-2007, 11:51 AM
As regards the hand bounce. [...] I view it as a style and don't really care either way :)
The problem I see with bouncy hands as a style point, is that style is meant to make things look better, but this one doesn't.

I can't think of any women who have said they appreciate this style in men, though I may be talking to the wrong women...

David Franklin
26th-June-2007, 12:05 PM
To my mind there are two different "bounces" being discussed here.

When someone uses the term "hand bouncer" what I think of is someone who uses their hand to mark the beat. Pretty much all the way through the track, their hand is going BOUNCE---BOUNCE---BOUNCE. This seems pretty uniformly regarded as bad practice amongst Lindy, WCS and ballroom, and throughout a lot of MJ as well.

Then you have the phenomenon TA Guy describes seeing with Jordan/Tatianna, where there is an occasional 'bounce' that creeps in, usually in an extended rockstep/anchor position 'between moves'. It's possible that this too is bad practice, but in point of fact an awful lot of otherwise smooth dancers do it. (Not just J/T, you'll also see it with Kyle and Sarah, Robert Royston, Parker and Jessica, Miles and Tessa, for example). I'm not totally convinced the bounce is "noise" in this context though - I think you could certainly see it as a prelead.

To continue the analogy of Straycat's textual example, this second case is using BOING as punctuation, so instead of


I BOING would BOING sugBOINGgest BOINGthat BOING a BOING hand BOING bounce BOING constBOINGantBOINGly BOING insBOINGertBOINGed BOING in BOING to BOING evBOINGerBOINGy BOING beat BOING of BOING a BOING dance BOING makes BOING it BOING much BOING hardBOINGer BOING to BOING listBOINGen BOING than BOING you BOING think. And BOING a BOING lot BOING less BOING fun.

you have something like (slightly fiddled text to justifiy extra BOING punctuation):


I would suggest that a hand bounce BOING if constantly inserted into every beat of a dance BOING makes it much harder to listen than you think BOING And a lot less fun BOING

Which you could argue is actually clearer than if I'd written the whole sentence without punctuation. Of course, like all punctuation, you get in a mess if it's overused.

Caro
26th-June-2007, 12:19 PM
Funnily enough, I think Jordan and Tatiana have something similar. Someone else noticed it on the Boston Tea Party clip. At the point where a MJ hand bouncer would insert a bounce, J&T do something as well, they twist their hands, like you would do to pull someone into a sway (only without actually doing it). I thought that was quite interesting, kinda marking time, perhaps that's what the hand bounce is ?


Hard to comment without knowing exactly what you are refering to, but I would think that the hand twisting you're talking about refers to double resistance where they have anchored already, and are 'killing' 2 beats (or more if they repeat it) or music in order to either phrase, re-anchor doing something different (like a slide), or simply re-anchor if they are preparing some complicated move and the previous one didn't end that great (connection not optimal).
Somebody correct me if I'm totally wrong here...

Chef
26th-June-2007, 12:22 PM
Funnily enough, I think Jordan and Tatiana have something similar. Someone else noticed it on the Boston Tea Party clip. At the point where a MJ hand bouncer would insert a bounce, J&T do something as well, they twist their hands, like you would do to pull someone into a sway (only without actually doing it). I thought that was quite interesting, kinda marking time, perhaps that's what the hand bounce is ?


I think that the hand movement that you are seeing with J&T is an aspect of their lead (and WCS in general). It leads the woman to twist as she walks forward, sometimes as a style thing but mostly as a preparation for the lady to do a turn. If Jordan wanted Tat to take a straight walk forward this hand twist would be absent. Sometimes it is used as a double resitance thing to kill two beats so that they can start the next musical phrase on beat 1.

Because thier connection is so good and the lead has no unnecessary movements in it Tat knows that everything that is coming down the connection is important.

If Jordan was inserting hand bounce or any other movements in what he regarded as passive moments then Tat would have to make a decision as to wether they were a lead for her to follow or just something that she ignore. Sometimes she would get that wrong and sometimes she would get it right but the overall effect would be that Jordan would have to make his lead bigger and more obvious so Tat would have a bigger clue as to wether to ignore it or listen to it. He would then lose the ability to lead anything subtle.

I cannot find any PURPOSE in the vertical hand bounce, unless you really want your partner to jump up and down. Marking time? What for? She can hear the music just as well as you. Style point? - Well if YOU think so - perhaps your follower could kick you in the shins as a style point - seems only fair if you are going to yank her arm up and down all night.

The origional question - since the thread seems to be off on a hand bounce direction - was asking about vertical hand pressure.

Followers need to exert vertical hand pressure in order to maintain contact with the leaders hand. Many followers, when they are learning, exert far too much. Sometimes they push the leaders arm down so hard the leader has to struggle to raise the followers arm over their head for a return. Sometimes the followers grab hold of the leaders hand and pull it up to shoulder height (what I call the begging dog postion) and you have to struggle to get their hand down to their waist level. In both these cases they are leading you not you leading them.

IMHO in general there should be an active zone for the womans hand around the region in front of her waist. Horizontal movement should be followed instantly while she should allow vertical movement but with enough tone in her arm that if the leader stops his hand then her hand doesn't continue on its own.

BTW don't expect too much of Taxi dancers. A few of them have been dancing a long time and have an understanding of the technique of dance but most of them have been recruited after about 6 months of dancing and only know slightly more than you.

TA Guy
26th-June-2007, 12:34 PM
I submit that this depends entirely on how your conversations work. A conversation isn't a case of: I say something, she says something, I say something, she says something and so on.


Isn't it, I thought that's exactly what a conversation was.



It's more a case that I say something, she absorbs that, and responds in a way that builds on what I said. I then take her response, incorporate it into what I was doing next, and reply, and so on. To lead, I'm adapting constantly to what she's doing. I can only accomplish this if we maintain a constant noise-free connection, because I will be 'listening' through that connection (hopefully) every bit as much as she is. We cannot achieve this if I'm leading with 'active' and 'passive' points - partly because I can't listen as well or respond as quickly with a 'passive' connection (maybe I need more practice?) and partly because I want her to be able to give input at all times. Not just 'when I say she can' - to me, that just isn't a dance of equals.


You dance differently to me. I to, am only describing what works for me, nothing else. :)
There are points in the dance where I do not want her to 'talk', to interrupt me. That's when I'm talking. Likewise, if she is talking, I try not to interrupt.
It's like married couples and families I guess. Some marriages are made of people constantly interrupting and arguing. Some marriages have a 'talking stick' you hold up when you want to talk :)
I have points in the dance where to interrupt me would completely screw me up, say in the middle of a step. I have an active connection there, tension and resistance, leverage and all the rest. In theory I do not want her to interrupt because I am talking. In practise I don't want her to interrupt because we'd prolly trip over our own feet. Once we exit the step, we will prolly enter a passive state, I am listening then.
I can't constantly listen. If I listen while I'm trying to talk, if I look out for tension right when I am applying the most tension, chances are I'll miss it or misinterpret it. An unsubtle example is this; When the next couple along is about to crash into your follow and your in the middle of leading a move/step, you can't gently ease them out of the way, your in an active connection, you have to override the existing tension, leverage etc and 'yank' the follow out of harms way. That's what your partner would have to do to talk to you while your in an active connection. Not gonna happen.




I BOING would BOING sugBOINGgest BOINGthat BOING a BOING hand BOING bounce BOING constBOINGantBOINGly BOING insBOINGertBOINGed BOING in BOING to BOING evBOINGerBOINGy BOING beat BOING of BOING a BOING dance BOING makes BOING it BOING much BOING hardBOINGer BOING to BOING listBOINGen BOING than BOING you BOING think. And BOING a BOING lot BOING less BOING fun.

That how you dance is it ? :) You call that conversation ? LOL. :)

Some flash move ->momentary pause at a beat, ->passive connection. BOING <- Hand bounce, Yahhhhh!!!! :)
Exit move, ->wanna do something at the step back? ->passive connection. BOINNGGggggg <- musical interpretation, think that's the digital equivalent of a sexy running hands down the side of her body, bend the knees, slow quarter turn and back :)
Supersonic!, ->first move, step in side by side, ->passive connection. boing <- partner nothing to say.
First move, ->turn out, hand on shoulder. ->passive connection. boing <- partner nothing to say
Lets go, ->lead out. I'm posing, ->take a slow walk out. ->passive connection. BOINDY BOINDY BOINDY BOINDY <- multiple bodyrolls :)

Not exactly the best decription, but that's more how I would hope to dance :)

Course, that completely ignores flourishes and other musicality where my partner doesn't really need to communiate anything to me. And style if you like.

David Franklin
26th-June-2007, 12:38 PM
Hard to comment without knowing exactly what you are refering to, Have a look at YouTube - Jordan and Tatiana First US Open Together (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xb3N1iWIHZc) (this is from their early years and the 'bounce' is a lot more obvious. And back then, to my mind it is much more of a 'bounce' than a twist. I'm not sure whether that tells us something about how bouncing is viewed currently in WCS; on the other hand Kyle was a definite 'twister' even back then).


but I would think that the hand twisting you're talking about refers to double resistance where they have anchored already, and are 'killing' 2 beats (or more if they repeat it) or music in order to either phrase, re-anchor doing something different (like a slide), or simply re-anchor if they are preparing some complicated move and the previous one didn't end that great (connection not optimal). Interesting suggestion, and it has some correlation with the video, because it does happen on a few extensions. But to my mind, it happens after the extension of the move. It's almost like the shake is saying "OK, you've had your fun, now get ready to come back in".

On the other hand, I find it near impossible to concentrate on the hand movement and notice what else is going on at the same time, so I may be completely wrong in my analysis of the timing of the 'bounce'.

tsh
26th-June-2007, 12:40 PM
I find this series of threads very strange, and a little lacking in direction. Connection is very much a 2 or 3 way thing, and as soon as you try and focus on the specific detail it really comes down to 'try this, and see if it makes your dancing work any better'. Trying to analyse the linguistics of the problem doesn't really seem useful.

As an example, when I've been trying to learn tango moves as a MJ dancer, I usually can't tell if the failure to make the lead and follow work is something that I can change, or something that I need my partner to change, or if it's just because we're not dancing to the same music. I know it's not right, and I'm aware that the effect I'm trying to achieve doesn't happen, but I need someone more experienced to physically practice with in order to get some clues about what I need to change.

The degree of connection also varies massively depending on who is dancing, and how. My lead for rock and roll, blues and salsa are completely different, and the way that I lead has doubtless changed significantly over the last year.

Most MJ dancers are not even aware that they are dancing lead-follow anyway, they just recognise a few different patterns, and have fairly set routines.

Sean

Andy McGregor
26th-June-2007, 12:51 PM
I think that the hand movement that you are seeing with J&T is an aspect of their lead (and WCS in general). It leads the woman to twist as she walks forward, sometimes as a style thing but mostly as a preparation for the lady to do a turn. If Jordan wanted Tat to take a straight walk forward this hand twist would be absent. Sometimes it is used as a double resitance thing to kill two beats so that they can start the next musical phrase on beat 1.

snip

... loads more good stuff..

snip

IMHO in general there should be an active zone for the womans hand around the region in front of her waist. Horizontal movement should be followed instantly while she should allow vertical movement but with enough tone in her arm that if the leader stops his hand then her hand doesn't continue on its own.

BTW don't expect too much of Taxi dancers. A few of them have been dancing a long time and have an understanding of the technique of dance but most of them have been recruited after about 6 months of dancing and only know slightly more than you.Everything that Chef says is fab and IMHO correct (you could amost post it on a "proper" dance forum).

I've been thinking about this vertical movement. It's the movement up and down with no purpose but marking the beat that I think interferes with the lead. There are many occasions that the hand will be raised or lowered to lead a turn. How will the lady be able to differentiate between a rasing of the hand to bounce and a raising of the hand to do a return. Of course the latter is raised further, but, up to a certain point, both are the same action. It's just that the former leads nothing, which seems pointless in a lead and follow dance :confused:

On the subject of vertical tension, as well as returning tension and compression, I advise ladies to give the guy the weight of their hand so that their hand will always return to their waist level when released. This means the lady's hand will slide down the guy's arm after a comb rather than stay in the air at his shoulder height. I also advise ladies to rest the weight of their left arm on the guy's arm in the closed hold - this is so the guy can use the raising and lowering of the frame (or elbow) to lead the unweighting of the lady's left foot. So, IMHO, there is a little vertical tension, but it should be fairly constant, not bouncing up and down and interfering with the lead and follow.

happygoldfish
26th-June-2007, 12:53 PM
End of essay, time for bed :nice:

Great post, TAGuy! Especially at that time in the morning! :respect:


I do remember being taught that on push-spins (for example) you push downwards to give momentum for the spin, but a) this isn't really a constant tension thing, and b) I don't think I do push-spins very much any more. If at all.

Ah, but that's diagonally downwards (from shoulder-height towards the follower's hip).

So you were still using longitudinal tension, towards the follower's elbow.


… unlike TA, I like to keep a some connection throughout moves - rather than giving a lead at 'key' points, I want to give a continuous smooth lead and connection that my partner can a) follow, and b) work off.


There is always connection. There is always some tension and resistance. The point is more about the differing amounts of tension and resistance at differing points in the dance.

If you're suggesting you keep tension and resistance at constant amounts, I would suggest there are two things wrong with that… {snip}

I'd go with TA Guy here, not straycat.

There's plenty of moves where the connection goes from tension to compression.
Somewhere in the middle of those, the connection is minimal (TA Guy calls it the "neutral point" or "passive connection").
At that point, there's nothing for the follower to a) "follow" or b) "work off". :nice:

(That doesn't leave the follower without a lead: she continues in the direction she was already going, until she receives the next instruction! :))


I BOING would BOING sugBOINGgest BOINGthat BOING a BOING hand BOING bounce BOING constBOINGantBOINGly BOING insBOINGertBOINGed BOING in BOING to BOING evBOINGerBOINGy BOING beat BOING of BOING a BOING dance BOING makes BOING it BOING much BOING hardBOINGer BOING to BOING listBOINGen BOING than BOING you BOING think. And BOING a BOING lot BOING less BOING fun.


:rofl: :rofl:


If you have little or no tension at the fully extended points in the dance, how is your follower to avoid "spaghetti arms"? Surely there has to be some tension there, or her arms would simply flop.

No. If I let go completely, my partner's arm won't flop.

And if I relax instead of letting go, it's the same! :nice:

Or are you saying that it's my job to support my partner's hand? :confused:

JCB
26th-June-2007, 01:06 PM
I am only adding this because no-one has mentioned it as a cause of hand-bounce in followers. On some tracks (in the beginning, on an awful lot of tracks :whistle: ) my husband simply could not hear the beat. So he asked me to "feed" it back to him. Hence the hand bounce. Hey, take it easy! :eek: I could feel some of you cringing through the keyboard... and was that an agonized scream from Andy?
I try to keep it subtle ( :rolleyes: ...no! really!) and I don't feed the beat back to just any lost leaders :innocent:.

So I might be unique, but I suspect there are a few more like me out there.

I never realized how addictive the habit could be. (I am worried I may start doing it subconsciously). And on the recipient side, I am not a fan. It is hard enough for me to follow without having to filter out the tactile "noise".

Gadget
26th-June-2007, 01:07 PM
If my left forearm and my partner's right forearm are both horizontal and in line, it seems to me obvious that the only sensible tension (or compression) is longitudinal: that is, towards the follower's elbow.See Ducasi's post. I'm 100% behind that.


But I often find the girl applying force either down or to her right (for some reason, this never seems to happen in a right-to-right hold). Even some Ceroc taxi-dancers do it.
...just a thought - how high is your hand during a dance? Belly button? Lower rib cage? Could it be that these people like a more relaxed hand hold slightly lower and are trying to communicate it with you?

It could be that they are simply trying to establish a 'connection' where they feel some resistance from you. A follower works from reading the change in the resistance - some feel lost if they can't feel any. To test the theory I would try inserting a bit of lateral resistance (tension or compression) and see if it eases them vertically.

Personally I try to keep my hand height between my hip level and my partner's hip level.
Can't say I can remember anyone pressing down excessivly. I have had several beginners try and lift my hand to the 'bunny rabbit' position... but once they stop gripping, the hand has to stay low or it will simply float away :wink:

Andy McGregor
26th-June-2007, 01:16 PM
... and was that an agonized scream from Andy?.. just regained conciousness :wink:

I think there really are some guys who need this help. I'm not sure what those guys are dancing to, but kind ladies do need to help them with the beat. However, not being able to hear the beat is a bit like being blind and needing a third party to read you the menu. Basically you can't function without help. In the world of dance the person who can not fit their moves to the beat is disabled - it doesn't mean they shouldn't join in, it just means they need kind-hearted people to help them :flower:

happygoldfish
26th-June-2007, 01:28 PM
… out of breath … i can't keep up! …

Not so – you can apply both tension and compression to the inside of your follower's hand by spreading your fingers so they can apply a force both forward and backwards. Franck teaches this in his workshops.


I respectfully completely disagree. :respect:

I agree that this hold of Franck's has certain advantages, and in particular reduces the delay between pulling and pushing (tension and compression of the forearm). And it does this without squeezing the follower's fingers.

(Though I think I would be relutant to use it, for fear of damaging my partner's wrist. :( But I admit I haven't tried, so I don't know.)

But the leader's hand is entirely in compression (the follower is compressing it ). The follower's hand is entirely in tension. Neither's hand is, or can be, in both.

The follower's forearm (transmitting the force) is then in tension or compression depending on whether the leader pulls or pushes (respectively) with this hold. The forearm, too, cannot be in both.

Tension and compression do not depend on direction (for example, North). They depend on "in" and "out". The forces from the leader's thumb and fingers on the follower's hand may be North and South, respectively: but they are both "out", and that puts the follower's hand in tension.

Similarly, if I push your forearm, that's "in", so it's compression; if I pull your forearm, that's "out", so it's tension.

Now let's see if you've got this: what is it if I pull your leg? :nice:


… nurse! … oxygen! …

straycat
26th-June-2007, 01:45 PM
Isn't it, I thought that's exactly what a conversation was.

I was trying to illustrate a conversation with no flow - no real spark. I agree that my own 'flowing' attempt at an example was lacking a bit. I'm also aware that I'm getting further and further from the topic here, but ... I find it a fun digression. My apologies to those who don't :blush:

Anyway. To expand on this. With any luck I'll clarify things, although there's always the risk that I'm muddying the waters more and more... :whistle:

Straycat's Version of Things
In these 'conversations' - you have three participants:
The music.
The leader:
The follower:

The music is the most important conversant, and the only one that isn't listening to the others**.

From there, in the Very Strange World of Straycat, the leader and follower are in constant, harmonious communication with each other, and both in harmony with the music. There aren't any arguments. There aren't any 'interruptions'. The lead is in the form of constant suggestion, which can be followed, or adapted into something else, or whatever the follower likes - and because you have this constant communication, the lead can instantly adapt to any changes.

This way, we build our shared interpretation of the dance together, each of us communicating our own interpretations of the music. For me, there is absolutely nothing in dance which can beat the feeling of this approach going well... and not a lot outside of dance can come close either.

Couple of 'real-world' scenarios where the 'constant connection' approach is very handy: 1) if I send my partner out backwards, then another couple dance into the space that she's dancing towards, I can smoothly change the plan, and bring her out of danger - without having to reconnect the 'passive' connection to do this.
2) if she completely misinterprets my lead, and does some move that I really wasn't expecting... I can instantly feel what she's doing, adapt my own plans, follow along with her, then take the new move into something else, ideally fitting it to the music, without it ever feeling like we've got something wrong.

I know I've not explained this all that well, and I can't claim that every dance I have (or even most of them) is like this - but on a good day, this is what my best dances are like.

**Usually, anyway. When it is listening, and playing a more dynamic role, it can be amazing... :awe:



You dance differently to me. I to, am only describing what works for me, nothing else. :)
There are points in the dance where I do not want her to 'talk', to interrupt me. That's when I'm talking. Likewise, if she is talking, I try not to interrupt.
It's like married couples and families I guess. Some marriages are made of people constantly interrupting and arguing. Some marriages have a 'talking stick' you hold up when you want to talk :)

I think what I'm trying to get across (I think my failure to do this is down to the limitations in my ability to articulate this stuff well) is that one can take this beyond the argument/interruption concept, and closer to a state where you and your partner are more-or-less of one mind. Together, you're coming up with moves where you almost don't know the difference between the leader's role and the follower's....




I have points in the dance where to interrupt me would completely screw me up, say in the middle of a step. I have an active connection there, tension and resistance, leverage and all the rest. In theory I do not want her to interrupt because I am talking. In practise I don't want her to interrupt because we'd prolly trip over our own feet. Once we exit the step, we will prolly enter a passive state, I am listening then.

As you say, we dance differently. I'll do this kind of thing sometimes, for example if there's a nice call-and-response section in the music.... but again, it's all suggestion rather than instruction, so if she wants to interpret that nice little sax twiddle that I hadn't anticipated, that's still great. It did, however take a long long time for me to get to the level of adapting that I'm talking about, and ... I'm still not nearly as good at it as I'd like. :sick:



I can't constantly listen. If I listen while I'm trying to talk, if I look out for tension right when I am applying the most tension, chances are I'll miss it or misinterpret it. An unsubtle example is this; When the next couple along is about to crash into your follow and your in the middle of leading a move/step, you can't gently ease them out of the way, your in an active connection, you have to override the existing tension, leverage etc and 'yank' the follow out of harms way. That's what your partner would have to do to talk to you while your in an active connection. Not gonna happen.

Oops. I hadn't read this part of your post when I posted the similar scenario above... but the type of 'active' connection I'm talking about, not only can I do this, but my partner can do the same for me. It's not a case of overriding anything - it's a case of adapting it to meet new (urgent) needs. It does take some practice though.




That how you dance is it ? :) You call that conversation ? LOL. :)

No - but a whole lot of people do, both followers and leaders. :confused:


Some flash move ->momentary pause at a beat, ->passive connection. BOING <- Hand bounce, Yahhhhh!!!! :)
Exit move, ->wanna do something at the step back? ->passive connection. BOINNGGggggg <- musical interpretation, think that's the digital equivalent of a sexy running hands down the side of her body, bend the knees, slow quarter turn and back :)
...

I'm still unclear on the benefits of this kind of hand-bounce, but it is vastly better than the 'continuous' variety. In the examples you're quoting, I'd always keep what I would term an active connection myself. I think our definitions are likely different enough that this isn't a viable comparison though.

ducasi
26th-June-2007, 01:49 PM
But the leader's hand is entirely in compression (the follower is compressing it ). The follower's hand is entirely in tension. Neither's hand is, or can be, in both.
If I push on the palm of your hand with one of my fingers and pull on your fingers with another, in that not both tension and compression?

The arm does not need to be compressing or tensing to do this.

TA Guy
26th-June-2007, 02:34 PM
Can't really say I disagree with anything in your post. Mostly it's personal to you anyway :)



As you say, we dance differently. I'll do this kind of thing sometimes, for example if there's a nice call-and-response section in the music.... but again, it's all suggestion rather than instruction, so if she wants to interpret that nice little sax twiddle that I hadn't anticipated, that's still great.


The thing about sax twiddles, solos etc. is they quite often start at a point where you naturally have a passive connection anyway. And of course, if your good enough, you make sure of it :)



I'm still not nearly as good at it as I'd like. :sick:


Join the club :)

MartinHarper
26th-June-2007, 02:34 PM
Vertical tension is appropriate for vertical leads and vertical connections.


I often find the girl applying force either down or to her right

One possibility is that the girl is applying those forces because she is "seeking connection". If you have a pistol grip, for example, then you will be touching the bottom and the right of your partner's hand. It's therefore reasonable for her to apply a light connecting force to your hand, down-and-right, and for you to match that connecting force.

Whether it is appropriate for Modern Jive followers to "seek connection" in this way is another question. It seems the dance is generally set up so that the leaders make connection and the followers only match it, rather than seeking it out as they might in other dances.


There's plenty of moves where the connection goes from tension to compression. Somewhere in the middle of those, the connection is minimal.

Absolutely. There are three ways to react to this:
* The more West Coast-ish way to handle it is to extend the minimal connection point as long as possible, with the idea of providing "play time".
* The more Lindy-ish way to handle it is to minimise those points, so that there is a "continuous connection" that is always in either tension or compression.
* The more Modern Jive-ish way to handle it is to let those points be as long or as short as they naturally are, and not overthink things too much.

I don't see that any way is "right" or "wrong". Evidently a continuous connection isn't appropriate when dancing with someone who wants to bounce their hand with the beat.

TA Guy
26th-June-2007, 02:38 PM
If you have little or no tension at the fully extended points in the dance, how is your follower to avoid "spaghetti arms"? Surely there has to be some tension there, or her arms would simply flop.

It's important to make clear their is always some tension.
Floppy arms bad. Tension good.
It's a matter of degree, of the amount of tension at different points in the dance.

MartinHarper
26th-June-2007, 02:49 PM
If you have little or no tension at the fully extended points in the dance, how is your follower to avoid "spaghetti arms"?

By having "inner frame". See Franck's post on the frame thread:
http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/intermediate-corner/13051-frame-what-does-exist.html

Followers can have Inner Frame without needing Tension from the Leader

Or, in Plain English for Dancers(tm):

Chicks can hold their arms up and out by themselves, without needing some dude to pull on their hands all the time.

happygoldfish
26th-June-2007, 03:12 PM
If I push on the palm of your hand with one of my fingers and pull on your fingers with another, in that not both tension and compression?

The arm does not need to be compressing or tensing to do this.

The short answer: No! See my previous explanation. :nice:

The long answer: :(
If your hand were a separate unit, cut off from your arm (sorry! :blush: ) and resting on a table, still tense (in rigor mortis, perhaps), arched but palm down, and I pulled the fingers so that the hand moved forward across the table, then I agree that would be tension.
And if I pushed the fingers so that the hand moved backward across the table, that would be compression.
Similarly, if I pushed the back of your hand so that the hand moved forward across the table, then that would also be compression.
And if I pulled your hand so that the hand moved backward across the table, then that would also be tension.
And if I achieve the same movement by pushing your palm, from inside, instead of pulling from outside, then the effect on your hand is the same: it's still tension!

So "if I push on the palm of your hand with one of my fingers and pull on your fingers with another", that is entirely tension!
And that is so, irrespective of whether I leave the hand stationary while doing that, or move it backward or forward.

Even if the hand is attached to something (I know I left it around here somewhere :( … oh, it was your arm! :) ), the hand itself is always in tension (with that hold), but it doesn't actually matter in the slightest (so there wasn't really any point in analysing it), because what matters to the follower is only the effect transmitted through her forearm, and the forearm can be either in tension or in compression even though the hand itself is always in tension!!!


Nothing can be in both tension and compression.
(Actually, that's not true for thick structures: for example, an arched brick bridge will be in tension along the top of the bridge, but in compression along the arch. But it doesn't apply to a forearm in dancing.)

Franck
26th-June-2007, 04:18 PM
The short answer: No! See my previous explanation. :nice:

Nothing can be in both tension and compression.
(Actually, that's not true for thick structures: for example, an arched brick bridge will be in tension along the top of the bridge, but in compression along the arch. But it doesn't apply to a forearm in dancing.) :what: What are you on about? Your first explanation made no sense in a dance context and the second one shows you misunderstood the concepts applied.

You are right that about not being in tension and compression at the same time, but nobody suggested that.
The tension or compression you refer to (in the arm) is part of the inner frame, as Martin Harper tried to point out to you. The tension / compression in the hand is separate and serves a different purpose. With good followers, or when leading simple enough moves, a single point of connection (compressed or leveraged) is enough, it is independent of 'arm tone' and serves as a 'matched pressure point' to establish connection between two (inner) frames.

As Ducasi pointed out, I sometimes teach a double point of connection inside the hand (which I maybe confusingly refer to as a 'micro frame') where one finger is pulling (leverage against my partner's fingers) and the other is pushing (compression against my partner's palm). This gives me more control over the connection (and if needed allows me to add connection where none was forthcoming). Again, connection is different from leading, so it doesn't matter indeed if you're moving.

As for the direction of the 'matched pressure connection' it really doesn't matter, and I actually prefer a vertical or lateral pressure to avoid confusion with back and forward leads when explaining the concepts.

ducasi
26th-June-2007, 05:01 PM
Edit: Franck's just posted before me. :yeah:


The short answer: No! See my previous explanation. :nice:

[...]


Nothing can be in both tension and compression.

Hmm...

I'm not getting you. I agree "nothing can be in both tension and compression" – that is, no one single thing. But different parts of something can be in both tension and compression at the same time.

If I push on the palm of your hand with the back of my fingers, is that compression? I'd say so. You'll feel compression through your arm.

If I pull on the inside of your fingers with mine, is that tension? I think so. You'll feel tension through your arm.

Now by spreading my finger so I am both pushing and pulling on your hand, can't I put part of your hand under compression and part under tension at the same time?

Although the greater force will cancel out the weaker one leading to either a net compressive or tensile force, there will still be both forces acting simultaneously.

By doing this and adjusting the two forces with respect to one another, I can lead smooth changes of movement without a neutral point of no force acting, meaning my partner isn't being led forward or backwards. As we know from driving, when a car is in neutral we have the least control over it.

I don't mean to sound like a stuck record, but if you get the opportunity, you should go on some of Franck's excellent workshops on lead & follow and connection.

JCB
26th-June-2007, 05:29 PM
By doing this and adjusting the two forces with respect to one another, I can lead smooth changes of movement without a neutral point of no force acting, meaning my partner isn't being led forward or backwards. As we know from driving, when a car is in neutral we have the least control over it.
Please bear with a beginner for a moment:
So, it is like you are "holding" the follower's hand, without holding the follower's hand?

straycat
26th-June-2007, 05:36 PM
Please bear with a beginner for a moment:
So, it is like you are "holding" the follower's hand, without holding the follower's hand?

In a sense, I suppose it could be described like that, although that's not how it feels (to me, anyway). Emphasis (as you suggest) on 'without holding'

It's one of these things that's far easier to demonstrate in the flesh than to describe...

David Franklin
26th-June-2007, 05:38 PM
If I push on the palm of your hand with the back of my fingers, is that compression? I'd say so. You'll feel compression through your arm. (emphasis mine)

If I pull on the inside of your fingers with mine, is that tension? I think so. You'll feel tension through your arm.

Now by spreading my finger so I am both pushing and pulling on your hand, can't I put part of your hand under compression and part under tension at the same time?To my mind you have somewhat shifted the goalposts between 1,2 and 3.

I think one problem here is that once you start "subdividing" where the compression/tension is, where do you stop? Consider the standard "pull on the fingers". Tension, right? But now think about the follower's fingers. Are you really pulling on them, or are you pressing on them? It certainly seems to me that you are pressing, and so they are under compression. It's the resistance to that compression that creates tension in the arm.

So far, so pedantic. We don't subdivide the follow into little pieces, and if anyone talked like that about the standard handhold, you'd think they were nuts.

But to my mind, once you start talking about Franck's microframe, it becomes less clear. Again, from a physics point of view, it's pretty clear you are providing two (opposing) compressive forces (bit of a sucker bet - it's pretty hard to do anything else with physical objects). But because you are now explicitly talking about parts of the hand, I think it's a lot less obvious that one of those forces is "really" a tension.

Having said that, I think I know exactly what you and Franck are actually trying to say, and I agree that it is probably the most useful way of looking at things.

But there is actually a fair degree of interpretation going on when you say "this is tension, and this is compression", and I don't think it so unreasonable for someone to disagree with your interpretation.

To put it another way: I think not sure that a lot of the confusion I'm seeing here is more terminology conflict than anything else. A bit like someone getting confused all to hell trying to calculate moments about a fulcrum because someone has started talking about leveraged connections.

TA Guy
26th-June-2007, 06:43 PM
The problem I see with bouncy hands as a style point, is that style is meant to make things look better, but this one doesn't.

I can't think of any women who have said they appreciate this style in men, though I may be talking to the wrong women...

Lets guess, I dunno, say 75% of MJ'ers have a hand bounce? It's quite a high percentage isn't it? Lets also guess that roughly half of those are of the follow persuasion. That results in several thousand follows quite happy with a hand bounce. You must have just missed them :)

Chef
26th-June-2007, 07:12 PM
Lets guess, I dunno, say 75% of MJ'ers have a hand bounce? It's quite a high percentage isn't it? Lets also guess that roughly half of those are of the follow persuasion. That results in several thousand follows quite happy with a hand bounce. You must have just missed them :)


I would say that that is several thousand followers who just don't have any choice except either dance with the large supply of hand bouncers or queue up for the smooth dancer.

I often hear on this forum about people who find that better dancers don't want to dance with them and they call those better dancers hotshots. I also hear people complaining that their partners spend the dance yanking on their arm and that it is uncomfortable and difficult to find the lead buried within the bounce.

People have to make their own indvidual choices. Bounce your partners hand up and down and just accept that the better dancers won't be wanting to dance with you but will not refuse you if you corner them. Or - don't bounce your hand (unless you really mean your partner to jump up and down) and have a lead or follow where everything that is communicated between you is important and smooth. I have said before that I cannot find any useful purpose that is served by the vertical hand bounce. This forum is littered with followers complaining about it and very respected teachers saying "keep it smooth". The latest argument for it that you put forward is "lots of people do it". Lots of people smoke and take illegal drugs but I don't see it as a reccomendation.

In the end it is your choice.

I am quite happy to dance with beginners BUT when I encounter people that cannot be bothered to improve then I cannot be bothered to waste my time on them. Don't tell me that it is only 3 minutes of my life because if you put 10 of them in a row then I have had a horibbly yanky half hour that I will never get back again.

bigdjiver
26th-June-2007, 08:06 PM
It's a damned good thing that I don't have to read the instructions before I start dancing.

TA Guy
26th-June-2007, 09:03 PM
The latest argument for it that you put forward is "lots of people do it".

Your one of those people who feel the need to put words in peoples mouths aren't you?

We talk about the hand bounce and the connection (making specific exception of hand bounces using excessive force), and in your previous post, you choose to talk about 'yanking ladies arms up and down' as if that's what we were talking about. (like excessive force is good at any time. LOL).

To someone who had said he'd never come across any lady who liked the bouncing hand, I just pointed out that there is a fairly high number who actually do it. You managed not only blame it all on the leads (which may or may not be true, my experience is it may be bias'ed in favour of leads, but not absolute), but to make out I was using that as an argument in favour of the hand bounce itself. Completely untrue.

Now your calling all hand bouncers bad dancers. *shrug* if that's your view, fine. No one ever queues to dance with Viktor after all do they ? He's such a bad dancer as you say. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Lastly, just to clarify one huge assumption you incorrectly made, I do not have a hand bounce. May seem weird I know given my posts on the subject, but it just happens to be true. No point in that captitalized 'YOU' and all the personal potshots you included in your first post that quoted me, tho it gave me a chuckle. 'Fraid you got that completely wrong.

Straycat shot my theory down, in detail. A couple of others took part, disagreed, but mentioned they could see what I was getting it. I do not mind, in fact I enjoyed it. I am not so arrogant as to assume my view of the dance world is the only valid one....

It was an interesting and informative discussion, I'm sorry you felt you couldn't take part.

Chef
26th-June-2007, 10:19 PM
Lets guess, I dunno, say 75% of MJ'ers have a hand bounce? It's quite a high percentage isn't it? Lets also guess that roughly half of those are of the follow persuasion. That results in several thousand follows quite happy with a hand bounce. You must have just missed them :)

Well it seems obvious from your last post that I have missed the point you were making in the post that I have quoted above. I was not trying to put words in your mouth - the above post just looked to me like you were saying that lots of people do it so it must be alright. It appears that I have misunderstood what you were saying.

What was the point that you were making in the post that I quote above?

Your statement that there was several thousand followers that were happy with hand bounce made me wonder how you know that they were happy about it. Just because we all put up with coucil tax doesn't mean we are happy about it.

I also used the YOU in my previous post because you were the only person that I saw on the thread advocating the vertical hand bounce as a good thing with various qualifiers that it could be done in passive leading moments, could be used to mark out the beat, that it was an optional style thing. I shall go back and re read all the thread to see if my YOU was unfairly specific. Perhaps I should have chose - if one - instead of YOU.

Having spent two years going to Viktors classes on a friday evenings in Brighton I must have heard him say many times that the hand movements that you see him use should be gentle and move from side to side rather than up and down. Next time you see him please ask him about vertical hand bounce and let me know what he says.

It may well be that what you do is very small, used sparingly, and does not cause discomfort to your partner. There are many hundreds of people in my own area that couldn't say the same.

Perhaps one of the teachers that look at this forum would come forward and explain why they teach the vertical hand bounce and what purpose it serves.

I don't believe I was overly specific that it was something that was only inflicted on follwers by leaders. Personally I dislike the vertical hand bounce when followers do it to leaders (after all I am a leader and when it is inflicted upon me it is always done by a follower) because I find it uncomfortable and degrades the communication path down down which I am trying to lead.

TA Guy
26th-June-2007, 11:29 PM
What was the point that you were making in the post that I quote above?


That just because someone says he knows of no ladies who like the hand bounce doesn't mean they don't exist.
Particularly as the hand bounce is so prevalent in mainstream MJ (the point of the figures).

Chef
26th-June-2007, 11:51 PM
That just because someone says he knows of no ladies who like the hand bounce doesn't mean they don't exist.
Particularly as the hand bounce is so prevalent in mainstream MJ (the point of the figures).

OK. I can understand that with the hand bounce being so prevalent there must be people, both leaders and followers, that positively like it and seek it out.

Perhaps if some of those people are reading this they may tell us what they like about it that would make them seek out a partner that does hand bounce in preferance to a partner that doesn't.

Perhaps this is now so far off the topic of the thread starter that the relevant posts should be split off into a separate thread of something like "Hand bounce - yes please or no thank you?"

JCB
27th-June-2007, 12:05 AM
There is a "hand bounce" thread, complete with video demo (thanks Gus:D)

http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/intermediate-corner/10122-ceroc-tm-bounce-official.html

happygoldfish
27th-June-2007, 12:31 AM
:what: What are you on about?
Fair question. I said:


MJ teachers mention tension in almost every lesson, but, in my experience, they never spell out what sort of tension they want.

Ceroc teachers, for example seem to have no idea of the difference between tension and compression. Or of the fact that a hand or forearm can't be in both at the same time.
and ducasi replied:

Originally Posted by happygoldfish
Or of the fact that a hand or forearm can't be in both at the same time.

Not so – you can apply both tension and compression to the inside of your follower's hand by spreading your fingers so they can apply a force both forward and backwards. Franck teaches this in his workshops.

In other words: I said that a hand or forearm can't be in both at the same time, and ducasi contradicted that.

You, however, agree with it.

I was "on about" explaining this to ducasi (not very clearly, evidently) :(


I'm not getting you. I agree "nothing can be in both tension and compression" – that is, no one single thing. But different parts of something can be in both tension and compression at the same time.
ducasi, I still completely disagree.

Perhaps I've been too technical. Here's some very simple counter-examples to what you say:

Imagine you're holding both ends of a chain, and pulling them apart. I'm sure you agree the chain is in tension!
You can adjust the force in each arm so as to leave the chain where it is, or move it left or right. You are, I agree, in a better position to move it than if you hadn't "tensed up".

Now hold the chain to your left, pull the right end of the chain to the right, and push the left end of the chain to the left. One is a push, and one is a pull, but the chain is still in tension!

Chains, of course, can't be in compression. But it would be the same with a solid bar, or with something semi-circular-ish like a hand. The bar, or the hand, would be in tension, and by lessening one of the tensing forces, the hand will move.

It's the same with a tug-of-war: the rope is in tension, and you can make it move one way or the other by adjusting one of the forces, and it doesn't matter whether the tuggers are pulling or pushing.

You're making the elementary mistake of trying to judge the effect on the hand by looking at the effect on the forearm.
You are right that "if I push on the palm of your hand with the back of my fingers, {snip} you'll feel compression through your arm", and "if I pull on the inside of your fingers with mine, {snip} you'll feel tension through your arm".
In the first case, my arm is in compression. But my hand is free, it can do whatever it likes, it's in neither tension nor compression. Just as, if you push my shoulder, then my arm is free, in neither tension nor compression.
In the second case, my arm is in tension, and so is my hand.


Now by spreading my finger so I am both pushing and pulling on your hand, can't I put part of your hand under compression and part under tension at the same time?

Although the greater force will cancel out the weaker one leading to either a net compressive or tensile force, there will still be both forces acting simultaneously.
No! That makes no sense! :(
There is indeed either a net forward or backward force on the hand, but both forces are tensile: they are both trying to enlarge the hand!
I entirely accept that you can put different parts of my hand under opposing forces at the same time, and that Franck's exercise on this is very useful and effective.
But it cannot be described as compression and tension at the same time. :nice:


I actually prefer a vertical or lateral pressure to avoid confusion with back and forward leads when explaining the concepts.Franck (I think) is referring to that same exercise, whose object is to maintain instant control. Very much like engaging the clutch on a car.
This "clutch control" can be maintained by opposing forward and backward forces, as you describe, or by opposing vertical or opposing sideways (lateral) forces, as Franck prefers.
In all cases, this has nothing to do with tension or compression (except, of course that technically the man's hand is always in compression and the lady's always in tension, just as in the clutch of a car).
Franck's preferred method avoids this confusion.


The tension or compression you refer to (in the arm) is part of the inner frame, as Martin Harper tried to point out to you.

Erm … this thread, like so many others, has managed to develop three different (but valid and engaging!) personalities: vertical tension, tension-versus-compression, and bouncing (which I've managed to keep out of;) ).
MartinHarper's point, and my point that he was referring to, were on the vertical tension theme. Nothing to do with compression. Confusing, isn't it? :confused:
(I'd have asked a moderator to split the thread, only I don't think it could be done without killing at least one of the personalities! Plus, three personalities seems about normal for this forum! :nice: )


… tired … bed … continue tomorrow …

Whitebeard
27th-June-2007, 12:58 AM
OK. I can understand that with the hand bounce being so prevalent there must be people, both leaders and followers, that positively like it and seek it out.



It's difficult to argue with that ;-)

My experience, at a venue where 'H' teaches, and who could accuse him of hand bouncing, is that some beginner follower's seem to arrive with hand bouncing already firmly in place and well ingrained. I can only assume that it is a product of previous dancing to loud and beat heavy disco music.

Having said that, some teachers do seem to emphasise the beat with a hand action whilst teaching. Though this may well not carried through into their freestyle dancing. Is this, I wonder, a product of the CTA 'formula' which may take years to cast off in favour of a more individualistic style of teaching ?

happygoldfish
27th-June-2007, 10:24 AM
...just a thought - how high is your hand during a dance? Belly button? Lower rib cage? Could it be that these people like a more relaxed hand hold slightly lower and are trying to communicate it with you?

It could be that they are simply trying to establish a 'connection' where they feel some resistance from you. A follower works from reading the change in the resistance - some feel lost if they can't feel any. To test the theory I would try inserting a bit of lateral resistance (tension or compression) and see if it eases them vertically.

Personally I try to keep my hand height between my hip level and my partner's hip level.
Can't say I can remember anyone pressing down excessivly. I have had several beginners try and lift my hand to the 'bunny rabbit' position... but once they stop gripping, the hand has to stay low or it will simply float away.
Hmm, I hadn't thought of that. :respect:
Yes, I suppose a minimal downward pressure will help the lady's right arm to return to hip level.

But does that mean that you say that at hip level, there should be no vertical tension? :)

However, the vertical tension I'm complaining about receiving from some partners is a lot more than minimal. :(

It's saying "I'm determined to press down, so you'd jolly well better press up!"

If the girl is leading in a lesson, I tend to follow (it's less painful, and avoids arguments!), so when she presses down I often let my hand go down. Even at her hip level, I find she's still trying to force it down further. So it's not a comfortable-height thing.

I will try your "lateral resistance" tip (I assume you mean forward/backward) in freestyle (though I can't see it working in the lesson, when we're holding position for up to a minute).


{~snipped from above~}I also advise ladies to rest the weight of their left arm on the guy's arm in the closed hold - this is so the guy can use the raising and lowering of the frame (or elbow) to lead the unweighting of the lady's left foot.

Ooh, that's too complicated for a Cerocer like me!:(


Followers need to exert vertical hand pressure in order to maintain contact with the leaders hand. Many followers, when they are learning, exert far too much. Sometimes they push the leaders arm down so hard the leader has to struggle to raise the followers arm over their head for a return. Sometimes the followers grab hold of the leaders hand and pull it up to shoulder height (what I call the begging dog postion) and you have to struggle to get their hand down to their waist level. In both these cases they are leading you not you leading them.
Yes, I wish teachers would acknowledge this, and say something to deal with it. :(


IMHO in general there should be an active zone for the womans hand around the region in front of her waist. Horizontal movement should be followed instantly while she should allow vertical movement but with enough tone in her arm that if the leader stops his hand then her hand doesn't continue on its own.

BTW don't expect too much of Taxi dancers. A few of them have been dancing a long time and have an understanding of the technique of dance but most of them have been recruited after about 6 months of dancing and only know slightly more than you.

Hmm … personally, I suspect taxi dancers are actually causing the problem. :(


On the subject of vertical tension, as well as returning tension and compression, I advise ladies to give the guy the weight of their hand so that their hand will always return to their waist level when released. This means the lady's hand will slide down the guy's arm after a comb rather than stay in the air at his shoulder height.

{~snipped, and re-pasted below~}
So, IMHO, there is a little vertical tension, but it should be fairly constant, not bouncing up and down and interfering with the lead and follow.
Again, does that mean that you say that at waist level, there should be no vertical tension? :)

And you don't mean the full weight, do you? Because that's quite heavy. :(

David Bailey
27th-June-2007, 10:49 AM
Hmmm, I missed this:

I also advise ladies to rest the weight of their left arm on the guy's arm in the closed hold - this is so the guy can use the raising and lowering of the frame (or elbow) to lead the unweighting of the lady's left foot.
This is pretty similar to the advice given in AT (and possibly in ballroom?) - the main benefit of this is to establish a greater connection with the partner, throughout multiple contact points rather than just a handhold.

EDIT: ooooh, 9999 :)

happygoldfish
27th-June-2007, 01:01 PM
Perhaps this is now so far off the topic of the thread starter that the relevant posts should be split off into a separate thread of something like "Hand bounce - yes please or no thank you?"
Dear Marje,

I'm having problems with bouncer-pouncers.

They're strange creatures who dance around in the emptiness of hyperspace, and whenever they see a vulnerable-looking thread waiting to be parasitised, they pounce on it in large numbers, and start talking about bouncing.

They've infested other threads, and now they're starting to infest mine.

What can I do? :what:

Are they related to Japanese knotweed? :(

CAN YOU HELP ME!!!! :what:

Worried

Gadget
27th-June-2007, 01:58 PM
Re: Tension & Compression

{This is going back a bit to one of my first workshops (with David & Lily), so there may be a bit of dust on the memories...}

The follower matches the force used on the connection. The lead moves the follower by changing the force used. This connection can be either tension or compression.

In tension, eg follower's fingers hooked over lead's finger(s), pressure felt in the pads of the follower's fingers. When the force is increases, the follower moves forward. When the force is decreased, they move back. Note: decreased, not released. The follower is maintaining a background level of tension in the hold.
Excercise - dance with a peice of string or ribbon held taught; the lead should be able to lead back & forward without the string looping.


In compression, eg fingertips touching with palms facing each other and pressure felt in the fingertips. When force is increases, the follower moves back, when it is decreased, the follower moves forward. Again: decreased, not removed. There is a background level of pressure maintained.
Excercise - fingertip to fingertip with a peice of paper between; the lead should be able to lead back & forth without the paper falling.


With the above theories, you can move the follower forward with either/or (and in some cases both) tension and compression.

For a lot of dancers who come to MJ from other dances, this background level of tension is quite high; especially from other swing dances. I have also found that WCS people tend to require a bit more background connection than I would normally apply.
I think that if my finger tips can feel a breath of air over them, then it's not that hard to distinguish between just touching and a little pressure: Enough to know if I'm holding a cup from the cooler I can tell if there is water in it or not; I don't need the weight of a bucket. :D


The level of "tension" in the arm and body is related to "frame" rather than any connection. (see other thread)

Franck
27th-June-2007, 02:11 PM
The follower matches the force used on the connection. The lead moves the follower by changing the force used. This connection can be either tension or compression. I would disagree with the second part of your statement. I believe it is very important to separate connection from 'lead & follow'. What I mean is you should not move the follower by increasing the force (I prefer intensity) of the connection (regardless of whether it is compression or tension).

Once you have established a connected frame (i.e. two inner frames connected as one via a light connection) you can use a variety of leading techniques to get the follower to move:

- Arm lead: you move your arm forward, and the follower (if she has proper inner frame) will follow the movement.

- Body lead: you move yourself forward and that also moves your arm forward (if you have inner frame too), so the follower follows the movement.

In both instances (there are other ways to lead beyond besides the 2 above), as you move forward (the arm or the body) there might be a slight increase in the pressure against the hand, but it's only temporary as the followers reacts to the lead and follows re-establishing a balanced connection.

I taught a class at Chill on that very topic (separating lead from connection - body leads vs hand leads), so it might be a good idea to get a copy of the DVD (or book for the Technique boot-camp residential week-end on the 31st August).

straycat
27th-June-2007, 03:11 PM
I would disagree with the second part of your statement. I believe it is very important to separate connection from 'lead & follow'. What I mean is you should not move the follower by increasing the the force of the connection (regardless of whether it is compression or tension).


I may well have misunderstood what you're saying here (forumite's perogative :whistle:) - if I've got you right, then at least wrt my own dancing, I'm going with 'Strongly Disagree'.
I do change the force of the connection constantly as a leading technique, and it works very well on many (not all) followers. It's something I learned in Lindy, and I assume that WCS people do it (but I could, of course, be very wrong here) - anyway - it works very nicely for me in MJ.

Simple example:
From stationary, assuming a connection (open position, l to r)... I can start to lead my partner back, the straight away start to build the tension towards me, slowly and smoothly. She won't follow that lead instantly (she can't because she's starting to move backwards), but instead will help build up the tension, so that when she does start to come towards me, she can use the extra tension generate a lot more speed, with a lot less effort. You can see this one used verry nicely in the loverly Max / Jessica clip (http://youtube.com/watch?v=cbIuhC6Jey8)** that someone posted a while back (both the WCS and Lindy sections)

**What? Me? Try to give people a misleadingly good impression of my own dancing by talking about it then showing them footage of Dance Gods? Thought Never Crossed My Mind. Honest! :innocent:

Franck
27th-June-2007, 03:19 PM
I may well have misunderstood what you're saying here (forumite's perogative :whistle:) - if I've got you right, then at least wrt my own dancing, I'm going with 'Strongly Disagree'.
I do change the force of the connection constantly as a leading technique, and it works very well on many (not all) followers. IWe're in agreement. I constantly change the force / intensity of the connection (as well as the location) but not to achieve movement, i.e. not to lead a step for example.

The level of connection is changed to allow for sudden changes of direction, to lead syncopations, to hi-jack the lead (from a follower's perspective), or sometimes to lead nothing (i.e. keep a follower still). The change in connection happens before the lead, but (in my theory at least) is still separate from the lead / follow aspect.

In the example you give, the intensity of the connection is used to create more momentum, but is not the lead for the initial travelling.

I thought I had mentioned that in my post, but it was in the other thread:

Connection with your partner is like the hinge that connects two (inner frames) to create a new (combined 2 people) frame.

We create connection by applying gentle points of pressure (contact) and followers match the pressure. The lighter the pressure, the more subtle the connection is and the more comfortable the dance. We can then increase the intensity of the connection when trying to lead syncopations (accelerations) or fast changes of direction.

straycat
27th-June-2007, 03:26 PM
We're in agreement. I constantly change the force / intensity of the connection (as well as the location) but not to achieve movement, i.e. not to lead a step for example.

Just when I thought I had a chance to truly disagree with you for once, then it turns out I was doing nothing of the kind :tears: :whistle:

Um - yeah. Anyway. With you now, so thanks for clarifying that - I wasn't following t'other thread as closely as I might. Too many intense technical discussions at once tend to do my head in for some reason. :blush:

mikeyr
27th-June-2007, 04:02 PM
I am quite happy to dance with beginners BUT when I encounter people that cannot be bothered to improve then I cannot be bothered to waste my time on them. Don't tell me that it is only 3 minutes of my life because if you put 10 of them in a row then I have had a horibbly yanky half hour that I will never get back again.

:yeah: :respect:

Andy McGregor
27th-June-2007, 08:04 PM
Again, does that mean that you say that at waist level, there should be no vertical tension? :)

And you don't mean the full weight, do you? Because that's quite heavy. :(I probably mean just below waist level, but let's call it waist level and that part of the lady us (usually) easy to find. And, I think that tension at this level in an open hand hold should probably be exclusively in a horizontal plane.

And no, I don't mean the full weight of a hand. I've never weighed a severed hand, but they probably do weigh more than required. As an aside, I do know some dancers who treat the ladies as if they are simply a severed hand - the rest of the lady gets in the way of the mirrors :devil:

Andy McGregor
27th-June-2007, 08:12 PM
Once you have established a connected frame (i.e. two inner frames connected as one via a light connection) you can use a variety of leading techniques to get the follower to move:

- Arm lead: you move your arm forward, and the follower (if she has proper inner frame) will follow the movement.

- Body lead: you move yourself forward and that also moves your arm forward (if you have inner frame too), so the follower follows the movement.
I agree with Franck (for once :innocent: ). But I also disagree (normal service resumed). In each case the follower feels the same pressure to move. The change in tension must feel the same no matter where it derived - moving the arm by pulling the elbow back or keeping the elbow still and moving the body. So, there are arm leads and body leads, but are there arm and body follows or are they both the same to the follower?

happygoldfish
27th-June-2007, 10:50 PM
This thread has somehow developed 3 different themes: Vertical tension, tension and compression, and bouncing.

I used a new title recently, and everyone (except for mikeyr and Andy MacGregor :respect: ) just copied it without blinking!

It would make it a lot easier to follow a theme in this thread if one could tell roughly what the post was about from the title!


(I wonder how long this title will go on, before people notice?
:devil: he he he :devil:)

Andy McGregor
27th-June-2007, 11:56 PM
Perhaps one of the teachers that look at this forum would come forward and explain why they teach the vertical hand bounce and what purpose it serves.The purpose of the vertical hand bounce is obvious. It's part of sexual attraction and natural selection. The hand bounce indicates to a potential sexual partner that an individual is quite happy to have the kind of sex that does not require a sexual partner :innocent:

happygoldfish
28th-June-2007, 09:02 AM
The purpose of the vertical hand bounce is obvious. It's part of sexual attraction and natural selection. The hand bounce indicates to a potential sexual partner that an individual is quite happy to have the kind of sex that does not require a sexual partner :innocent:

Yes, it is part of natural selection.

But you're missing the point!

Which is that, increasingly, MJers will be unable to dance with each other because they have … different bouncing rituals.

So it's the creation of a new species!

When a lady takes your hand and bounces it, it isn't a deviation.

It's first contact! :nice:

Gadget
28th-June-2007, 01:43 PM
The follower matches the force used on the connection. The lead moves the follower by changing the force used. This connection can be either tension or compression.I would disagree with the second part of your statement. I believe it is very important to separate connection from 'lead & follow'. What I mean is you should not move the follower by increasing the force (I prefer intensity) of the connection (regardless of whether it is compression or tension).
schematics, but I dissagree: the connection has a lot to do with the method of leading, and it is the way you apply force to change the intensity that constitutes leading.
I say that the follower is moved by an increase(/decrease) in the intensity of the connection. How this is acheived is a matter of lead & follow and where the rest of your post comes into play.
I can increase the intensity by straightening a finger to get the follower to move back.

"Hand leads" use/rely on the follower's frame to lead them. "Body leads" use the lead's frame to lead the follower. Both should be used together in harmony to lead properly. I think that each of these three leads have a different connection and way of leading:
- The connection used in hand leads is purley formed from a physical touch; force equaled and the attempt to maintain it forming the lead/follow.
- The connection used on body leads relies more on visual connection; distance and orientation maintained and changes in it form the lead/follow.
- The joined connection uses the changes in spatial distance and orientation to change the force in the physical connection.

In all cases, it's the follower trying to maintain an equilibrium that makes them move and the lead's skill in how to disrupt it in order to move them how they will.

Or at least that's my theory. :D

I taught a class at Chill on that very topic (separating lead from connection - body leads vs hand leads), so it might be a good idea to get a copy of the DVD (or book for the Technique boot-camp residential week-end on the 31st August).
BTW Nice plug ;)

Franck
28th-June-2007, 02:07 PM
schematics, but I dissagree: the connection has a lot to do with the method of leading, and it is the way you apply force to change the intensity that constitutes leading.
I say that the follower is moved by an increase(/decrease) in the intensity of the connection. How this is acheived is a matter of lead & follow and where the rest of your post comes into play.
I can increase the intensity by straightening a finger to get the follower to move back.Sorry Gadget, but you're still confusing connection with lead & follow, and whilst I know what you mean and in most cases it will not matter, there is a difference.

When you're straightening your finger to get the follower to step back, you're leading, not increasing the intensity of the connection.

To avoid confusion in workshops, I implement a lateral connection (say from left to right on the side of the hand (or you could have a vertical connection, hand on top of each other. If I want my partner to move back, I would have to lead by pushing with the hand (or using a body lead if I step forward too), there would be an increase in force applied (i.e. the push) but the connection (which was lateral or vertical) should remain constant, light and a separate part of the lead/follow. Though I agree with you that connection is crucial and very important to proper lead & follow, it is not the same thing and many people lead or follow with no connection at all.

Keeping the connection separate from the lead is one of the things that will transform most people's dancing instantly and profoundly. I can see however that you're resisting it :wink:

NZ Monkey
28th-June-2007, 09:26 PM
Quote:
but I would think that the hand twisting you're talking about refers to double resistance where they have anchored already, and are 'killing' 2 beats (or more if they repeat it) or music in order to either phrase, re-anchor doing something different (like a slide), or simply re-anchor if they are preparing some complicated move and the previous one didn't end that great (connection not optimal).



Interesting suggestion, and it has some correlation with the video, because it does happen on a few extensions. But to my mind, it happens after the extension of the move. It's almost like the shake is saying "OK, you've had your fun, now get ready to come back in".

On the other hand, I find it near impossible to concentrate on the hand movement and notice what else is going on at the same time, so I may be completely wrong in my analysis of the timing of the 'bounce'. I know I'm well behind the times on this thread but I actually have something constructive to say on this one :innocent:

Caro is right when she says it's double resistance and is considered "the other" type of connection in WCS. It isn't necessarily only used to kill time either. I have on DVD a clear explanation from the pair of them about how it works, and how to use it to create an acceleration in the next pattern (weirdly this doesn't always seem to mean that they're accelerating the count, just giving a visual effect, except the time's when they are accelerating it of course :devil: ).

The example they use in the DVD is on a sugar push where the guy shifts backwards on the 4 rather than forward. In this instance David is sort of right in that the bounce happens after the extension, but thats because the extension has been forced to happen earlier by the lead and the bounce happens on the 5&6 (so the overall timing is still the same as a regular sugarpush). This means you're in compression on the 6 and need to bounce back out on the & in &1 to be leading on beat for the next pattern. Because you're basically starting the next pattern with a syncopated rhythm it looks and feels accelerated, which can be great at the beginning of a phrase or some other appropriate point in the music.

Of course, you can just do it to kill time but it's a bit more complicated than that overall. You could also use it to mark something "bouncy" in the music for example. They made a big point of not doing it all the time to get contrast.

And I'm almost ashamed to admit it took me nearly an hour of rewinding the DVD and watching again to really figure out what was going on so I'm with David on the concentration front....thankfully my dance partner was just as interested.

happygoldfish
29th-June-2007, 08:18 AM
I have to admit, I'd never really thought much about vertical tension, I really just think about in a horizontal sense, and trust the will be enough to pick up any vertical movements. I'll have to see what I do next time I go dancing (fingers crossed that will be tomorrow).

How did it go? :nice:

Gadget
29th-June-2007, 12:50 PM
Sorry Gadget, but you're still confusing connection with lead & follow, and whilst I know what you mean and in most cases it will not matter, there is a difference.~
Keeping the connection separate from the lead is one of the things that will transform most people's dancing instantly and profoundly. I can see however that you're resisting it :wink:
Resisting with a great deal of stubbornness :wink:

I don’t think that connection can exist without lead & follow: connection is just the place where lead & follow happen. Without the changing pressure (intensity) of lead & follow, there is nothing. Implementing a lateral connection without any lead is just as good as standing in-front of someone with your hands in pockets. It’s simply saying “I’m here” to your partner.


When you're straightening your finger to get the follower to step back, you're leading, not increasing the intensity of the connection. …{:devil:} and I say I’m leading by changing the intensity within the connection.
This ‘connection’ is, literally, nothing. It’s the balance of force between partners. It’s the silence that noise exists within. It’s the stillness that tells you when movement happens. Once both partners have established what the background ‘connection’ is*, any deviation from this is what the follower tries to restore and the lead tries to disrupt.**

(* this background could be a smooth lateral connection, or a connection that pulses to the beat of the music, or a hand that bounces with the person’s own rhythm, or a whisper of movement that ties both partner’s together with invisible thread…)
(** or the follower disrupts when hi-jacking or doing their own thing ;))


~ and many people lead or follow with no connection at all.
On it’s own, the connection means nothing. It is the lead/follow, the deviation in connection, that defines it. I don’t think that people can lead or follow without connection – they may not be aware of it, but it must be there: If I (as a lead) can discover what the background ‘connection’ is within my follower, or even establish my own and impose it on the follower, then I can lead them. Doesn’t matter if they are aware of it or not, I can use it and lead them.
Normally, the only ‘connection’ a new beginner has is with the music – they listen to the beat and move to it. If I can find this connection and overlay my own, then I can lead them.
{Again, tying in music, lead and follow with the connection between them – integral parts of the dance :wink:}


To avoid confusion in workshops, I implement a lateral connection ~ If I want my partner to move back, I would have to lead by pushing with the hand, there would be an increase in force applied (i.e. the push) but the connection (which was lateral or vertical) should remain constant, light and a separate part of the lead/follow.
In this case you are making the background connection a lateral one; it could be a traversal one of tension or compression, it could be a visual one, it could be with any part of the anatomy*. It could be heavy (I find a lot of WCS, R&R and Lindy followers are) or light. It could contain a beat within it. It could be completely null.
I agree with constant bit**, but I still maintain that it’s an integral part of the lead/follow.

{…well, almost any part…:innocent: …hmmm… then again… :devil:}.

** assuming that my “constant” definition can be stretched to allow for the fact that the connection changes every time a new one is made, dependant on lots of things, especially music and how much control I want in my lead.


…resistance is not futile!...

straycat
29th-June-2007, 01:07 PM
Resisting with a great deal of stubbornness :wink:

I don’t think that connection can exist without lead & follow: connection is just the place where lead & follow happen. Without the changing pressure (intensity) of lead & follow, there is nothing. Implementing a lateral connection without any lead is just as good as standing in-front of someone with your hands in pockets. It’s simply saying “I’m here” to your partner.

Disagree. You can establish a connection without giving any kind of lead, and it's an important connection skill to learn for leaders and followers. It is, with practice, possible to establish a connection, then introduce a fair amount of tension within the connection - and all without leading your partner to do anything bar reciprocate that tension. We were working on this one a lot in a recent private that were were lucky enough to have at the last Rock Bottoms.



This ‘connection’ is, literally, nothing. It’s the balance of force between partners. It’s the silence that noise exists within. It’s the stillness that tells you when movement happens. Once both partners have established what the background ‘connection’ is*, any deviation from this is what the follower tries to restore and the lead tries to disrupt.**

Yes, it can be seen as a balance of force. But not as a static balance. When you've established a physical connection with your partner, you're constantly having to make minute adjustments to keep that balance. When you introduce a new dynamic, the manner in which you introduce it can make the difference between a change in the connection, and the start of a move (for example).



…resistance is not futile!...

No, but assimilation is still inevitable. :devil:

MartinHarper
29th-June-2007, 01:28 PM
You can establish a connection without giving any kind of lead, and it's an important connection skill to learn for leaders and followers.

It may be important, but when do you feel it should be introduced? Is it something that beginners need to know, or something that should wait till a higher level (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/lets-talk-about-dance/12628-what-weekender-workshop-level-you.html)?

bigdjiver
29th-June-2007, 01:32 PM
I can imagine two people dancing solo "connected" to the music. I can imagine them not having sight of each of each other, but both choosing the same movements as each other, either matching or mirrored. I would consider that if they could see each other they would feel "connected", even though there was no lead-follow involved. I imagine that line dancers can feel "connected" dancing together to the music, though in my limited experience it was me desperately trying to follow someone else, and feeling very disconnected.

straycat
29th-June-2007, 01:45 PM
It may be important, but when do you feel it should be introduced? Is it something that beginners need to know, or something that should wait till a higher level (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/lets-talk-about-dance/12628-what-weekender-workshop-level-you.html)?

Personally, I think it should be introduced (in small stages) as early as it can possibly be done without discouraging people. (For example: starting with a couple of minutes of easy connection exercises at the start of each lesson, and building from there. It'd take a while to build to the level discussed in the thread, so why not start at the beginning?) But that's probably a whoole other thread. Or probably about thirty already-existing threads. Or something... :waycool:

Franck
29th-June-2007, 02:01 PM
I don’t think that connection can exist without lead & follow: connection is just the place where lead & follow happen. Without the changing pressure (intensity) of lead & follow, there is nothing. Implementing a lateral connection without any lead is just as good as standing in-front of someone with your hands in pockets.That's still the point, if you have connection you can lead 'nothing' which as discussed in the 'Freeze' thread for example can have its uses. It reminds me of a quote DavidB posted a while back:
Here's an interesting quote:

An absolute beginner (ie never danced at all) can't lead anything
An advanced dancer can actually lead nothing.
Learning to lead is understanding the difference.


…{:devil:} and I say I’m leading by changing the intensity within the connection. I know that's what you're saying, and of course I know you can lead that way, most people do.

What I'm saying is that if you can separate the connection from the lead you will get to a higher level of flexibility and your lead & follow experience will be enhanced ten-fold.

Franck
29th-June-2007, 02:03 PM
It may be important, but when do you feel it should be introduced? Is it something that beginners need to know, or something that should wait till a higher level (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/lets-talk-about-dance/12628-what-weekender-workshop-level-you.html)?Not something that should be taught to beginners, when you start you have to little control over your own movements, so the better the connection, the greater the potential for accidental leads and amplified mistakes.

Beginners should find out about connection early, at a basic level as Straycat says, and as they get better, they can learn how to use the connection in new ways.

David Bailey
29th-June-2007, 02:31 PM
What I'm saying is that if you can separate the connection from the lead you will get to a higher level of flexibility and your lead & follow experience will be enhanced ten-fold.
OK, I confess. I don't understand. :tears:

I thought that a connection was the relationship between two dancers, and lead-and-follow was what you used the connection for. But you're saying they're two different things?

I wanna increase my dancing tenfold! Mwaaaa!

happygoldfish
29th-June-2007, 04:34 PM
This ‘connection’ is, literally, nothing. It’s the balance of force between partners. It’s the silence that noise exists within. It’s the stillness that tells you when movement happens.

Yes!

It's the page on which the words are written
It's the stage on which the actors play
It's the ball of wool waiting for the kitten
It's the slumber waiting for the day
It's the space of the whole universe, or of a single atom
It's the stuff that dreams are made of
It's the calm before the storm
It's the peace between nations

:love: It's the feeling that I have for you! :love:


… only connect …

David Bailey
29th-June-2007, 04:37 PM
Bunch of hippies...

happygoldfish
29th-June-2007, 08:51 PM
Bunch of flowers ….

:flower: :flower: :flower: :flower: :flower: :flower: :flower: :flower: :flower:


… only connect …

Gadget
2nd-July-2007, 01:03 PM
That's still the point, if you have connection you can lead 'nothing' which as discussed in the 'Freeze' thread for example can have its uses.
...still rebelling... you can lead 'nothing', but the lead to lead "nothing" does actually have content and is not simply an absence of lead while maintaining connection (that's an invitation :wink: ).

If you simply stop leading and carry on moving to maintain the connection, you are inviting your partner to do something within the space (or you are doing something and leaving the connection open for your partner to either join in or do their own thing.) To lead 'nothing', you have to counter any movement from the follower that is outwith the background 'connection', including any attempts to take over an invitation.


What I'm saying is that if you can separate the connection from the lead you will get to a higher level of flexibility and your lead & follow experience will be enhanced ten-fold.
..use the force...I still uphold the notion that the connection is an integral part of the lead and it is the manipulation of the forces used in maintaining the connection that are used to lead & follow. I don't think they can be seperated; you can show various types and ways of forming a connection, but in order to lead you have to use the connection formed.

If you create a minimalist form of connection where both partners know exactly where the connection is and can feel the slightest deviation from it, then the slightest deviation can be used to lead.

In order to enhance your lead & follow ten-fold, you have to be able to recognise what/where the underlying connection is with your partner so that you can recognise any deviation from it. This is not detatching it from the lead but understanding how the lead acts and reacts within a connection. :na:

whitetiger1518
2nd-July-2007, 01:12 PM
...still rebelling... you can lead 'nothing', but the lead to lead "nothing" does actually have content and is not simply an absence of lead while maintaining connection (that's an invitation :wink: ).




:clap: :clap: I seem to remember from Blaze that you are EXTREMELY GOOD :worthy: at this particular type of lead . :drool:

Roll on the 3am dance tracks ;)

Whitetiger

TA Guy
2nd-July-2007, 04:24 PM
I always think of the connection, amongst other things, as the tool that allows lead and follow to exist. And I would argue in a partner dance you always have lead and follow when you have a connection.

I think the lead and follow is like numbers and mathematics. Mathematics doesn't make much sense without the 'zero' number.

I think you (should) always have connection (except when you deliberately break it). When I step back extended and my partner does a bit of playing on the swung beat, we have connection...but for those moments, we don't have explicit lead and follow. I'm not leading her and she's not leading me. We're in what I think of as a passive connection. That is; a connection which joins us, gives balance etc, and which allows a communication channel to remain open for when active lead and follow returns, but doesn't actually have active lead and follow.

Now, you could argue that's there's no lead and follow at all in that position, but that's like arguing the number zero doesn't exist. It makes no sense. If there's no lead and follow, it's because I (and 'she' come to that) are leading no lead and follow :) If we weren't leading it, we've really stopped partner dancing.


Of course, on the dance floor, I don't think anything of the kind, I'm too busy working out where my left foot goes next or whether I got enough electricity tokens for the chalet :)

JCB
2nd-July-2007, 06:30 PM
What I'm saying is that if you can separate the connection from the lead you will get to a higher level of flexibility and your lead & follow experience will be enhanced ten-fold.
Sounds like a "shadowing" exercise in TKD. With practice, people are able to predict how another person is going to move, sometimes before that person even realizes he/she has formed the intention to move *. It is an innate ability to interpret weight shifts and muscles tensing. Martial arts films exaggerate it and make it seem mystical, when really it is just trained observation. In dance, you can add tactile input, and the leader's wish to communicate the intention, (rather than disguise it), which ought to make it easier to attain. It is the constant communication of intention which I would call "connection."
So, Franck, (for future reference), am I close?
I'm headed back to beginners' corner where you can find me still struggling to feel a lead... :whistle: :flower:
( * BTW I never developed that far in TKD, but definitely did at times while horseback riding).

Andy McGregor
2nd-July-2007, 07:03 PM
( * BTW I never developed that far in TKD, but definitely did at times while horseback riding).

Which reminds me, the flying kicks of TKD were developed to attack Japanese soldiers on horseback - what that's got to do with this thread, I've no idea, but it's nice to take a break from all that talk about footwork.

Of course, vertical tension would be just the thing if you were leading a flying move :wink:

EricD
15th-July-2007, 12:10 PM
... resurrects another thread ...

I work on a very simple model of MJ, despite having a Physics degree !
We are two masses connected by one or more springs.
We move in and out on a frictionless surface.
This gives a smooth cyclical motion.

To return to the original question - vertical tension:
The hands are 'hooks' - maybe just L -shaped hooks with no 'inside' curve.
The follow's hand is on top.
The lead's hand is beneath.
Therefore the follow presses down and the lead presses up
to ensure the hands remain hooked together.

This is why bouncing hands tend to separate - vertical hand-bouncing should only happen by mutual consent - if a follow won't stop bouncing, then I follow the vertical component, while leading the horizontal component.
In theory ! (More orthogonality later ...)

As to simultaneous tension & compression ?
Tension and compression vary from point-to-point, so there is a distribution throughout space.

Tension and compression are directional, so you can have compression in one direction, but tension in another direction, both acting at one point.
(too rare a condition to be of any use or importance)

The chain is an interesting case.
If you stretch a single-strand wire, it is homogenous (the same everywhere), so it is in pure tension.
(ignoring gravity acting on the wire's weight (mass) which makes a horizontal wire sag or the tension in a vertical wire increase from top to bottom)

However a chain has structure - it is composed of links.
The points of contact between the links are in compression,
but the parts of the chain aligned in the direction of the pull are in tension.

I'm interested in Franck's hold:
to me it just sounds like a 'grip';
but applied from the inside by the leader;
rather than from the outside by the follower.

I can see that it would 'take up the slack'
between tension & compression, but don't see any advantage over a zero-gap, zero-compression grip ?
I'll try it sometime !
Maybe it is easier to control a positive grip, than achieve the ideal zero ?

Having just started WCS, I am beginning to feel two differences:
1) the lead is more of a strong impulse at the ends of the 'stroke',
resulting in more of a triangular displacement-vs-time graph
instead of a smooth cyclical (sine/cosine sinusoidal) one.
(trigonometry, anyone ?)
2) the frictionless bit doesn't apply - WCS uses shoe-floor traction:
follows sometimes 'dig their heels in' and resist the pull,
leading to a build-up of tension, instead of an immediate acceleration.
Not sure if that is in any way under my control ?

I'm not sure I 'follow' (understand) Franck's separation of connection and lead.
Maybe he is separating two 'orthogonal' components like the sine and cosine if a circular motion in a vertical plane were divided into a horizontal component and a vertical component ?
(orthogonal = independent or 'at right-angles')
sorry - maths alert !
Unit Circle: Sine and Cosine Functions (http://curvebank.calstatela.edu/unit/unit.htm)

At least I didn't mention the virtual axis, imaginary numbers or the square root of minus one !

People say I think too much, but thinking about what is happening is what this thread is all about ? No ?

At least I'm a Taxi that tries to dampen the bounce (and the slow circling) !

I think the bounce came from Rock'N'Roll - I cite Kav Kavanagh as the definitive source.
YouTube - This is GREAT BRITISH " REAL" jive by Kav Kavanagh. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEh3YSX-d_4)
YouTube - This is the " REAL" United Kingdom jive. by Kav Kavanagh. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cowheySmydI)
Click 'more' for the truth about Ceroc (French Jive)!

He seems to mean 'half/double' speed when he says 'off-beat' !
He is using the hand-bounce at double speed and/or his legs at half-speed.

(As opposed to Meringue which is Ceroc with the feet at 4x speed and the arms at half-speed ;))

He also links to Ballroom 'international Style' jive
YouTube - jive lesson (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncrqnPyTZb0)

No wonder ballroom people are confused when they come to Ceroc !
I would have thought the old American Jive was the original = real jive ?

HTH = Hope this helps !

EricD
15th-July-2007, 01:00 PM
I only apply tension when I start a move, and during a move if required. At the neutral points, E.G. Extended (stepped back) after the move has completed, there is very little if any tension other than that minimum necessary to maintain a connection. I don't really want any from my follow either. If she has tension (or leverage etc.) at that point, I will have to exceed that to start the move. If too much 'exceeding' is required from me, it becomes too unsubtle to lead properly. This applies to all tension, vertical or otherwise.

Hmmm ... I think you may be using some word in an opposite sense to my understanding ?

At max extension, I have max tension.
I might drop it to 0 during a static bit of a lesson to avoid cramp/RSI, or to have a blether.

I have also done micro-freezes 'on the beat' at max extension to get crisp timing when dancing with a profoundly deaf partner. (Maybe I should have bounced my hands to mark time ? :whistle:)
Not sure if that was zero tension - I'll think about it next time.

Normally there is no time between the pull that ends the step-back at the end of one move (deceleration to rest) and the pull that starts the step-in at the beginning of the next move (acceleration from rest) ? That's the way I do it, anyway !

As to your partner exerting more force than you:
"You canna break the laws of physics" (Scotty).

Newton's Laws of motion (from memory & fitted-to-context of a straight line):
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
A body remains at rest unless it is subjected to unbalanced forces.
A body will gain (or lose) speed with constant acceleration proportional to the unbalanced force.

So if her force is greater than yours, she is moving your hand (or stopping it moving).

One possible confusion is that compression is 'negative tension', and vice-versa. I think the distinction is sufficient to make it worth using two different words. Similarly deceleration is 'negative acceleration'. Pull is almost 'negative push', but they are not strictly-defined words in physics : sometimes they are identical, sometimes opposite - it's sometimes relative to the observer!

Enough !
I'm going dancing !

happygoldfish
15th-July-2007, 03:56 PM
We are two masses connected by one or more springs.

Yes … not a rigid connection, but a springy one, like the suspension of a car!


The follow's hand is on top. The lead's hand is beneath. Therefore the follow presses down and the lead presses up to ensure the hands remain hooked together.

No! You're assuming the connecting force is entirely friction. It isn't!

You've already said that the connection is, physically, a spring – that means the connecting force must be along the spring, i.e. horizontal.

That horizontal force can be achieved by ordinary horizontal pushing or pulling!

Since the fingers tend to be sloping, rather than purely vertical, I agree some friction must be involved.

At a 45° slope, vertical and horizontal force are of course equally efficient at providing that friction. The nearer the vertical, the more efficient the horizontal force is. At purely vertical, a purely vertical force could produce no friction between the fingers (though of course it would produce friction where the fingertips dig into the partner's palm!).

You may prefer to achieve the friction by a vertical force ("the follow presses down and the lead presses up to ensure the hands remain hooked together"), but surely you accept that this isn't necessary, and that other people may simply press backwards and forwards?

Personally, I dislike that vertical force (hence this thread). I don't say that a leader shouldn't use it. But I do strongly object to a follower using it when I'm using a horizontal force! It's leading, and it pulls me off balance! :(


… if a follow won't stop bouncing, then I follow the vertical component, while leading the horizontal component

Yes, that's logical. The two components are indeed independent. :respect:


The points of contact between the links {of a chain} are in compression …

That's very misleading, particuarly to a lay person. A chain can only be in tension (or totally floppy!). A chain relies on the electromagnetic forces between its molecules to produce that tension, so you could say that a chain uses electromagnetic force-at-a-distance! Similarly, you could talk of compression at "the points of contact between the links". But they're both deliberately looking at the trees rather than the whole wood. :what:

Technically, they're both completely correct, but completely misleading! :(


I'm interested in Franck's hold: to me it just sounds like a 'grip'; but applied from the inside by the leader; rather than from the outside by the follower.

I assume you're referring to:


To avoid confusion in workshops, I implement a lateral connection (say from left to right on the side of the hand (or you could have a vertical connection, hand on top of each other. If I want my partner to move back, I would have to lead by pushing with the hand (or using a body lead if I step forward too), there would be an increase in force applied (i.e. the push) but the connection (which was lateral or vertical) should remain constant, light and a separate part of the lead/follow. Though I agree with you that connection is crucial and very important to proper lead & follow, it is not the same thing and many people lead or follow with no connection at all.

I don't think Franck is describing a 'grip' at all. It's a purely frictional contact, exactly like your "follow presses down and the lead presses up" hold, except that it's sideways ("lateral" means sideways) instead of vertical!

No gripping is involved.


Keeping the connection separate from the lead is one of the things that will transform most people's dancing instantly and profoundly. I can see however that you're resisting it. :wink:


… if you can separate the connection from the lead you will get to a higher level of flexibility and your lead & follow experience will be enhanced ten-fold.

Franck uses this sideways connection to teach people to separate connection (which in this case is sideways) from tension/compression (which is forwards/backwards).

Incidentally, the main advantage of the famous Ceroc semi-circle is that, without using any technical words, it teaches beginners to have a sideways connection while producing a forwards/backwards compression! :nice:

I think most dancers prefer their connection to be in the forwards/backwards direction, the same as tension/compression (I certainly do), which is fine provided you understand the difference between the two concepts. Franck's workshop technique (which can also be used in dancing, but doesn't have to be) teaches that difference by separating the two into two unmistakeably different directions. That's all! :nice:


As to simultaneous tension & compression ?

You asked, but didn't get round to answering your own question.

I'm saying it's impossible to be in both at the same time (except on your "molecular" level). :nice:

Most Ceroc teachers (not Franck! :respect:) seem to have no idea what compression is.

Some teachers do an exercise where the leader moves his partner backwards and forwards, but unpredictably, and add that the follower must have tension while waiting for the lead.

This makes no physical sense to me. :(

It encourages grippping, and rigidity.

I assume Franck would say that the follower (and leader) must have, not tension but a constant connection (without gripping), even when there is no tension/compression, so that she can then take up either tension or compression instantly.


As opposed to Meringue which is Ceroc with the feet at 4x speed and the arms at half-speed

No! Meringue is a trifle, and I always avoid it when I'm dancing :really:

(Though my favourite sensual bluesy music is "A Walk Through the Black Forest Gateau"! :nice:)

I think you mean Merengue! :rofl:

JCB
16th-July-2007, 12:16 AM
I'm not sure I 'follow' (understand) Franck's separation of connection and lead.
Maybe he is separating two 'orthogonal' components like the sine and cosine if a circular motion in a vertical plane were divided into a horizontal component and a vertical component ?
(orthogonal = independent or 'at right-angles')
I don’t agree with your analogy. The vertical and horizontal components simply contribute to describing a single wave path, or movement. I think connection and lead are more closely related to a carrier wave, and the information transmitted on it, but even that doesn’t suffice. Both of those are “one way”, and although the lead should be one-way, (unless the follower is back-leading, etc.) I think the connection is two-way. It involves feedback. If you then liken it to a transmission “handshake” protocol, that doesn’t work, because that is intermittent, and ideally the connection should be continuous.
For example, one beginner leader I know manages with very little connection. It is like he is driving, but is stuck with an on/off switch for the accelerator, ditto for the brake. A bit like a “dodge’em” car. It is as though he is compensating for the sporadic connection with exaggerated lead. As a follower, you don’t feel anything until he yanks you in one direction or another. With the instructors I have danced with, there is invariably a constant connection, communicating intention, which allows for a much more subtle lead. It also conveys feedback, so the instructor knows, before I have moved, (and as a beginner, most likely before I realize it), that I am anticipating a move.
The hand “hold” (hand-non-hold?) that Franck advocates sounds like it would allow the kind of feedback-enabling connection I am trying to describe.
A final point: I don’t know if Franck agrees, but I get the feeling that there is more than just the tactile element to the connection. I think eye-contact, and the reading of body-language, and the manipulation of “personal space” can all play a part in establishing and maintaining the connection. I am not going all “hippy-speakish” and implying an “emotional connection”, just a more complex mechanism.
Oh dear.
I think I’ve put everyone to sleep from boredom.
:whistle:
Sorry!:flower:

JCB
17th-July-2007, 10:47 AM
(&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; ( &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;◦ &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; ) &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; ) &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; )

(Sound of pin dropping)
… yeah …thought so…

:blush:

ducasi
17th-July-2007, 12:01 PM
:blush:
Well I thought what you had to say was well put, and pretty much agrees with my own thinking.

No need to :blush:

MartinHarper
17th-July-2007, 12:23 PM
I'm interested in Franck's hold:
to me it just sounds like a 'grip';
but applied from the inside by the leader;
rather than from the outside by the follower.

Interesting way of thinking about it. In a way, Franck is making the follower grip his hand (well, fingers), rather than gripping his follower's hand. Me, I just grab the wrist and pull. Simple leads for simple minds.

Also, more dance advice needs to be given in the form of blank verse.

JCB
17th-July-2007, 01:01 PM
Also, more dance advice needs to be given in the form of blank verse.
Don't say that Mr. Harper! I may oblige! :shudder::eek:

Franck
17th-July-2007, 03:53 PM
I'm not sure I 'follow' (understand) Franck's separation of connection and lead.
Maybe he is separating two 'orthogonal' components like the sine and cosine if a circular motion in a vertical plane were divided into a horizontal component and a vertical component ? I kind of gave up on your posts earlier last week as the scientific jargon made no sense to me. I don't see dancing as an abstract, and no I don't separate a sine from a cosine wave either (even if I knew exactly what you meant). I separate connection from leading as they are different concepts.
Connection for me is more like 2 magnets (except more pro-active since most of us don't have any real magnetic pull :wink: ), Connection is the magnetic force that keeps the 2 magnets together (in partner dancing, I would attempt to copy the magnetic force by having the follower match the pressure to maintain contact). Once connected, if one magnet grew legs and started moving, it would lead the other magnet into movement (a bit like the trick with 2 magnets on either side of a sheet of paper). If the leading magnet leads nothing, they are still connected. Should the following magnet slow down (maybe because of a bump on the sheet of paper) then the leading magnet would feel it through the connection and adjust its movement / lead, creating a two-way communication. If the following magnet falls because of the bump, the connection is lost and the original magnet can still lead, but nobody is listening anymore as the connection broke.

You may prefer to achieve the friction by a vertical force ("the follow presses down and the lead presses up to ensure the hands remain hooked together"), but surely you accept that this isn't necessary, and that other people may simply press backwards and forwards?

Personally, I dislike that vertical force (hence this thread). I don't say that a leader shouldn't use it. But I do strongly object to a follower using it when I'm using a horizontal force! It's leading, and it pulls me off balance! :( My views are that the direction of the connection is not important, or more accurately that it can change to suit what you are trying to lead, to improve comfort or make the dance smoother. It is a shame to limit your dance grammar by only using one direction for your connection.
I agree with your other point however, followers should not create a random connection, they should try to match your pressure points. There are a couple of exceptions though, and all of us should consider whether the follower is altering the direction of the connection due to discomfort. Maybe horizontal connection is painful (especially if too strong) or they need a change to rest (using the same muscles for strong continuous connection can generate fatigue). It is also possible that some followers are trying to hi-jack the lead, and are using the only method they've been taught (typically pushing down on the hand).

I don't think Franck is describing a 'grip' at all. It's a purely frictional contact, exactly like your "follow presses down and the lead presses up" hold, except that it's sideways ("lateral" means sideways) instead of vertical!

No gripping is involved.Yes, I'm not sure what grip / hold we are now referring to but I hardly ever grip my partners (or indeed expect them to grip me). I apply subtle points of pressure on different parts of my partner's hand / wrist / arm / shoulder / hip / etc. and expect them to match those pressure points to create light and continuous connection so that my lead can be felt and translated almost instantly and comfortably.

Franck uses this sideways connection to teach people to separate connection (which in this case is sideways) from tension/compression (which is forwards/backwards).That's true, and I also use the Vertical connection and the 'back & forward' horizontal connection you favour. They all have a part to play in a fully connected dance.


I assume Franck would say that the follower (and leader) must have, not tension but a constant connection (without gripping), even when there is no tension/compression, so that she can then take up either tension or compression instantly.Tension is indeed mis-applied and as a result misunderstood. A lot of the time, teachers that mention tension really want the followers to have 'Inner connection' so that their arms are attached to their torso, which can be faked by increasing muscle tone in the arm. I rarely talk about tension (in a dance or scientific context), I prefer teaching inner frame, and good connection.

Both of those are “one way”, and although the lead should be one-way, (unless the follower is back-leading, etc.) I think the connection is two-way. It involves feedback. If you then liken it to a transmission “handshake” protocol, that doesn’t work, because that is intermittent, and ideally the connection should be continuous.
For example, one beginner leader I know manages with very little connection. It is like he is driving, but is stuck with an on/off switch for the accelerator, ditto for the brake. A bit like a “dodge’em” car. It is as though he is compensating for the sporadic connection with exaggerated lead. As a follower, you don’t feel anything until he yanks you in one direction or another. With the instructors I have danced with, there is invariably a constant connection, communicating intention, which allows for a much more subtle lead. It also conveys feedback, so the instructor knows, before I have moved, (and as a beginner, most likely before I realize it), that I am anticipating a move.I generally agree with you here, many leaders want their partners to follow what they lead, and if they get a lag or lack of reaction to their (seemingly) clear lead, they increase the movements and the strengths (often resulting in fearful followers who then protect themselves by having even less connection).
On the other hand, some followers have hardly any connection but are very fast reacting, so they manage to fake it by responding with fast footwork and movements as soon as they pick-up the leader's intention.

Even with perfect connection, there is still something DavidB referred to as 'elasticity' at the Beach Ballroom workshops. Where your arm can extend or absorb a connected lead from your partner to protect from movements that are too fast or changes of direction that are too sudden.
That elasticity can be also used by very good followers to add subtle timing variations and appear more musical and dramatic.

The hand “hold” (hand-non-hold?) that Franck advocates sounds like it would allow the kind of feedback-enabling connection I am trying to describe.
A final point: I don’t know if Franck agrees, but I get the feeling that there is more than just the tactile element to the connection. I think eye-contact, and the reading of body-language, and the manipulation of “personal space” can all play a part in establishing and maintaining the connection. I am not going all “hippy-speakish” and implying an “emotional connection”, just a more complex mechanism.Yes, as long as we don't stray into 'hippy-talk', there is more to it all, but if you have a good inner frame, and a good connection, then (unless you deliberately isolate / dissociate yourself from the connection) every movement you make, from your feet to your head will be felt by your partner and will indeed affect the immediate outcome. Which is why having great connection more often than not will emphasize your mistakes.
Body placement, head direction, hand movements, weight-distribution, angle all have a part to play in 'prep-ing' the lead and making your partner's experience smoother and more pleasurable.

Interesting way of thinking about it. In a way, Franck is making the follower grip his hand (well, fingers), rather than gripping his follower's hand. Me, I just grab the wrist and pull. Simple leads for simple minds.I'm not sure what you're referring to here, but I don't want my followers to grip my hand at all, I only use any available connection point to create connection regardless of whether my partner is aware of the concept.
I suspect I use the double finger connection inside the hand, because most new followers instinctively grip my hand, so I use what's available to create a positive out of a potential negative trait.
I also use a (multi-dimensional) palm pressure on the wrist or upper arm as a connection point (rather than grabbing :wink: )

Rocky
17th-July-2007, 06:53 PM
Blimey...this thread is full of the most complicated stuff as an explanation for bouncing I've ever seen! And it's not actually that complicated is it?

Most dancers bounce their hands but they do it in amounts that vary considerably. The more experienced dancers use it to define a lead when the arms are at full extension or to define a move that requires upwards or downwards body movement and the inexperienced dancers tend to do it to simply mark the beat.

In the end, having watched it from the Dj desk at length, it all comes down to the fact that some people just like to bounce and skip around because they enjoy it - they normally have massive smiles on their faces and actually the majority have no idea they are doing it.

Is that wrong? If people are enjoying their dancing who are we to say that they shouldn't do it? It may offend you to watch it or experience it but the whole point of social dancing is that it's just that, social and fun.

In 8 years I've certainly never seen it taught at any venue, workshop or weekender so this must tell us something about why it happens.

In the end the 'conversation' between two people on a dance floor is just that. If one converses with a bounce and the other with a steady hand then you're either going to come to a compromise (which is my experience) or the one with the strongest 'viewpoint' dictates the conversation. Either way it's going to be over in around 4 minutes and whether you have another conversation, and how you approach that is entirely your choice for the future.

For people who dance purely for the fun of it there is no right and wrong, they dance the way that suits them, their style and what they are capable of. MJ is not a 'purists' dance style thank God, there are no Gold medal exams and their should be no criticism of what people want to do for fun.

Now if someone wants to 'improve' their dancing, or change their style and wants to solicit experienced feedback, that's another issue all together...

ducasi
17th-July-2007, 11:32 PM
Now if someone wants to 'improve' their dancing, or change their style and wants to solicit experienced feedback, that's another issue all together...
If people are reading and contributing to this part of the forum, but don't want to improve their dancing, and/or provide feedback to others, then why exactly are they here? :confused:

happygoldfish
18th-July-2007, 04:47 PM
It is a shame to limit your dance grammar by only using one direction for your connection.

I take your point. :blush:
But I'm only a simple goldfish … :nice:


:whistle: He was poor … but he was honest …:whistle:


It is also possible that some followers are trying to hi-jack the lead, and are using the only method they've been taught (typically pushing down on the hand).

No, the followers I'm complaining about aren't trying to take over the lead – they're only trying to force me to lead the way they want me to! :(

(And it can't be to avoid discomfort, since their vertical connection is always considerably stronger than my forward/backward connection.)

They apply downward pressure (a lot more than minimal), as if to say "I'm determined to press down, so you'd jolly well better press up!" :really:

This happens quite a lot in the Ceroc classes I go to.

(A variant on this is sideways pressure, to the follower's right.)

I don't where they get it from – certainly not the teachers – maybe the taxi-dancers? :confused:

Gadget
20th-July-2007, 01:30 PM
They apply downward pressure (a lot more than minimal), as if to say "I'm determined to press down, so you'd jolly well better press up!" :really:
:confused: I still think that this is more likley to be a problem of having your hand too high? I would recommend leading these people with as low a hand as you can - just to see if it makes a difference.

Perhaps you are leading from/standing too far away? To lead a follower forward, my initial lread is towards me, but as soon as my elbows reach my sides, I straighten my arms downwards to continue the follower moving towards me. The natural reaction I would have from a follower pushing my hands down would be to lower my lead (hands) and step towards them :shrug: something to try.


(A variant on this is sideways pressure, to the follower's right.)With what hand hold? R-R or L-R? Is it only evident on the step back? (when they step back on their right foot?)
When the follower steps back, they normally plant the back foot in-line with or behind the front foot; this twists the hips away and so the torso and so the shoulders and so the hand pulls a little and pushes a little bit to the right .
I think that the lateral pressure is possably due to the follower over-preparing (rotating ) for the next movement.

happygoldfish
20th-July-2007, 07:49 PM
:confused: I still think that this is more likely to be a problem of having your hand too high? I would recommend leading these people with as low a hand as you can - just to see if it makes a difference.

Tried it! Often! Makes no sodding difference! :sad:

Erm … you actually mentioned this a couple of pages ago. And I replied:


If the girl is leading in a lesson, I tend to follow (it's less painful, and avoids arguments!), so when she presses down I often let my hand go down. Even at her hip level, I find she's still trying to force it down further. So it's not a comfortable-height thing.


Perhaps you are leading from/standing too far away?

Nope.


To lead a follower forward, my initial lead is towards me, but as soon as my elbows reach my sides, I straighten my arms downwards to continue the follower moving towards me.

Sorry, I'm not actually following this without a diagram. :confused:

Are you saying that you sometimes lead horizontally by pulling downwards (other than in a catapult)? That seems weird. :(

I think I just rely on good old Newton's First Law, and assume she'll keep moving forward until I stop her! :innocent:


The natural reaction I would have from a follower pushing my hands down would be to lower my lead (hands) and step towards them :shrug: something to try.

Yes, that's exactly my reaction if they push my hand below hip level!


{… talking about sideways, to the right, rather than vertical pressure …} With what hand hold? R-R or L-R? Is it only evident on the step back? (when they step back on their right foot?)

Sorry: L-R hold.

In the class, it's evident as soon as we make connection. It seems to be preparatory to the Ceroc™ semi-circle™, and disappears once the semi-circle is finished (during the step-back).
Except … that it sometime reappears on returns! :really:


When the follower steps back, they normally plant the back foot in-line with or behind the front foot; this twists the hips away and so the torso and so the shoulders and so the hand pulls a little and pushes a little bit to the right.

I think that the lateral pressure is possibly due to the follower over-preparing (rotating ) for the next movement.

I think I know what you mean here. On an ordinary (clockwise) turn, the follower sometimes over-rotates (to her right), keeping her right hand the same distance in front of her (in other words, keeping the same shape "inner frame"). That naturally forces me to rotate clockwise to match her, but without moving my centre of gravity.
That's fine! The follower is leading style rather than step, and isn't interfering with my preparation for the lead for the next move. :nice:

BUT! Sometimes the follower, instead of over-rotating her body, only over-rotates her right fore-arm, stopping with her body facing me, and with her elbow in the normal position. So her right hand goes sideways, with considerable pressure.
That's not fine! If I maintain connection, it pulls my centre of gravity to the side, making me competely off-balance in my preparation for the next move. :(
And if I don't maintain connection – I get a funny look! :really:

I wish teachers would recommend how to, and how not to, over-turn!

Gadget, thanks for trying to help. :nice: But it seems that I'm coming across something (fairly regularly, and even wth some taxi-dancers) which you're just not.
Do you still go to the beginners' classes?

Gadget
25th-July-2007, 05:42 PM
Sorry, I'm not actually following this without a diagram. :confused:

Are you saying that you sometimes lead horizontally by pulling downwards (other than in a catapult)? That seems weird. :(
Not quite - you know the standard 'barbell bicep workout' type thing where you lower and raise your fore-arms from thighs up and back again - that's the sort of downward motion I mean (although wth slightly less force, and pulling downward.:wink:)


The other thing to try would be to off-set your lead about a foot to the right - that may work :whistle:

Gadget, thanks for trying to help. :nice: But it seems that I'm coming across something (fairly regularly, and even wth some taxi-dancers) which you're just not.
Do you still go to the beginners' classes?
I go to them whenever I am able - just now I'm the one that they curse when the music comes on with (what seems like) a really high BPM :D:cool:

Raul
26th-July-2007, 01:42 PM
:rofl:

Is there a moderator somewhere to transfer this thread to the Geek Corner?