MJ lead/follow conventions

[jim]

Separate topic - David

I wasn't talking about sabatage when I started talking about 'rules'. I was talking about the lead and follow realtionships in general.

Sabatage is rare, but the divisions that appear on this thread are deep-seated and generalise across the entire dance.

I want to know why we can't agree about very basic stuff. - saying it's all about individuality is sweeping it under the carpet.

Dancing is about two individuals trying to get along. Not two individuals doing exactly what they want. This requires consensus.

[David Bailey]

I wasn't talking about sabatage when I started talking about 'rules'. I was talking about the lead and follow realtionships in general.

Sabatage is rare, but the divisions that appear on this thread are deep-seated and generalise across the entire dance.

I want to know why we can't agree about very basic stuff. - saying it's all about individuality is sweeping it under the carpet.

Dancing is about two individuals trying to get along. Not two individuals doing exactly what they want. This requires consensus.

Very good question.

One answer is "it's never that simple". So there are different answers to questions at different stages in the learning process. For example, beginners and even intermediates often incorrectly think that a finger-hold is a good lead, because it's a light lead and therefore can't involving yanking around your partner.

Another answer is "We're not all dance freaks, for some of us it's a casual hobby". So some people will simply not worry about this sort of stuff. But then, we are in Intermediates Corner - if we can't discuss MJ dance conventions in here, where can we?

A third answer is "MJ is not defined". So there less structures, less conventions - and frankly, less thought - about how the dance "should" work, than in other dance forms. In the UK, Franck is probably the closest thing the MJ world has to something like a Tango Investigation Group, but I'm sure he'd be the first to admit that in comparison, his efforts are several levels below that sort of work.

Hmmmm.... this discussion should probably be in a separate thread...

EDIT: and now, it is :)

[jim]

During the ‘correct response to a sabotage’ thread. We found massive fundamental disagreement on the nature of different lead follow arrangements.

I don’t actually care who’s right or wrong. What I care about is how to dance with Women who are operating on a different dancing system to me.

I believe I can dance in any system as long as it’s fair and I understand it.

Or alternatively I also believe all relationships are based on ‘negotiation’.


Based on this I could meet a women and have a ‘50 – 50 equal conversation’, which would be fair; but it would not ‘negotiate’ me on to the dance floor.


So in this thread we’re looking at lead follow conventions. The rules which make them work. How they are fair. And how we can renegotiate them to include more partners.

[Different music, by the way suits different conventions. So you try and work on the appropriate conventions for the music your dancing to at the time].


I’ll start by setting out a relationship convention I have been know to use which is based largely on the Marriage vows: The Lady promises to honor and obey and the Man promises to love and cherish.

This is very similar to the Spiderman philosophy of ‘with power comes responsibility’.

I have power over the woman, which means I’m responsibly for her welfare and well being, her wants and her needs.

Did any one see the SCD series when Matt was teaching Elica to Waltz and they referred to each other as Mr. Cutler and Miss Dixon for the entire week.

–‘Kind of like that’, you’re a Gentlemen, she is a Lady. It’s old fashioned, it’s romantic, it’s a fantasy.

So people; agree, disagree, renegotiate or just learn about how other people can see the dance.


Here’s one I’ve heard before that I don’t understand and don’t think is fair: ‘Men you’re the frame, she is the picture.’

You hear it all the time, but I don’t get it. I equate it will not dancing and not being involved.

I prefer to think I’m the painter she’s the picture, or I’m the composer she’s the music.

So agree with me, explain why I’m wrong or renegotiate.


I want to hear about your games, your rules, your relationships and your systems. And most importantly how you think they’re fair.

[StokeBloke]

Here’s one I’ve heard before that I don’t understand and don’t think is fair: ‘Men you’re the frame, she is the picture.’

You hear it all the time, but I don’t get it. I equate it will not dancing and not being involved.

I prefer to think I’m the painter she’s the picture, or I’m the composer she’s the music.

So agree with me, explain why I’m wrong or renegotiate.


I want to hear about your games, your rules, your relationships and your systems. And most importantly how you think they’re fair.
I understand the 'picture/frame' analogy you refer to as meaning this: the picture is the focus and the frame is there to show off the picture to the maximum. For a good visual example of this watch some WCS clips on YouTube. You will notice the lead has a tendency to remain fairly static in the middle of the slot, whilst the follow is moving up and down, turning at the end and generally looking fabulous.

The better you are at showing off the follow and their skills, the better the dance will feel.

Of course this isn't always the case with every dance style, and not every WCS dance you see will describe what I have mentioned. But as a general answer to the what does the frame/picture analogy mean...

Personally, I prefer the conversation analogy. Some follows are just a bit more chatty than others :wink:

[Agente Secreto]

I'm anticipating several very wordy responses on this thread and lots of different points of views.

I'm not sure I agree that there were massive fundamental disagreements on the basic techniques.

I have been taught a variety of techniques to lead my partner, based on a series of 'signals' for want of a better word. We are taught that these 'signals' or leads will elicit a known response (e.g. the follow will return if you step in and lift the hand above their head). With the exception of the people that truly worry about the circling of hands or stepping apart:hug:, I think that most of the basics are straight from the MJ beginner playbook and I reckon that I'd picked up these basics within 3 months of starting MJ. Why do you think otherwise Jim?

What is different between us can actually be explained using the frame and picture analogy. If I think of myself as the frame as a lead I set out a boundary inside which the follow can be the picture, however, I never build a frame exactly the same way in any dance so I am clearly very actively involved and the follow needs to pick up exactly what kind of a frame I am today. Now the picture is drawn by the follow, who just like any other kind of artist will show different artistic interpretation every time and they will paint a very different picture. As the frame I need to be able to support this picture and stretch it out so that it looks as good as it can. Therefore - the combination of the frame and picture (even if it is the same music, lead and follow) can be radically different every time. However in creating this masterpiece I won't forget how to cut the wood for the frame and the follow won't forget how to hold the brush - which takes us back to the discussion on basics once more.

Don't know about the rest of you but I dance to escape from the kinds of rules and constrictions that make work miserable - not sure that I see the need for endless navel gazing about rules and just what is proper as long as I can have fun while making each individual dance as enjoyable as I can for my partner.

Jim it sounds like you're looking for some exact formula that will get the same reaction every time and I doubt that this is possible, and even if it was it wouldn't be what I'd want when dancing.:eek:

Agent 000
Licensed to Dance

[Agente Secreto]

Personally, I prefer the conversation analogy. Some follows are just a bit more chatty than others :wink:

And occasionally pretty damn loud as well..........................

[David Bailey]

I’ll start by setting out a relationship convention I have been know to use which is based largely on the Marriage vows: The Lady promises to honor and obey and the Man promises to love and cherish.

This is very similar to the Spiderman philosophy of ‘with power comes responsibility’.
Pretty much - if you're the leader, you have a lot of power over the dance - but you also have a lot of responsibility.

To me, first and foremost. your responsibility is like the doctor's oath - "First, do no harm". Or putting it in Asimovian terms, the First Law of Leading is:

A leader may not injure his follower, through inaction, allow a follower to come to harm."

So that means:
- No yanking, no dodgy drops, no dangerous aerials, or other things which can cause harm
- Floorcraft, so that you don't throw your follower into another couple, or allow another couple to bump into your follower.



Here’s one I’ve heard before that I don’t understand and don’t think is fair: ‘Men you’re the frame, she is the picture.’

You hear it all the time, but I don’t get it. I equate it will not dancing and not being involved.
No, it seems to make sense to me - you provide the structure, she makes that structure look marvellous.

The same lead - for a travelling return, for example - can look pedestrian, or it can look marvellous, depending on the follower.

[bigdjiver]

Useful contributions.


... I don’t actually care who’s right or wrong. What I care about is how to dance with Women who are operating on a different dancing system to me...I could not properly describe what I have learned at Ceroc classes. Whatever it is, it works. At the Corn Excgange freestyle I met two ladies who had never dance MJ before. They had attended a couple of Salsa classes. I am able to have enjoyable dances with ladies that had never danced MJ before around 90% of the time. This is an amazing dance form.


... So in this thread we’re looking at lead follow conventions. The rules which make them work. How they are fair. And how we can renegotiate them to include more partners...I cannot see lead & follow as "fair". It can be that each partner is happy with thir role.


... Here’s one I’ve heard before that I don’t understand and don’t think is fair: ‘Men you’re the frame, she is the picture.’ ... It is one way of describing one style of dancing. It is not the usual style we see at Ceroc, which is more like "I draw it, you colour it in."


... I prefer to think I’m the painter she’s the picture... I do not recognise that. I see it as "I commission, you paint." e.g. paint me a Columbian / Ballroom drop / etc.


... or I’m the composer she’s the music... I see that as "I am the composer, you are the instrumentalist."


... So agree with me, explain why I’m wrong or renegotiate...I think I am renegotiating.:confused: Now I am asking myself if there is any practical difference between the various descriptions I have used, and whether it could be enlightening to interpret the same sequence of moves with those different descriptions in mind.

[Andy McGregor]

It is one way of describing one style of dancing. It is not the usual style we see at Ceroc, which is more like "I draw it, you colour it in."Or "I am the fish, you are the bicycle" :whistle:

The one I like and often use is "she is the flower, you are the stem". Your job is to support her in all her fragrant beauty :flower:

[geoff332]

No, it seems to make sense to me - you provide the structure, she makes that structure look marvellous.I'm big on quotes today. Another favourite is William Blake: "Reason is the circumference of energy" (that's paraphrased a little). The idea is that energy is the source of creativity (and evil - although, for blake, evil isn't all bad); reason is the source of order (and goodness). Reason puts a frame around energy, to give it power and life. Reason without energy is lifeless; energy without reason is destructive. But together (the marriage of heaven and hell), they are a creative force for good.

This is a great analogy for dancing. The follow is the energy; the lead the reason. For Blake, reason gives shape and form to energy; in dancing, the lead gives shape and form to the follow. The positive force is energy/follow the passive force is reason/lead. The two only really make sense together.

All the poetics aside (although I was in the mood this afternoon), the particular analogy is pretty irrelevant: use whichever works for you. The point is that lead and follow are different roles in a partner dance. When done well, they come together and produce something special.

[jim]

I see that as "I am the composer, you are the instrumentalist."



I see all your points but this is the only explanation where both participants can be creative together.

The other responses seem to focus of the man as a creative thinking entity. And the Women as a creative emotional entity.

Only I see dancing as ‘all about emotion’.

So if I do all the thinking and she does the dancing and all the emotional expression, then I feel creatively left out and start thinking why don’t I just go and dance on my own? Then I can express my emotions instead of just creatively thinking for someone else.

Where as if I lead through her body, I’ll express emotion she’ll feel emotion. As apposed to when she expresses emotion I feel nothing.

Of course, sooner or later she will want to express her own emotions, but that’s where active following or shines come in and that’s a different thread.

When if first thought about this I look also looked on U-tube Stokie. I looked at male dancers I liked, to see if I thought they where providing ‘frame’. I looked at Ben schwimmer (wouldn’t stand still if you put a gun to his head). I looked and Darren and Lilla from SCD.


I looked at the this couple below.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=rxvQ6yNGIes

I don’t see the frame I hear that I’ve seen in wcs.

But one thing I have noticed is that the men normally where black, which tends to draw the focus of attentions to the women and make her appear like the ‘Picture’.

[jim]

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=rxvQ6yNGIes

I think it'll Link this time.

[Gadget]

During the ‘correct response to a sabotage’ thread. We found massive fundamental disagreement on the nature of different lead follow arrangements.
I don't think that there are any fundamental dissagreements...

Here's a few analogies I've used in the past:

The dance is a journey that the lead and follow take through a garden; the garden is defined by the music they are dancing to. But the follower is blind - the lead has to illuminate the path in front of the follower - take them and walk arm in arm rather than pull like an eager child. The lead can show the follower various sculptures the music creates and they can lead the follower to them and let them explore the sculptures themselves. Each person is drawn by different things in the flora of music; the follower may catch a scent in the music and draw the lead towards it. If the lead is walking with the follower rather than leading them around the various paths, then they can both enjoy the scent.
Common moves and common movements give the follower a wider path to stroll down. The less travelled the path, then the more unsure the follower will be and the more you have to provide trust and security for them - just shoving them down the path is not as nice a journey as walking down the path with them.
:flower:

The dance is a complex tapestry that the lead weaves from the follower's movements. Her threads can be spun with colours and patterns that make the fabric take on a unique sheen. They can be woven with a texture to match the thread; denser, heavier cloth and ethereal silk from the lightest filament the follower dances with. The follower can make their own little patches of design that the lead then entwines into the cloth that the dance creates.
:cool:

The dance is a painting of the music; the follower is a magic brush that the lead uses to create the swirls and lines of shape. The follower decides their colour and how the mark is put on the dance-floor canvas.


{I like the first one best ;)}

Here’s one I’ve heard before that I don’t understand and don’t think is fair: ‘Men you’re the frame, she is the picture.’
It could also be said "she is the sculpture, you are the pedestal." The idea is that the leads primary function within the dance is to make the follower look good. It is one way of dancing and the sort of mental image you want to present for competition dancing. For social dancing, the lead wants to make the follower feel like they are the most wonderful image, the most beautiful sculpture, the most elegant dancer. :worthy:

[bigdjiver]

...I prefer to think I’m the painter she’s the picture, or I’m the composer she’s the music...


... I see that as "I am the composer, you are the instrumentalist."...


I see all your points but this is the only explanation where both participants can be creative together.

The other responses seem to focus of the man as a creative thinking entity. And the Women as a creative emotional entity.

Only I see dancing as ‘all about emotion’.

So if I do all the thinking and she does the dancing and all the emotional expression, then I feel creatively left out and start thinking why don’t I just go and dance on my own? Then I can express my emotions instead of just creatively thinking for someone else...

... Where as if I lead through her body, I’ll express emotion she’ll feel emotion. As apposed to when she expresses emotion I feel nothing. It seems to be a fact that men are generally better at spatial skills and women are generally better at emotional ones. There are some women that are the equals of the best men in the former and some men that are the equals of the best women at the latter. However, in general, the scheme where the man leads and to woman follows plays to the best strengths of both. It works.

There are some people that are blessed in both departments. They have some of the attributes to be a top dancer and can indeed "dance on their own".

Dance already has a composer and musicians providing the music. It is common for the man to match more drummer or backline and the woman to express more the emotions of the frontline and vocalist. All are involved in matching the emotion of the music, each in their own way. Usually each partner in some way limits the other, but at the same time adds something missing from the other or enables them to express their emotions better. For example the leader can remove some of the limitations of gravity from the follower, and the follower can emphasise the leaders emotion, which should be linked to the music, by embellishment or by contrast.

[jim]

The idea is that the leads primary function within the dance is to make the follower look good. It is one way of dancing and the sort of mental image you want to present for competition dancing. For social dancing, the lead wants to make the follower feel like they are the most wonderful image, the most beautiful sculpture, the most elegant dancer.

That was Beautiful Gadget; almost brought a tear to my eye.



- Good point here about it analogy being a competition dancing analogy as apposed to a social dancing analogy. This is probably why I don’t appreciate it.

[jim]

. All are involved in matching the emotion of the music, each in their own way. Usually each partner in some way limits the other, but at the same time adds something missing from the other or enables them to express their emotions better.



Very Good response.

But what happens when you get two good dancers or two very bad dancers.

Which is coming back to renegotiating to included more partners; the change of relationships and conventions to suit the different ways people think and the different things they need.

The trick of course is to know what your partners limits are, how you can make them better, and how that can work with what you need as well.

Or do you alternatively think that some people just can’t do anything for each other and are doomed to just not get on?

Like two extraverts both fighting for the lime-light

[ant]

Originally Posted by Jim
Which is coming back to renegotiating to included more partners; the change of relationships and conventions to suit the different ways people think and the different things they need.

I may be wrong here but I think you are asking what are the fundemental conventions in relation to lead/follow in MJ which are followed generally.

I don't think I have ever had a lesson formally stating what the accepted conventions are. FWIW these are some things I think are fundementals that I have sort of picked up on the way and use as my guide:

1 The leaders is responsible for the safetly of the follower and himself.
2 The follower moves in the direction led and comes back on the same line unless an interruption is led whilst travelling in that line (ie some sort of turn is led)
3 The speed at which the follower will move depends on the energy release from the lead
4 You should expect the right tension in the arms of the follower (maybe followers can help a bit here and maybe this a technique point)
5 The lead always starts any form of Mambo move with his left foot and the follow the right foot
6 The follower will ensure a hand is available to reconnect to the lead and no thumbs

Not particually comprehensive but the general thrust is to allow the lead to know the position of the follower and so be able to prepare for the next phase of leading in the dance, whilst keeping safe. Is this the type of thing you wanted?



But what happens when you get two good dancers or two very bad dancers.
Or do you alternatively think that some people just can’t do anything for each other and are doomed to just not get on?

I reckon if you can sort out the conventions then good dancers/bad dancers pairing up and what two individuals think when dancing unless specifically agreeing otherwise are irrelevant. IMO I don't think what was said in the sabotage thread is neccessarily representative of what conventions dancers follow generally.

The trick of course is to know what your partners limits are, how you can make them better, and how that can work with what you need as well.
I think there are some good tips for being a good lead such as leading moves you consider within the ability of your follow but I am not sure these would be considered conventions as such. There are I suppose social conventions as well like walking off part way through a dance, giving uninvited criticism to your partner etc.:naughty:
PS I think there is a book somewhere that lists the conventions but there is about 101 rules most of which are irrelevant.:doh:

[Twirlie Bird]

So if I do all the thinking and she does the dancing and all the emotional expression, then I feel creatively left out and start thinking why don’t I just go and dance on my own? Then I can express my emotions instead of just creatively thinking for someone else.

Where as if I lead through her body, I’ll express emotion she’ll feel emotion. As apposed to when she expresses emotion I feel nothing.

Of course you are very welcome to go and dance on your own. However it is incredibly hard to dance and look good on your own. :wink:

I don't think I understand what you are saying here at all. Both the lead and the follower add to the dance. If you are getting to the point that you are beginning to feel that dancing alone is an option then something is going very wrong. :eek:


Of course, sooner or later she will want to express her own emotions, but that’s where active following or shines come in and that’s a different thread.

Why is that a different thread? Isn't all following 'active following'? :confused:

[straycat]

Why is that a different thread? Isn't all following 'active following'? :confused:

In an ideal world...

[MartinHarper]

I want to know why we can't agree about very basic stuff.

Because people don't listen to me when I explain it to them.
http://www.mjda.org/forum/showthread.php?t=543

Firstly, include all the standard lead/follow stuff that applies to every partner dance under the sun. Then add:


1. Accordion Motion. Dancers move together and apart and together and apart and together.

2. Offset dancing. Particularly when dancing face-to-face in closed, the follower is offset slightly to the lead's right side. Some other dances are "heart to heart". This also applies to dancing face-to-face in open, though it is less noticeable.

3. Non-progressive. Couples typically stay in one place on the floor. When they move, there is no particular expected direction. Some other dances progress along the "line of dance".

4. Walking footwork. The standard follower footwork pattern is "quick quick quick quick", starting on the right. As with all dances, a few moves do not fall into that pattern. As with all dances, followers can do what they like, provided they end up on the same foot as a follower using the standard pattern when it matters.

5. Change of places in four beats. The standard time to change places is four beats, as in a travelling return. As with all dances, this can be extended or compressed. Some other dances have standard times of three beats (Hustle) or six beats (Lindy).

6. Easy ladycombs and caresses. Loose frame and follower expectations allow these moves to be easy in Modern Jive, where they are harder in other dances.

7. Little to no counter-balance. Applied force is a signal to decelerate or accelerate in response to that force, if possible, not to stay still and match the force.

Example: when following the ceroc spin, when I feel the force of the leader's left hand on my wrist, I start decelerating my turn to my left, and then start accelerating a turn to my right, because this is the movement that reduces the force.
The in-and-out is similar. Nobody stops an in-and-out on "out", with loads of counter-balance, and hangs out doing swivels or body rolls or whatever.

Note: in leans and drops, there's not much a follower can do to reduce pressure, short of growing wings.

8. A mix of open and closed dancing. Some other dances are entirely closed.

9. Movements take multiples of two beats and finish on the downbeat.

Some of those are conventions for the leader, some are conventions for the follower, some are conventions for both. Fairness is in the eye of the beholder. It isn't equal.

[David Bailey]

Because people don't listen to me when I explain it to them.
http://www.mjda.org/forum/showthread.php?t=543.
Blimey, I thought you were dead :what: :D

[TA Guy]

Blimey, I thought you were dead :what: :D

Me too! :what:

[straycat]

Because people don't listen to me when I explain it to them.
Nah. I've read all those points, but I simply don't agree with all of them (for example - I make a fair bit of use of counter-balance when dancing. Obviously I learned much of it in Lindy, but I was using it in MJ before that, still do, and it's a great technique to have at one's disposal)

Oh - and a tiny nitpick - while Lindy does have a 6-count standard in its arsenal, for the most part, it's an 8-count dance.

[jim]

.

If you are getting to the point that you are beginning to feel that dancing alone is an option then something is going very wrong. :eek:



Why is that a different thread? Isn't all following 'active following'? :confused:

I think the difference between you and me is that I think dancing on your own is easy and dancing with someone else is hard.


Active following is very rare actually [Depending on your definition of course].

I haven't come across it in 3 years of ballroom. I've only come across it once in three 'on and off' years of salsa.

Even if you disagree with what I just said. I would of thought that everyone can see from SCD that there's no active following in waltz, foxtrot or quickstep.

[jim]

Jim it sounds like you're looking for some exact formula that will get the same reaction every time and I doubt that this is possible, and even if it was it wouldn't be what I'd want when dancing.:eek:

Agent 000
Licensed to Dance

Actually I'm trying to do the opposite. I'm trying to understand the different reactions I get and learn how to work with them so I gain a fuller understanding of the different types of and follower there are.

[bigdjiver]

I was wondering how it would work out if the lady choreographed the dance by calling out the next move?

"First" - man leads first move
"Yo" - Yo-Yo
"Cat" - catapult
etc

[Agente Secreto]

Actually I'm trying to do the opposite. I'm trying to understand the different reactions I get and learn how to work with them so I gain a fuller understanding of the different types of and follower there are.

Good luck, I think that you're going to be disappointed since there are simply too many variables. The same reaction that you might see from 2 different follows could indicate widely different causes or interpretations and you'll never know one way or the other. On any given day I can dance with the same follow to the same track and can get widely different reactions to what I do. This is one of the things that you probably need to expect in MJ since it is simply less rigid (and so more accessible) than my limited experience of ballroom.

Personally I just try to roll with it - I've found that if I think about all of it too deeply my own dancing just deteriorates and then I get a reaction from the follow that I don't want - they avoid me....... I've thought about this aspect quite a lot recently since I'd not been dancing regularly for a combination of reasons and when I did I'd started overanalysing what I was doing and why it wasn't working like it did before and guess what - things just seemed to get worse. So my approach is relax and take each dance as it comes - an interchange between you and your partner that will be different every time.

Also, to pick up on the discussion with TB. In MJ, and in my very limited experience of Salsa, I've been lucky to dance with many ladies (and TB is one of them) that 'follow' very actively - often right up to the point of temporarily taking control (which I love by the way :waycool:).

[jim]

Also, to pick up on the discussion with TB. In MJ, and in my very limited experience of Salsa, I've been lucky to dance with many ladies (and TB is one of them) that 'follow' very actively - often right up to the point of temporarily taking control (which I love by the way :waycool:).


I haven't had this much in my limited salsa.


I agree about not over thinking espcally when you are actually dancing. But I'm thinking of this as post dance anaylsis, if you see what I mean.


I also agree that I'll never see all the possible variations, but I have a saying.

Try and then fail.

Try again and then fail better.

[bigdjiver]

Another point that occurs to me is that the lead takes on the left brain sort of functions, the logic of the dance, which can free the follower to let the right brain creativity shine through unhampered.

In this form of partnership the follow is absolutely what the dance is about. Every whim has to be noticed, anticipated and catered for, and the follow must be freed to go where the fancy takes them.

It is like a jamm sesion, the follow becomes the composer, the lead just writes the music down.

[StokeBloke]

I think the difference between you and me is that I think dancing on your own is easy and dancing with someone else is hard.


Active following is very rare actually [Depending on your definition of course].

I haven't come across it in 3 years of ballroom. I've only come across it once in three 'on and off' years of salsa.

Even if you disagree with what I just said. I would of thought that everyone can see from SCD that there's no active following in waltz, foxtrot or quickstep.Jim, will you be at Skegness for Eclipse in a couple of weeks time? Because I feel that a lot of what is being discussed here is easy to show, difficult to describe. It also seems like you have been starved the pleasure of an active follow for FAR too long. It really is a revelation :flower:

[straycat]

Even if you disagree with what I just said. I would of thought that everyone can see from SCD that there's no active following in waltz, foxtrot or quickstep.

Mmmm - but I don't think any direct comparison there is particularly apt. To my knowledge, the ballroom & latin dances are (correct me if I'm wrong), generally taught as set, choreographed sequences, so are very heavy on technique and styling, and very light on improvisation. Pretty much the direct opposite of MJ in so many respects.

To address one of the main themes of this thread - the reason why it's so hard, if not impossible, to get a concensus of this topic is pretty simple.

Very little is taught in most MJ classes about the subject, and 'officially', it's generally a pretty ill-defined area.
On this forum, we have a lot of people who have worked pretty hard to improve their lead / follow / connection skills - but without any 'MJ standard' ways of doing so, we've learned from various different sources. Many have drawn from experience in different dances: eg Lindy, WCS, AT, ballroom, latin, blues etc, some from their own trial and error and experimentation, not to mention other sources, eg martial arts etc.

With all that lot thrown into the melting pot, you have a lot of very powerful techniques being bandied about - but it's not surprising some of these seem at odds with each other. In the end, we each use what we feel suits us best - there simply is no one right or wrong way - more like a whole host of right (and wrong) ways.

[MartinHarper]

Nah. I've read all those points, but I simply don't agree with all of them (for example - I make a fair bit of use of counter-balance when dancing. Obviously I learned much of it in Lindy, but I was using it in MJ before that, still do, and it's a great technique to have at one's disposal)

Advanced dancers, in every dance, deliberately break the conventions. Beginner dancers, in every dance, accidentally break the conventions. Intermediate dancers, in every dance, do both, often at the same time.

When you look around at other Modern Jive dancers, or dance with them, do they mostly make a fair bit of use of counter-balance, or do they mostly make little or no use of counter-balance?

[jim]

I’ve been having a bit of a revelations so bear with me…..

I’ve been thinking about the way some of you explain how you dance and then thinking about how I dance and then thinking about how that can create misunderstanding and conflict between dancers partners.

Last night I was thinking about who leads Rhythm. We’ve had the discussion before and we know it’s one of those subjects which will divide us. Yet it’s also basic and fundamental to the dance.

And I realized that I lead Rhythm and some of you guys don’t. In fact you do the opposite you try to lead the women in her rhythm.

I remember watching Jordan start a dance and put a woman straight into a shine and I thought this was really odd. But now I get it; he’s getting a feel for how she moves. So she can lead her the way she wants to be lead.

I do exactly the opposite! I get her in close so she can get a feel for how I move.

I just keep doing an arm jive, until I feel she’s locked on to me. And I sometimes I come across women style up the arm jive at the beginning and I always think why are you styling this up and not using it as a chance to connect? But now I know. They think they’re the picture and I’m the frame. And that I’m going to lead them in they’re rhythm.

Now I think I’m going to have to explain myself because I really do think some of us are on very different wave lengths and right now some of you are thinking why would you lead rhythm and what does that mean?

It means this; I don’t lead moves, I don’t even lead movements, I lead ‘emotion’. When I dance I’m trying to express emotions to my partner.

And I know some people don’t get this concept, cause I can see it in there eyes when we’re dancing.

Have you ever heard the expression, ‘that film moved me’ or ‘I was touch by what they did’? Comments like this show an intrinsic subconscious link between physical actions and emotional reactions.

So when I’m doing my moves I’m thinking movement = emotion.

So if I’m dancing with a very active stylish partner who essentially dancing in her own rhythm it means I’m excluded from the dance because I can’t express emotion to her.

At times like this to be blunt, guys like me feel that we’re having sex with a woman using a vibrator. – She’s creating her own emotions – lead / man not required.

Here’s somewhere we’re going to disagree; I believe a lead is composed of two things; what is done and how it’s it done. For me how it’s done is the important bit, it contains the all the emotional information.

Where as some of you I think believe a lead what is is done and how it’s done is up the follower, which is probably what brings the magic to your dances.

See this difference of opinion is going to create conflict.

This brings me on to styling up a ballroom hold. Women who style up a ballroom hold bug the sh*t of out me, and I’m not the only one. But the question is why?

I think this goes back to frame and picture. I think she thinks that I have essentially provided her a frame which she can now decorate as she sees fit. I’ve only just worked that out so Correct me if I’m wrong?

Now me on the other hand; if I lead a first move mambo, blues basic or similar. Then I’m saying is let’s dance together for a while, essentially let’s merge more fully into one person or I’m saying let’s re-connect lets get back on the same wave length.

Clearly a lot of crossed wires going on here.


Which brings me on to active following; no secret we all disagree here.

I literally think we have different definitions of what active following means.

Stoke bloke is suggesting that I need to be exposed to more active followers and yet I am with David Baileys in saying I don’t know more than 10 that can do it properly.

The difference in opinion to my mind comes from the different styles of lead follow relationships. Like Twirlie said, ‘isn’t all following active following’. Well I guess if you’re using frame picture analogue then yes I don’t see what’s wrong with that.

But active following with me ……well its best described as this.

I interpret the music, she interprets me.

To actively follow leads like me without disrupting the flow of the dance, she has to reinterpret the lead not the music.

It’s no good saying I’ve heard something in the music I’m going to stops. What about me? what about my footwork? I am I in a position to stop?
A woman actively following me has to be aware of my weight distribution and my ability to support her if she becomes active. – And that is hard! - respect to women who can do that.

Dancing is large are very varied please don’t assume am always dancing the way I’ve described whatever the dance, whatever the music. – I’m trying to simplify it.

Anyway I feel like I’m starting to understand where some of the disagreements I have come from and that’s the first part in learning to dance with different types of follower.

Hopefully by explaining my dancing system that might help some people understand where conflict might of arisen from in dances they’ve had.

[robd]

Very interesting post Jim. I did wonder if you were ever going to mention the music and where this fitted into the relationship but it snuck in eventually.

I'll re-read and digest a bit more before commenting further.

[Dottie]

Phew!
I finally understand what you've been talking about!

As one of my most favourite leads, was a little confused, but now I get it.

:nice:

[David Bailey]

Blimey, are you related to Gadget? :what: :D


It means this; I don’t lead moves, I don’t even lead movements, I lead ‘emotion’. When I dance I’m trying to express emotions to my partner.
Ummm, I'm pretty sure you're leading movements as well.


And I know some people don’t get this concept, cause I can see it in there eyes when we’re dancing.
Well, if a follower doesn't "get it", it's the leader's fault for not being clear enough.


At times like this to be blunt, guys like me feel that we’re having sex with a woman using a vibrator.
I thought of a funny answer to this, but then I'd have to take the thread upstairs. :innocent:


Here’s somewhere we’re going to disagree; I believe a lead is composed of two things; what is done and how it’s it done. For me how it’s done is the important bit, it contains the all the emotional information.

Where as some of you I think believe a lead what is is done and how it’s done is up the follower, which is probably what brings the magic to your dances. [/FONT]

See this difference of opinion is going to create conflict.
Errr... it might, if I understood it...


I literally think we have different definitions of what active following means.
Probably. I'll not comment on it until I know what it means - I think it's maybe not a helpful term.


Stoke bloke is suggesting that I need to be exposed to more active followers and yet I am with David Baileys in saying I don’t know more than 10 that can do it properly.
My comment wasn't about "active following", it was about "sabotaging" - different things I believe.

[Agente Secreto]

Jim, like RobD I also think this is an interesting post. I don't think I share your reasoning in bits of it but I can see where you're coming from...........


....I realized that I lead Rhythm and some of you guys don’t. In fact you do the opposite you try to lead the women in her rhythm.

That's not what I mean. There are parts of the dance where I will definitely lead all of the rhythm (and I'll do so almost all of the time with inexperienced follows) and then there are parts where, should my follow choose to do something I'll respond to it. In doing this I'm not handing over the responsibility for leading anyone into anything just realising that my partner may often add just as much (and sometimes more) to the dance as I can.



So if I’m dancing with a very active stylish partner who essentially dancing in her own rhythm it means I’m excluded from the dance because I can’t express emotion to her.

At times like this to be blunt, guys like me feel that we’re having sex with a woman using a vibrator. – She’s creating her own emotions – lead / man not required.

I can see what you're trying to say I just don't share the view. It sounds as if the dance and its emotion is only going one way, from you to the follow. If that was happening in the bedroom then I'd fully expect the lady to come to bed with the BOB already running......:innocent: Dancing is social intercourse and just like the sexual variety it is far more exciting if your partner is actively involved and coming up with their own fun ideas........

The rest of the post about connection and active following I don't really get because it's only with follows that I've developed proper connection, and where we're actively engaged with each other, that any of the real interaction comes. In doing so I expect the follow to pay me the same attention that I pay her and that means sensing where my weight is and reacting to this just as I do to them. I've been twisted and hurt a couple of times by ladies trying out a move taught in class where they take control and try and turn me when my (considerable) bulk is moving in the opposite direction to the one they need me to.:tears: And don't get me going about the enforced body roll from the rear which if I tried it on a lady I'd be accused of perving...............

If I dance with someone and the connection is not there then I find myself playing a far more directive role and the dance is probably not as good for either of us. So I can see where you're coming from but I just think that there is room for the follow to show their 'emotion' in the dance as well.

Agent 000
Licensed to Dance

[jim]

[quote=robd;531953]Very interesting post Jim. I did wonder if you were ever going to mention the music and where this fitted into the relationship but it snuck in eventually. quote]

Very difficult to get 'eveything' in. I didn't want to make the post any longer and start talking about latin styles and how they are losser and allow more expression etc....

[jim]

Phew!
I finally understand what you've been talking about!

As one of my most favourite leads, was a little confused, but now I get it.

:nice:

Does that mean you can see it it the different lead styles, and that it's not just my imagination?

[jim]

That's not what I mean. There are parts of the dance where I will definitely lead all of the rhythm (and I'll do so almost all of the time with inexperienced follows) and then there are parts where, should my follow choose to do something I'll respond to it.

Agent 000
Licensed to Dance

I knew some one was going to say that.

Another difference, many men lead the rythm of new dancers. Again I almost do the opposite. - I let them get on with it and once the can do under their own steam I say good - now try it my way.

[jim]

Jim, like RobD I also think this is an interesting post.

I can see what you're trying to say I just don't share the view. It sounds as if the dance and its emotion is only going one way, from you to the follow. If that was happening in the bedroom then I'd fully expect the lady to come to bed with the BOB already running...... Dancing is social intercourse and just like the sexual variety it is far more exciting if your partner is actively involved and coming up with their own fun ideas........
Agent 000
Licensed to Dance

You’re not wrong, but how do we square a fair lead and follow system and one that also entices men on to the floor?




So I can see where you're coming from but I just think that there is room for the follow to show their 'emotion' in the dance as well.

Agent 000
Licensed to Dance

I think it was David Bailey who said it's all about 'different solutions to the same problem'.

West coast might say this dance is all about the ladies and her interpretation, guys you are the frame.

But Latin dancers might say; guys your doing all the work at the moment. Let the women exhibit, let her 'shine'.

Or you might say use a salsa analogue. Maintain the frame; let the hips do the talking. - She’s working her side of the frame your working your side.

Different solutions. Different Systems. Lots of room for confusion.

[jim]

Blimey, are you related to Gadget? :what: :D

I thought of a funny answer to this, but then I'd have to take the thread upstairs. :innocent:

.

I've tried that. There are two types of female response. Oh what a fun new game we both dance in a jazzy solo style melting pot or 'why have you stopped leading'?

[Dottie]

Does that mean you can see it it the different lead styles, and that it's not just my imagination?


It's definitely not just your imagination - but I never thought it was.

[jim]

Well, if a follower doesn't "get it", it's the leader's fault for not being clear enough.



I'm glad you said this. Because it's been bugging me for a long time.

You’re a lead; you define the dance you want.

You’re a lead; you’re obliged to give the follower what she wants.

We both agreed to that at the beginning of the thread so;


If you as a lead want one thing and she wants another.

Do you lead or give her what she wants?

[David Bailey]

You’re a lead; you define the dance you want. [/FONT][/COLOR]

You’re a lead; you’re obliged to give the follower what she wants.

We both agreed to that at the beginning of the thread so;
Did we? I don't remember agreeing to the second - because I don't. It's a silly rule.

The only thing I think a lead must do, the only non-negotiable thing, is to avoid causing harm to the follower, or allowing the follower to come to harm.


If you as a lead want one thing and she wants another.

Do you lead or give her what she wants?
You lead.

[straycat]

If you as a lead want one thing and she wants another.
Do you lead or give her what she wants?

Both.

[David Bailey]

Both.

Well, yeah - but that's not really answering the question.

I think the question is, if the follower wants to do something different - if she doesn't like what you're leading, on purely "style" grounds - then what should happen?

My answer is: if it comes down to it, you lead; if the follower doesn't like it, then they simply have to tough it out for three minutes and not dance with you again.

Obviously, in 99% of cases, you can work out a compromise, and good leaders should of course adapt their styles to match the styles of their followers (I'd hope that shouldn't need to be said in here, but you never know). That "compromise" is part of the fun of the dance, after all.

But if it really really comes down to a choice between compromising the lead and keeping the follower happy, then I'd say you should not compromise the lead.

And the reason I'd say that is because, in the long run, I think a good clear lead is the best way of keeping followers happy.

But, as I said, this is more of a hypothetical thing than a real-world situation.

[straycat]

Well, yeah - but that's not really answering the question.

I think the question is, if the follower wants to do something different - if she doesn't like what you're leading, on purely "style" grounds - then what should happen?

What I meant was ... go with what she wants.... but lead it.

In this situation, here's four of your more obvious possible responses:

1) 'You go ahead, and I'll watch'
2) 'You go ahead, and I'll follow'
3) 'Aha. I get what you want. Now let me lead it.'
4) 'Forget what you want. You do what I want.'

Personally, I think option 1 is a bit dull for both parties, options 2 and 3 can both be fun, and option 4 is plain rude. From what Jim says, option 1 is a complete non-starter, and I don't think he's really into option 2. Which, so far as I'm concerned, only leaves option 3.

And remember - if you start off leading what she wants, you can always use that to finesse it back to what you want - which is far more fun than simply wrestling her for the lead.

(depending on what metaphor we're going with right now :innocent:)

[Gadget]

{erm... now you may understand the reference to me :blush:}

I’ve been having a bit of a revelations so bear with me…..
~
I remember watching Jordan start a dance and put a woman straight into a shine and I thought this was really odd. But now I get it; he’s getting a feel for how she moves. So she can lead her the way she wants to be lead.

I do exactly the opposite! I get her in close so she can get a feel for how I move.
This seems to me to be a 'latin' mentality to the dance; a dominant position with clearly defined "lead" and "follow" roles: Only one person can be in the driving seat at any time. And since you are the lead, this is you. The follower can direct you and influence where you are going, but more often than not if they try, they are 'back-seat-driving'.

To me, this seems a very selfish way to dance: you are expecting the follower to connect with you and move how you want them and dance to your beat.
Perfectly acceptable if you are dancing with someone who isn't as good as you at picking up cues from the music and has no desire to go anywhere other than the direction you are sending them in.
If you both want to dance 'together' as 'one body', then it has to be your body.



At times like this to be blunt, guys like me feel that we’re having sex with a woman using a vibrator. – She’s creating her own emotions – lead / man not required.A woman having sex with a vibrator knows how she wants to be touched, what moves her and how to bring herself the most pleasure... perhaps you can learn from that and add your own input to heighten the experience? Perhaps if you get in her rhythm you can over-lay your own rhythms and have an experience that is good for both of you? What you are doing obviously doesn't satisfy the follower, so where is the down side to learning what does?

Now if the follower has not had your pleasure yet, but is used to other leads who just don't do it for them, then who can blame them for not trusting you to bring them closer to the music? If you know you can please them, you have to get them to trust you first - and the quickest/best way to do that is to match your partner's rhythm before taking them into yours.


It’s no good saying I’ve heard something in the music I’m going to stop. What about me? what about my footwork? I am I in a position to stop?What about them? Are you not as guilty of ignoring their input as they are of ignoring yours? You are demanding that they listen to the music with your ears: can they not try and show you what they are hearing?
If you are good enough at leading to convey the emotion and lead it with enough clarity that the follower can follow it, then are you saying you are unable to adapt when they do something unexpected? That you cannot change your footwork or convert what you are doing into a stop? Somehow I doubt it.



You’re a lead; you define the dance you want.

You’re a lead; you’re obliged to give the follower what she wants.

We both agreed to that at the beginning of the thread so;
If you as a lead want one thing and she wants another.
Do you lead or give her what she wants?
There is no "or" in the statement - you change how you define the dance so that the follower wants what you lead. It's a partnership; when you lead a follower to step in on the first bit a first move, do you keep your feet planted, do you lead them to remain in the same place while you come to their side, or do you step in and meet them half way?

Some step in further than others. As a good lead, you adjust your step accordingly so that they are in the 'ideal' position for the next bit. As a good lead, you neither dominate the dance or become submissive - you meet half way and share the dance. You work with your partner, you do not comprimise; there is no "give and take"; you work together to both "give" to the dance. :cool:

[jim]

then are you saying you are unable to adapt when they do something unexpected? That you cannot change your footwork or convert what you are doing into a stop? Somehow I doubt it.



Sometimes I'm in a position to stop very easily, - no problem.

Sometimes followers ask me to stop at times when my body has a lot of momentum, at which point it can be very difficult. Which is why I said they need to be aware of my weight and what I can and can't do, in the same way we are aware of them when we are leading.




There is no "or" in the statement - you change how you define the dance so that the follower wants what you lead. It's a partnership; when you lead a follower to step in on the first bit a first move, do you keep your feet planted, do you lead them to remain in the same place while you come to their side, or do you step in and meet them half way?

Some step in further than others. As a good lead, you adjust your step accordingly so that they are in the 'ideal' position for the next bit. As a good lead, you neither dominate the dance or become submissive - you meet half way and share the dance. You work with your partner, you do not comprimise; there is no "give and take"; you work together to both "give" to the dance.

I've no doubt that using this kind of middle ground idea you will be popular and I’ve heard some teachers say similar things.

I do it as an experiment sometimes. In fact I led like this when I was a beginner. I know it has a nice Zen like feeling of harmony and sharing between the two of you.

Then I came to the conclusion that meeting in the middle is not lead and follow. Meeting in the middle is exactly what it is – meeting in the middle.

I know you going to say you ‘led’ the move, it’s still lead and follow.

But if I say to you gadget I want you to do a first move mambo for a minute.

You will lead the move 1 second and then spend the remaining 59 seconds meeting in the middle i.e. not leading.

That’s the way I look at it. I don’t expect to change your mind you’re using an idea that works and there’s other great dancers that agree with you.

But I would lead the step size I wanted (I have short legs so I’m unlikely to out stride the women) then I would lead big steps, then small steps, then mini steps, then I’d lead jumpy steps, - what ever I essentially wanted to lead.


It seems interesting to me that I lead the women’s rhythm, you meet them in the middle and Stray leads them in ‘their’ rhythm.

This thread has been really interesting, don’t you think?

[StokeBloke]

At times like this to be blunt, guys like me feel that we’re having sex with a woman using a vibrator. – She’s creating her own emotions – lead / man not required.
If you can make a dance engaging and entertaining enough then the follow will be too busy clutching at the sheets to even remember to reach for their vibrator. Let's face it, if the follow wasn't interested in partner dancing they would be down at the nearest disco doing their own thing already!

Part of the problem I feel, stems from class night teachers chanting the "this is a male led dance, here the lead is in control and ladies... you just follow" mantra. It's not true, it's not helpful and in the long run it may mean lots of follows end up reaching for Mr Buzzy :eyebrow:

[robd]

Part of the problem I feel, stems from class night teachers chanting the "this is a male led dance, here the lead is in control and ladies... you just follow" mantra. It's not true, it's not helpful and in the long run it may mean lots of follows end up reaching for Mr Buzzy :eyebrow:

I think that when this is said the intention is more that the followers should take note of the lead and try and follow it as opposed to just dancing through what they think the moves are going to be and/or doing their own thing regardless of the lead.



Sometimes followers ask me to stop at times when my body has a lot of momentum, at which point it can be very difficult. Which is why I said they need to be aware of my weight and what I can and can't do, in the same way we are aware of them when we are leading.

Yes, I can identify with that. Sometimes I see it as the leader leads the follow with little regard for the music (beyond being in time) and the follow reacts to the music with little regard for the leader. However, I appreciate that dancing musically whilst continuing to follow the lead is very difficult. Someone mentioned Jordan earlier in the thread - well, for me, the quality that marks his partner Tatiana out so highly is that she does all this incredible musical accenting and styling yet is still almost without exception following what her partner is leading.

Ultimately satisfying partner dancing (like good sex) is all about compatibility and there's no single right answer here. What works for Stokie and DTS (two proponents of the 'give the follower free rein' school of thinking) may not work for me or for some followers that they choose to dance with. I think in some ways I am guilty of thinking one thing and acting another because I know that I do give followers room to play and if they do hit accents or subvert the lead I will tend to be responsive to that yet I also know that my most satisfying dances are those where I feel that the follower has placed the value on following my lead higher than any other aspect of their dance.

[David Bailey]

Part of the problem I feel, stems from class night teachers chanting the "this is a male led dance, here the lead is in control and ladies... you just follow" mantra. It's not true, it's not helpful and in the long run it may mean lots of follows end up reaching for Mr Buzzy :eyebrow:

It's a lie-to-children.

It's not "true", but it's a useful simplification to tell people who've no idea how the lead-follow relationship works. It's much less damaging to give a simple-if-incomplete instruction, than it is not to - followers first-and-foremost need to learn to follow their lead.

Yes, like a lot of things in MJ, there's a lack of more detailed and complex instructions, expanding on the follower role, at the intermediate detail. So you tend to find intermediate followers having weird misconceptions about sabotaging being the same as interpretation, for example...

But I think the initial instruction is OK - how else would you phrase it to a beginner follower? (And leader for that matter)

[martingold]

It's a lie-to-children.

It's not "true", but it's a useful simplification to tell people who've no idea how the lead-follow relationship works. It's much less damaging to give a simple-if-incomplete instruction, than it is not to - followers first-and-foremost need to learn to follow their lead.

surely its much more dangerous in the beginner stage to give incomplete or even wrong instruction because this is the stage that we are supposed to be putting down the fundimental building blocks in both the lead and follows minds


But I think the initial instruction is OK - how else would you phrase it to a beginner follower? (And leader for that matter)

whenever i take the practice session i will show basic lead follow tension but say "when you are a beginner you are taught its the leads job to lead and the follows job to follow, however you will find later on that this isnt the complete story as sometimes when i am dancing i give the follower her own time or she might want to take that from me which is ok as well this is done purely by sensitive feeling of the follows movement a lot of what is said in dancing is done via the hold and the eyes" which gives the new beginners a chance to change at a later date rather than just programming them in the lead follow mentality

[straycat]

surely its much more dangerous in the beginner stage to give incomplete or even wrong instruction because this is the stage that we are supposed to be putting down the fundimental building blocks in both the lead and follows minds.

Perhaps, but if you try to tell beginners everything they need to know, even about stuff that seems incredibly simple (like the old chestnut of leading a back-step) you risk boring them to tears (or scaring them off), overloading them with too much information, and confusing them. In extreme cases, their heads explode, and then you get hit with lawsuits and cleaning bills.

Softly softly catchee dancer.

[David Bailey]

surely its much more dangerous in the beginner stage to give incomplete or even wrong instruction because this is the stage that we are supposed to be putting down the fundimental building blocks in both the lead and follows minds
No, because that happens with all learning processes - you learn the simplistic models first, then you should learn that "it's never that simple" when you move on. That's pretty common in all dance forms, and in fact it's the basis for the whole "You need to know the rules before you can break them" approach.

So it's not "wrong" to say "Ladies must follow, leaders must lead". It's just incomplete.

It's nuts to even try to provide a full and complete description of the lead-follow interaction process, including musicality, interpretation, feedback, and other factors, to the average beginner. It's fine to provide a simple easy-to-grasp model.

What's wrong - in my view - is that there's no "follow-on"; there's no structured way within MJ / Ceroc, to teach or learn the enhancements or complexities of this relationship as people go on.

For example:

whenever i take the practice session i will show basic lead follow tension but say "when you are a beginner you are taught its the leads job to lead and the follows job to follow, however you will find later on that this isnt the complete story as sometimes when i am dancing i give the follower her own time or she might want to take that from me which is ok as well this is done purely by sensitive feeling of the follows movement a lot of what is said in dancing is done via the hold and the eyes" which gives the new beginners a chance to change at a later date rather than just programming them in the lead follow mentality
And that's exactly what you should do - but this isn't something built in to the classes, this is just good practice which you and others are telling people.

Like a lot of other areas, Ceroc is poor on imparting this sort of thing as a standard.

[martingold]

No, because that happens with all learning processes - you learn the simplistic models first, then you should learn that "it's never that simple" when you move on. That's pretty common in all dance forms, and in fact it's the basis for the whole "You need to know the rules before you can break them" approach.

So it's not "wrong" to say "Ladies must follow, leaders must lead". It's just incomplete.


i disagree as i said earlier it is wrong to build this information in a beginners mind as total and non compromising and not tell them that this is a rule that will be broken further down the line.
But you can simplify the instruction because what you teach in the first 6 wks will be in their memory its always a lot harder to undo incorrect thoughts than to put the correct thoughts in at the first stages

[straycat]

i disagree as i said earlier it is wrong to build this information in a beginners mind and not tell them that this is a rule that will be broken further down the line even if you simplify the instruction because what you teach in the first 6 wks will be in their memory its always a lot harder to undo incorrect thoughts than to put the correct thoughts in at the first stages

Do you teach?

[martingold]

Do you teach?
no i am a taxi dancer who takes the practice session on a regular basis
but what has me teaching got to do with these opinions
its a well known fact that undonig mistakes are much harder to correct than doing things right in the first place

[robd]

no i am a taxi dancer who takes the practice session on a regular basis
but what has me teaching got to do with these opinions
its a well known fact that undonig mistakes are much harder to correct than doing things right in the first place

Resisting the urge to make a cheap crack about your spelling and the value you place on 'doing things right in the first place', I would point out that creating bad dance habits and simplifying what is taught do not have a direct relationship. The two dance teachers whom I have probably done the most lessons with have both made clear that what they teach for beginners is appropriate for that level but will require re-visiting if and when a dancer progresses.

[straycat]

but what has me teaching got to do with these opinions
If you did, you might change your mind ;)


its a well known fact that undonig mistakes are much harder to correct than doing things right in the first place

Agreed. It simply isn't feasible, however, to teach everything right from the start. Beginners simply couldn't cope with it - even intermediates can't.
You can't even do it in many advanced classes, although you can put in a lot more.

For beginners though, as David Bailey has already said, you give them what they can handle. Which is a lot less than in many dance forms, because you also have to make it fun, and you can't adopt the boot-camp mentality that would speed progress (you'd lose almost everyone that way)

It's an interesting balancing act.

[martingold]

Resisting the urge to make a cheap crack about your spelling and the value you place on 'doing things right in the first place',
i was taught bad spelling in the first place see that proves my point :whistle:

[martingold]

If you did, you might change your mind ;)
Agreed. It simply isn't feasible, however, to teach everything right from the start. Beginners simply couldn't cope with it - even intermediates can't.
You can't even do it in many advanced classes, although you can put in a lot more.

For beginners though, as David Bailey has already said, you give them what they can handle.
i agree with all of this however surely you should not tell them something which is totaly incorrect without at least telling them the proviso


It's an interesting balancing act.
very true

[straycat]

i agree with all of this however surely you should not tell them something which is totaly incorrect without at least telling them the proviso

But, as already established, the information under discussion is far from being "totally incorrect".

[robd]

But, as already established, the information under discussion is far from being "totally incorrect".

:yeah:

Incomplete is not the same as incorrect.

[David Bailey]

i agree with all of this however surely you should not tell them something which is totaly incorrect without at least telling them the proviso

I'll join in the chorus: in my view "Leaders must lead, followers must follow" is not totally incorrect - it's just a simplification.

The original quote is:

class night teachers chanting the "this is a male led dance, here the lead is in control and ladies... you just follow" mantra. It's not true, it's not helpful
(my bold) That's not "incorrect" - just incomplete.

[martingold]

:yeah:

Incomplete is not the same as incorrect.
but as its taught as total and built into the minds of the beginners it is incorrect

[robd]

but as its taught as total and built into the minds of the beginners it is incorrect

Well, it's been a while since I went to any Ceroc/MJ classes so things may have changed but I don't recall it ever being taught as the totality, either explicitly or by implication, at any of the classes I did attend.

[martingold]

Well, it's been a while since I went to any Ceroc/MJ classes so things may have changed but I don't recall it ever being taught as the totality, either explicitly or by implication, at any of the classes I did attend.

sadly it is taught exactly like that by the teachers in almost all the beginners classes i have been to over the last ten years and i usually attend at least one a week
And in fact what they normally say is this is a man lead dance and the ladies should allow them to do so

[David Bailey]

And in fact what they normally say is this is a man lead dance and the ladies should allow them to do so
Honestly, I think that's fine in that context - how would you phrase it then? In 15 words or less?


but as its taught as total and built into the minds of the beginners it is incorrect
Well, I assume it's emphasized - but that's different between "taught as total", I'm not sure what that means?

All lessons are simplifications, from a certain point of view. But you've got to be careful about putting in caveats, because you run the risk of confusing people.

[Gadget]

Sometimes followers ask me to stop at times when my body has a lot of momentum, at which point it can be very difficult. Which is why I said they need to be aware of my weight and what I can and can't do, in the same way we are aware of them when we are leading.
Being aware of your partner's weigh distrubution, momentum, what the follower can and cannot do from moment to moment in accordance to what you are leading... these things take a lead's lifetime to learn. Few leads ever get to the point when they are conceous of the follower's weight distribution. You expect a follower who interupts you to be aware of something that the majority of leads are not aware of?

Sure, sometimes it's difficult, unexpected, perhaps off-putting. But I see that as a challenge and a test of my ability as a lead; if I can dance with a beginner that travels, does not move when or how I lead them, are not where I expect them, ... then I can change and make that part of the dance. If a partner who knows what they are doing does this, then by changing and making it part of the dance I am bringing the 'outside input' into it: they may have been responsible for initalising the action, but you are responsible for bringing it into the dance again.
The question you seem to be posing is "Should you be?" Shouldn't the follower be able to work within the framework you give them - rather than doing something outside of it?

{bugger... lost the rest of the reply....TBC when I remember what I did wrote.}

[straycat]

And in fact what they normally say is this is a man lead dance and the ladies should allow them to do so

And the reason they do this is to try to get around the fact that having been told what they're doing during the lessons, most beginner followers will self-lead to a greater or lesser extent. So the beginner leads don't learn to lead - because they very often think they've led something successfully, when they have not. It's a topic which has been discussed often in other threads, but I need to repeat it to make the poin that in a beginners' lesson, it's actually extremely difficult to ensure that leaders learn to lead, and that followers learn to follow. If you make this statement, but then water it down by qualifying it in the way you suggest, you're going to confuse people as DB suggests. In the context of a beginners' lesson, the statement is IMO 100% correct.

Also - please bear in mind that this is coming from someone who is in in favour of followers sabotaging, hijacking and so on.

[David Bailey]

Hmmm, been thinking about rewording, and the best I can do in 15 words is:

This is a lead-and-follow dance. Followers, please allow your leaders to lead you.

The only real advantage of this is the removal of the gender-specific descriptions, but I really can't think of any way of putting it better... Maybe you could say "Followers, please wait for your leaders to lead"?

Any takers?

[StokeBloke]

Sorry to quote me, but I did say this a while back up the page:
Part of the problem I feel, stems from class night teachers chanting the "this is a male led dance, here the lead is in control and ladies... you just follow" mantra. It's not true, it's not helpful and in the long run it may mean lots of follows end up reaching for Mr Buzzy :eyebrow:
I think that when this is said the intention is ...

It's a lie-to-children.

It's not "true", but it's a useful simplification to ...

But, as already established, the information under discussion is far from being "totally incorrect".
As I said (in fact I emboldened it to make sure the point wasn't missed) I feel that ***PART *** of the problem is this repeated mantra. Yes it's how beginners are taught. What seems to be forgotten is that mantra doesn't get changed once the beginners reach a certain point. A Modern Jive class is an ever changing thing with new people joining all the time. So you will have people in a class that have been dancing for a couple of years who are still being told by the teacher that women should 'just follow'.

To pick up on a point that Straycat, robd and David have all made - this is indeed just an over simplification for expediency. I would agree that it is mostly a harmless tool to get a few rough and ready points across until the dancers reach a point where they are able to knock a few of the rougher edges off of their dancing.

However, THIS SIMPLY DOES NOT HAPPEN. That is my gripe! It's already been discussed here and on other threads (I claim a robd on this one - too lazy to find the actual posts to quote) that teaching follows to become more involved with the dance isn't taught. So leads never hear this initial 'fact' elaborated upon or dispelled, and follows are not taught how to break this 'foundation rule' that they have been spoon fed from week one for months or even years!

So, yes, it is a lie to children. But for pity's sake will someone please take the initiative and start teaching the intermediate class dancers how to flippin' dance and not just how to nail the front end of a yo-yo onto the back half of an acordian week-in week-out. Too much focus on moves not enough focus (if any) on actually dancing together to the music :banghead:

[robd]

However, THIS SIMPLY DOES NOT HAPPEN. That is my gripe! It's already been discussed here and on other threads ... that teaching follows to become more involved with the dance isn't taught.

But for pity's sake will someone please take the initiative and start teaching the intermediate class dancers how to flippin' dance and not just how to nail the front end of a yo-yo onto the back half of an acordian week-in week-out. Too much focus on moves not enough focus (if any) on actually dancing together to the music :banghead:

Proverbial can of worms here Stokie. Is it the responsibility of the weeknight MJ class to teach this? Are (any/some/most) MJ teachers and demos equipped to teach this? Are the MJ organisations giving the punters what they want with the focus on moves? Or is what the punters want determined by what the MJ organisations give (chicken and egg)?

[DavidB]

Personally I see nothing wrong with teaching beginners that "men lead and ladies follow". That is far more useful to the majority of the people who dance MJ than any other way of describing it.

I would refine it for intermediates:
"Men - if you want the ladies to do something, you have to lead it. And ladies - if the man leads something, then you should follow it".
The refinement opens up several possibilities for teaching, such as what happens if you don't lead. However I would keep the bulk of lead & follow teaching in workshops.

I definitely wouldn't call beginners 'leaders & followers', because they are probably confused enough anyway. I might when teaching intermediates, although if the class is composed of 100% male leaders and 100% female followers I don't see the point.

If the nature of MJ changed from a predominantly 'male led-female followed' dance, then I'd stop doing it.

[TA Guy]

but as its taught as total and built into the minds of the beginners it is incorrect

Late to this discussion ;)

How is it incorrect ?
Are you expecting beginner follows to sabotage, maybe a bit of play, or beginner leads to hand out invitations to play ?

It is 100% correct. There is no point at which you should stand upon a stage and say to people just 'off the streets' (aka beginners :)) something like "Follows, you don't have to let the lead follow you, by all means hold you ground and play" !!! Can you imagine the carnage ? :really:

I don't even think you should add a proviso. It's not necessary. It is not the responsibility of your local weekly MJ lesson to teach or even hint at advanced lead/follow techniques IMO. Think of all the advanced technique out there, where would you stop ? Save that for advanced classes, workshops, privates and weekenders.

Static lead/follow is the rule IMO, dynamic lead and follow happens when the rule is broken. You have to learn the rules before you can break them :)

[David Bailey]

Late to this discussion ;)

Some people are so unreliable. :na:

OK, in terms of how to phrase it for intermediates, I'd talk more about the invitational nature of a lead, with demonstrations of how a lead can be "interpreted" or even refused under some circumstances.

I'd probably also waffle on about pre-leads, body vs. hand-leads, and then rabbit on until someone shut me up. :grin:

[StokeBloke]

Proverbial can of worms here Stokie. Is it the responsibility of the weeknight MJ class to teach this?
Yes.

Caveat: If a teacher wants to teach beginners ANY rough and ready rules to get them started, it falls upon them to correct this at a later date.

[straycat]

I'd proba

You were saying? :D

[martingold]

Late to this discussion ;)

How is it incorrect ?




simply because the amount of leaders who once taught this (as stokie calls it) mantra will never change
In a MJ lesson people talk of muscle memory building moves purely by practicing moves and continually being told its man lead woman follow

The amount of good intermediate move based lead follow dancers i talk to now who think the whole rule of mj is one leads the other follows and thats a strict rule no opening for change or for interprItation of the rule

They constantly tell me they think the follows are bored with their small repetoire of about 50 or so moves (indead untill i found this forum and started dancing outside of the local club scene just over a year ago i thought this way as well)
It was almost as if my eyes were opened to a whole new dance which i could fall in love with once again

All i am saying is if you teach something as a fundimental non changing building block dont be supprised when they turn round and tell you that you are wrong when you try to show them a different way 5 yrs down the line

[bigdjiver]

i was taught bad spelling in the first place see that proves my point :whistle:My wife was an infant teacher. It worried me when she wrote "well done!" on work that had uncorrected spelling errors. She told me that at that stage it was more important to build the confidence of children and for them to enjoy writing. I was unconvinced. However year after year she was getting above average results from deprived children. Her children did as well as average in spelling tests when they got to that stage. One way they could have made fewer mistakes was to write less. This experience is part of the basis of my opinions about the teaching of MJ should first and foremost be about fun.

This has been reinforced by being fortunate enough to have experienced lessons by Michaella Walker, who combines fun, good Ceroc teaching, and slipping in style points here and there. I have also been fortunate enough to be able to see how commercially successful her style of teaching is compared to the average Ceroc teacher.

[straycat]

In a MJ lesson people talk of muscle memory building moves purely by practicing moves and continually being told its man lead woman follow

It's that old saying that you have to understand the rules in order to be able to break them. I strongly suspect that the kinds of utterly disruptive sabotage that DB et al complain about comes from follows who never learned to follow that well in the first place. The people who do it really well generally have an excellent understanding of lead / follow / connection.

Learn to do it by the book first (except where this goes against the 'having fun' rule). Learn to mess around later. It makes for far better dancers. And - at the risk of re-opening a can of worms - are you suggesting there's something wrong with using practice to get movements into muscle memory? :cool:

[David Franklin]

It's that old saying that you have to understand the rules in order to be able to break them. I strongly suspect that the kinds of utterly disruptive sabotage that DB et al complain about comes from follows who never learned to follow that well in the first place.That's certainly my experience. Of course, there's also a vicious circle effect: if you're not a great follower anyhow, and you try to sabotage, chances are I'm just going to think "Oh dear, that's not gone right - better do something to correct it". That usually works in me sabotaging your sabotage, and neither of us particularly enjoying the result.


The people who do it really well generally have an excellent understanding of lead / follow / connection.Absolutely. In fact I've never experienced it done well unless the follower was in the "Bl**dy hell, you're good!" echelon of MJ-dancers.

[martingold]

It's that old saying that you have to understand the rules in order to be able to break them. I strongly suspect that the kinds of utterly disruptive sabotage that DB et al complain about comes from follows who never learned to follow that well in the first place. The people who do it really well generally have an excellent understanding of lead / follow / connection.

Learn to do it by the book first (except where this goes against the 'having fun' rule). Learn to mess around later. It makes for far better dancers.


Of course i am not saying that beginners should be taught sabotage, hijack or even playing for that matter

what i am saying is that when you define something as an absolute rule ie man lead women follow you will have a lot of trouble changing that 3 or 4 years down the line i personally feel you need to put in a proviso as i said in this much earlier post



whenever i take the practice session i will show basic lead follow tension but say "when you are a beginner you are taught its the leads job to lead and the follows job to follow, however you will find later on that this isnt the complete story as sometimes when i am dancing i give the follower her own time or she might want to take that from me which is ok as well this is done purely by sensitive feeling of the follows movement a lot of what is said in dancing is done via the hold and the eyes" which gives the new beginners a chance to change at a later date rather than just programming them in the lead follow mentality


at the risk of re-opening a can of worms - are you suggesting there's something wrong with using practice to get movements into muscle memory? :cool:

Nope never once did i say that because i know that it is absolutely essential to make the moves second nature so that you never need to think about steps during a move while dancing it

[Agente Secreto]

…………….for pity's sake will someone please take the initiative and start teaching the intermediate class dancers how to flippin' dance and not just how to nail the front end of a yo-yo onto the back half of an accordion week-in week-out. Too much focus on moves not enough focus (if any) on actually dancing together to the music
SnowWhite does teach this – and for those receptive to the messages it does make a difference and generate a group of follows that can ‘ebb and flow’ with the dance. In fact this is part of her mission statement. I’m sure that there are others out there doing the same. However - is it viable (see my final comments below)?


Proverbial can of worms here Stokie. Is it the responsibility of the weeknight MJ class to teach this? Are (any/some/most) MJ teachers and demos equipped to teach this? Are the MJ organisations giving the punters what they want with the focus on moves? Or is what the punters want determined by what the MJ organisations give (chicken and egg)?

My opinion - the latter part of your post is the reality. Although I’m sure that many of the teachers in normal MJ classes could teach people to dance (as opposed to simply stringing moves together to a thump-thump beat) they don’t. The result is that many (most?) dancers, lead or follow, remain blissfully unaware that far more enjoyment can be had if you don’t simply go down the ‘move monster’ route. However, this unconscious majority is already having a good time - so they don’t ask for anything different and the teachers carry on teaching moves.

I'm glad I've experienced something different but the success of the current MJ model in getting people through the door probably means that I'm resigned to being in a minority for some time. In fact its probably worse than that. The venues that get people 'dancing to the music' to use Stokie's expression require the punters to think and work a little bit harder in the beginning and that might even put some people off. So are true 'dance' venues as commercially viable?




Agent 000
Licensed to Dance

[bigdjiver]

SnowWhite does teach this – and for those receptive to the messages it does make a difference and generate a group of follows that can ‘ebb and flow’ with the dance. In fact this is part of her mission statement. I’m sure that there are others out there doing the same. However - is it viable ...?
It was not viable in Bedford. The Ceroc crowd came, glad to have the opportunity of a Monday night again. (Phil had just closed Bedford Monday.) They did not stay. In particular the women did not stay. It was a regular thing for the night to start with an excess of men. When some of Snow Whites lady dancers arrived later they often danced lead.

I found myself back at beginner intermediate level again. I woul lead a Ceroc move and the follow would go into a SW sabotage/play/whatever variation and I was left flummoxed. Unfortunately the classes did not last long enough for me to get unflummoxed.

If I had learned the SW way from the start and /or for longer I would have got on a lot better. Unfortunately her classes are not reachable by me so I cannot comment on viability, but my impression is that they work, perhaps for a slightly different set of dancers.

[StokeBloke]

It was not viable in Bedford. The Ceroc crowd came, glad to have the opportunity of a Monday night again. (Phil had just closed Bedford Monday.) They did not stay. In particular the women did not stay. It was a regular thing for the night to start with an excess of men. When some of Snow Whites lady dancers arrived later they often danced lead.

I found myself back at beginner intermediate level again. I woul lead a Ceroc move and the follow would go into a SW sabotage/play/whatever variation and I was left flummoxed. Unfortunately the classes did not last long enough for me to get unflummoxed.

If I had learned the SW way from the start and /or for longer I would have got on a lot better. Unfortunately her classes are not reachable by me so I cannot comment on viability, but my impression is that they work, perhaps for a slightly different set of dancers.
This is a sad indictment, not of Sara White or her brilliant dancers, but of the other teachers in your area who are obviously happy to do the bare minimum for their students.

Now, please don't take this as a personal attack (it really isn't). But, you say that you would lead a Ceroc move and the follow would do something unexpected. Perhaps the Ceroc move you were leading wasn't being clearly led. Of course this is just a perhaps. But stick with me on this train of thought for a moment. If this was the case, then this may result in a follow NOT sabotaging your move, but merely following what you were actually leading - rather than what you think you were leading. After all Ceroc is not renowned for teaching leaders how to accomplish a clear lead, whereas Sara White is renowned for teaching follows how to follow what is led superbly well.

I think part of this stems from the fact that people dance for many different reasons. Some people want to learn the skills needed to create a fluid dance, whereas others are more than happy to be bounced through a series of moves once a week. Neither of these groups are 'wrong'. But there may be a mismatch when they try to dance together :flower:

[bigdjiver]

This is a sad indictment, not of Sara White or her brilliant dancers, but of the other teachers in your area who are obviously happy to do the bare minimum for their students... Sarah is doing a great job widening the scope of MJ.

The teachers in my accessible area teach Ceroc very well.


But, you say that you would lead a Ceroc move and the follow would do something unexpected. Perhaps the Ceroc move you were leading wasn't being clearly led...I suspect the CEROC move was being clearly, but lightly, led. I was aware that the follows might have been taught something different, or might have different ideas.


... this may result in a follow NOT sabotaging your move, but merely following what you were actually leading - rather than what you think you were leading...At this class Sara was teaching a mix of newcomers and long time MJ'ers. She built on moves Cerocer's would already know and taught variations where the follow could play. On some occasions I had been taught Sara's version and could not remember or react quickly enough. On other occasions the move would be taught in a subsequent class and I would remember it. In both cases it would spoil a good dance with a good partner. As I said I was back at beginning intermediate level in a new to me variation on the MJ dance form that I had not learned at Ceroc, Leroc, Le Jive or Jive Vibe, or before those existed.


...I think part of this stems from the fact that people dance for many different reasons. Some people want to learn the skills needed to create a fluid dance, whereas others are more than happy to be bounced through a series of moves once a week. Neither of these groups are 'wrong'. But there may be a mismatch when they try to dance together :flower::yeah: I love bouncing through some tracks, but also have a desire to Dance to some great music, and play to other tracks. I love MJ because it is all possible.

[Agente Secreto]

I think that Bedford has challenged a couple of people. Did Dave Plummer also not try there too - and as has been said Phil Roberts was forced to close down his Monday night. Maybe it's something in the air..........:rolleyes: When I used to dance on Monday nights at Bedford, my wife used to get annoyed too, but that was because she couldn't get dances with me or some of the other guys as we were continuously occupied by some of the ladies that had come from 'Ceroc' who seemed to want to dance doing more than moves.

I didn't ask whether SnowWhite's venues are viable - she's just celebrated 3 years of classes, often in the face of 'spoiling' tactics from the local large franchised dance organisation :flower: as bigd intimated in another thread somewhere, so clearly they are. I owe the fact that I can dance (no comments invited) to great music to her approach and to the teaching in normal class nights that came from it (with the occasional musicality workshop from SnowWhite and CJ thrown in).

In fact my challenge is now that if I go to many other class nights I'm not satisfied just banging out moves and I can never seem to find enough follows that truly want to (or are able to) dance. Often if I lead variations in timings, or carve moves together from thin air I get faced with a confused look, regardless of how careful I am to make sure that I've built proper connection, have developed complete focus on my partner, or been specific about my lead. I've had several ladies correct me, one by counting me through a catapult because I had the sheer cheek to walk her round for a beat or two before spinning her out and she felt the need to demonstrate to me how such moves were done:banghead:.

That's a long-winded way of agreeing with what Stokie said. When I've been to classes the moves being taught are MJ moves, occasionally with variations for both lead and follow, but rarely have any deliberate acts of sabotage been taught. However, I have often heard a move being taught with the statement to the follows that if it's not being led then don't follow. That might mean that the lead-follow dynamic is a little different than the Ceroc norm where perhaps lead and follow get comfortable (lazy:flower:) with moves being done in a standard way all the time and being faced with 'dancing' is a bit of a shock.

I'm not intending to make a sweeping generalisation, I don't dance enough at Ceroc class nights to be able to state anything about them with any degree of authority. I liked the Ceroc venue at Marcos in Edinburgh where there were great dancers (although classes were very moves focussed) - but I've not been there for a while so don't know what this venue is like now. Also, lots of the people I love dancing with at Jivenites venues also go to local Ceroc classes too so clearly 'dancing' is not an unknown quantity outside Jivenites. I've thought about this a bit recently because after my enforced absence from dance with a bad back when I returned there were a couple of these ladies that I discovered tickled my dance taste buds far more than I'd remembered they did - clearly the Jivenites dance influence having had a positive effect.

Agent 000
Licensed to Dance

[jim]

Being aware of your partner's weigh distrubution, momentum, what the follower can and cannot do from moment to moment in accordance to what you are leading... these things take a lead's lifetime to learn. Few leads ever get to the point when they are conceous of the follower's weight distribution. You expect a follower who interupts you to be aware of something that the majority of leads are not aware of?


I was talking about very accomplished followers. I think most of us will bend over backwards for less experienced dancers. :flower:

[Whitebeard]

I was talking about very accomplished followers. I think most of us will bend over backwards for less experienced dancers. :flower:

(I always entertain rather indecent thoughts when I hear that phrase.)

_________________
"Clive ! I'm shocked" Fletch

[Flat_Eric]

Wow! What a thread. Having read some of the comments, I thought that it may be time for some reframing. Starting with the words of “leading” and “following”, then towards the contract between partners during a dance:

- Leading and following is a simplification of what happens in MJ. This is a good way to start for people to acquire the vocabulary of the dance

- With that being said, the practical reality of leading and following is bigger, much bigger than that. Sabotaging is one case, but there are numerous others. Some examples: some of you attentive leaders will have noticed that ladies hint, often unconsciously, a move they’d like to have happen in the dance. Another one, from my own experience: several of my leads are actually “fake”, in the sense that the signal can mean a number of things. What interests me is which one the lady will go for, depending; richer of knowing how she reacts to the choice (surprise, excitement, reactivity…), I can then select appropriate moves for her and for us in the forthcoming beats.

There are numerous instances of this, but the point is: as much as leading and following may act as the safety net of the dance, the reality is a lot more complex

- Now, to the “correctness” of leading: this one is simple enough: the leader’s outcome is to have the follower engage into, go through and complete the move elegantly and seamlessly. It’s pretty all that matters, isn’t it? So, rather than count on predefined conventions, define your outcome and act accordingly. A basic application would have to do with leading “unconventional” moves in freestyle. How would you, for example, get the lady to offer the left hand rather than the usual right? If there is a move that you do that is “not in the book”, what do you, as a leader, need to do so that the lady performs it the way it’s meant to, and with no previous briefing or vocal command?

With all that being said, the question of sabotaging can now come into play:

- The term, in itself, is a bit misleading: the girl is interrupting the lead of her own initiative. My assumption for her doing this is that , with the contract of being the same (ie: the two of you are dancing together vs. you are not dancing with one of the egomaniacs for whom leaders are a disposable dance floor version of a rampant rabbit), her intention for changing the rules unexpectidly is to mae the dance an even better one, and that it will make the dance better for the two of you. Note here: if a girl sabotages for good reasons, she is also assuming that the leader is capable of handling the sabotage. In a way, this is a compliment to the leading skills of the man she's dancing with.

How to react? Any way that contributes to the common aim is fine, and the break in convention that just happened is an invitation for the leader to get creative. Normally, lead steals happen in the middle or later part of a dance, so a good leader will hopefully know enough about his partner to generate an appropriate response by then
In all simplicity, dancing has something of a “you bring the wine, I bring the cheese” logic. Whatever works, whatever is good! If a follower gets more of stealing a move, she should certainly do so, and I should be flexible enough to make my lead an “active following” when this happens.

- To finish with: as essential and necessary as simplifications like the “men lead, women follow” convention may be to learning, they are guidelines and just that. I like the idea of sabotage being taught at lessons because it opens the door to those -women AND men!- who are ready to learn it. Chances are that women who prefer a full “follower” mode may not add the move to their repertoire. On their side, men can prepare for such a possibility, expand their understanding of leading - from it being a rule to becoming a convention, then a flexible guideline and finally just an ingredient that any partner of the dance may carry at any given time - and also take the opportunity to incorporate the beautiful world of following in what they do.

FE

[Gadget]

As a side note, I have found that the people who follow (almost) perfectly provide very nice dances, and smooth dances, and dances that match whatever I put into the music.

But the result is a dance where I am 'using' the follower like a prop. A responsive and elegant prop that I can use to embellish the dance. It's a lot of work - all the inspiration and creativity has to come from me.

With someone who does not follow 'perfectly', I am given opportunities, inspiration and some feedback as to my partner's ability and their hearing of the music. The dance becomes more of a partnership as the decisions on what/where to move are heavily influenced by my partner. I find dances like this much easier and can be much more fulfilling, dramatic and exciting than being a puppet master with the perfect follower.

[StokeBloke]

As a side note, I have found that the people who follow (almost) perfectly provide very nice dances, and smooth dances, and dances that match whatever I put into the music.

But the result is a dance where I am 'using' the follower like a prop. A responsive and elegant prop that I can use to embellish the dance. It's a lot of work - all the inspiration and creativity has to come from me.

With someone who does not follow 'perfectly', I am given opportunities, inspiration and some feedback as to my partner's ability and their hearing of the music. The dance becomes more of a partnership as the decisions on what/where to move are heavily influenced by my partner. I find dances like this much easier and can be much more fulfilling, dramatic and exciting than being a puppet master with the perfect follower.
:yeah:In which case maybe the definition of 'perfect follower' needs to be revised. Because I know which of those two dances sounds more perfect to me. Maybe replace perfect with concise, accurate, flawless or some other word that defines absolute niceness? But perfect? Maybe that should be reserved for the latter of the two dancers you described.

[martingold]

As a side note, I have found that the people who follow (almost) perfectly provide very nice dances, and smooth dances, and dances that match whatever I put into the music.

But the result is a dance where I am 'using' the follower like a prop. A responsive and elegant prop that I can use to embellish the dance. It's a lot of work - all the inspiration and creativity has to come from me.

With someone who does not follow 'perfectly', I am given opportunities, inspiration and some feedback as to my partner's ability and their hearing of the music. The dance becomes more of a partnership as the decisions on what/where to move are heavily influenced by my partner. I find dances like this much easier and can be much more fulfilling, dramatic and exciting than being a puppet master with the perfect follower.


:yeah:In which case maybe the definition of 'perfect follower' needs to be revised. Because I know which of those two dances sounds more perfect to me. Maybe replace perfect with concise, accurate, flawless or some other word that defines absolute niceness? But perfect? Maybe that should be reserved for the latter of the two dancers you described.

Im with you on that one stokie

personally the dance is much more rewarding when a follow adds their own interpretation to the dance
My leads are purely invitations and i am in heaven when dancing with the likes of jay jay, sunnybunny or maxine (and most other forumite follows that i know including DTS) who will have a play with the dance

[robd]

My leads are purely invitations and i am in heaven when dancing with the likes of jay jay, sunnybunny or maxine (and most other forumite follows that i know including DTS) who will have a play with the dance

Perhaps a different way of looking at it is that you are a lazy leader lacking the skill or the will for the role and therefore only too happy to shirk your duty and abdicate responsibility for the dance to someone else. I am not saying that's how I would describe it but it's one possible interpretation :devil:

[martingold]

Perhaps a different way of looking at it is that you are a lazy leader lacking the skill or the will for the role and therefore only too happy to shirk your duty and abdicate responsibility for the dance to someone else. I am not saying that's how I would describe it but it's one possible interpretation :devil:
no i am just a gentleman and not a bully so i dont intend to dominate the whole dance by insisting my partner does as i command
i allow them the space to play if they want to
And by the way its a lot more demanding to the lead if done properly as you are constantly kept on your toes by the follow

[MartinHarper]

There are plenty of Modern Jive followers who refuse to follow, and Modern Jive leaders who let them. Everyone can see examples of that aesthetic on the dance floor of their local venue. If they're not copying, it's because they don't want to, not because they've been brainwashed by the teacher.


It seems interesting to me that I lead the women’s rhythm, you meet them in the middle and Stray leads them in ‘their’ rhythm.

In what way are you leading your partner's rhythm? Obviously the music is 4/4, and I guess you dance to that. Do you dance ahead of the beat, or behind the beat, and lead that? Do you lead swung quavers when the music is straight quavers, or vica versa? Do you lead half time or double time? Do you lead syncopated movements? Do you build tension by hitting a beat late and then resolve that tension at a break? Something else?

[jim]

In what way are you leading your partner's rhythm? Obviously the music is 4/4, and I guess you dance to that. Do you dance ahead of the beat, or behind the beat, and lead that? Do you lead swung quavers when the music is straight quavers, or vica versa? Do you lead half time or double time? Do you lead syncopated movements? Do you build tension by hitting a beat late and then resolve that tension at a break? Something else?

Clearly I don't understand as mush about music as you.

But yes I can lead half time or double time and some syncopations.

But I guess more importantly I'm talking about 'setting the tone'.
I could dance to the vocal or the percussion or I could dance to the actual beat. Or I could dance to the meter i.e. the 'clapping' sound.

Obviously there’s ‘a way’ of doing jive and I try to largely stick to the ‘convention’.

If you take beats as an example you can accelerate quickly into a beat and stop abruptly or you could maintain a steady speed of movement from one beat to the next, or you could float gently over them merely nodding at them as they pass.

- You have different possible interpretations at your disposal.

For example, once I was dancing with a woman and we weren’t really gelling. And then she said ‘I get it we’re dancing to different parts of the music’. She was dancing to the beat (short and abrupt) and I was dancing to the vocal and instrumental part (smooth). On that occasion I lead to her rhythm because I picked up on it before she picked up on mine.

But I would say that strictly speaking since she is a follower and I am the lead, she should follow my rhythm and not vice versa.

And I don’t just think that because I am obsessed by rules and conventions. I personally find it very difficult to lead in some else rhythm.

I have a feeling that following in someone else’s rhythm is easier than leading in someone else’s rhythm.

I do say that as a lead who can’t follow though, so maybe someone who does both could tell us?

[Gadget]

But I would say that strictly speaking since she is a follower and I am the lead, she should follow my rhythm and not vice versa.
Would you? I would say that strictly speaking, since you are dancing with her, and she has consented to dance with you, you should follow her rhythm.

Have you ever danced solo - the night-club two-step? In order to dance with someone in the muggle world you have to dance to their rhythm. If you get the timing right, matching your foot falls with hers, your body movement and timing with hers; then it's soooo much easier to dance with them, to communicate your intention and lead them properly. You know what people talk about when speaking about "connection" within a lead? this is connection outwith the lead.


And I don’t just think that because I am obsessed by rules and conventions. I personally find it very difficult to lead in some else rhythm. Never said it was easy :wink: But the reward is that everything else gets a fraction easier.


I have a feeling that following in someone else’s rhythm is easier than leading in someone else’s rhythm.Why? How do you pick up on the rhythm within a song? Is it just there? If a follower feels her rhythm, how do you think it would be easier for her to change rather than you? Personally I think that it's a bit selfish expecting your follower to do something you're not prepared to do.

{BTW I can lead a damn sight better than I can follow. :phhht:}

[robd]

Would you? I would say that strictly speaking, since you are dancing with her, and she has consented to dance with you, you should follow her rhythm.


Unless she was the one who requested the dance in which case the leader is the one consenting to dance.

[Easily Led]

Does this mean you prefer to do the asking rather than be asked?

[Gav]

I would say that strictly speaking since she is a follower and I am the lead, she should follow my rhythm and not vice versa.

Would you? I would say that strictly speaking, since you are dancing with her, and she has consented to dance with you, you should follow her rhythm.


Unless she was the one who requested the dance in which case the leader is the one consenting to dance.

It may just be semantics, but I'd say that any reference to "consenting" to dance with someone is just utter bullsh1t.
That antiquated way of looking at it makes it sound like they're doing you a favour by agreeing to dance with you and you should make every concession to repay them for it.
AFAIC, whoever asks, once the offer has been accepted, no-one has the upper hand or the right to expect the other to follow a rhythm. Once you hit the dancefloor it becomes a partnership where you work together. Either that, or one person enforces their will and the dance is much less enjoyable.

[Dreadful Scathe]

Would you? I would say that strictly speaking, since you are dancing with her, and she has consented to dance with you, you should follow her rhythm.


Surely you should follow the rhythm of the music and then the rhythm of the person you are dancing with in that order - who asked who doesn't enter into it, because if you are not connected rhythmically you may as well not bother :)

[Agente Secreto]

It may just be semantics, but I'd say that any reference to "consenting" to dance with someone is just utter bullsh1t.
That antiquated way of looking at it makes it sound like they're doing you a favour by agreeing to dance with you and you should make every concession to repay them for it.
AFAIC, whoever asks, once the offer has been accepted, no-one has the upper hand or the right to expect the other to follow a rhythm. Once you hit the dancefloor it becomes a partnership where you work together. Either that, or one person enforces their will and the dance is much less enjoyable.
:yeah:

And all this talk about leading rhythms makes it sound as if on any given track there is only one possible option for extracting a rhythm. Can't speak for anyone else, you may all be a lot more consistent than I am, but depending on how I feel and how the follow is interacting with me I can find different rhythms in the same track quite easily depending on what instrument I'm picking up on. And if I can do that then it is highly likely that whatever rhythm I am thinking of the follow might have something entirely different buzzing in her head and, perish the thought, might want to dance to it in which case it is only polite of me to respond with enthusiasm :whistle:

Surely dance is about coming to a level of connection and partnership as Gav says, where you achieve a sort of Holy Trinity of dance (idea plaguerised shamelessy from CJ:flower:) of you, your partner, and of course the music. All this talk of control and leading rhythms upon each other sounds like there is some fight for dominance over the dance which can't be the objective, or am I missing something fundamental?:confused:

Agent 000
Licensed to Dance

[Easily Led]

Does this mean you prefer to do the asking rather than be asked?

Sorry was not awake this morning :blush:. What I meant was - if that is what you think, do you prefer to be asked so that you feel you can be in charge :confused: ?

[bigdjiver]

Surely you should follow the rhythm of the music and then the rhythm of the person you are dancing with in that order ...It is possible to dance without any audible music. It is possible to follow in such a dance. It is possible to have an amazing feeling of connection in such a dance.


... who asked who doesn't enter into it,... I think I have a different view of what "leader" means.


... because if you are not connected rhythmically you may as well not botherIf a partnership is not connected rhythmically it may be worth bothering trying to learn how to fix it.

Its a journey.

[jim]

:yeah:
Surely dance is about coming to a level of connection and partnership as Gav says, where you achieve a sort of Holy Trinity of dance (idea plaguerised shamelessy from CJ:flower:) of you, your partner, and of course the music.

Agent 000
Licensed to Dance


Exactly because you could go;

1) the music 2) you partner 3) you.

Or

1) the music 2) you 3) your parnter.

Or even


-----The music-------


You --------- your partner

A sort of interlated triangle of connection.

They can all work. There just different ways of approching the same problem.

[MartinHarper]

Have you ever danced solo - the night-club two-step?

Nightclub two step is a partner dance.


I would say that strictly speaking since she is a follower and I am the lead, she should follow my rhythm and not vice versa.

First off, thanks for explaining what you meant by rhythm. I'd characterise one aspect of that as "smooth vs staccato", and I see that you're talking about other aspects too.

I think that the answer to your question depends on the level of the dancers. If two beginners dance together, then they will each have their rhythm, and they are unlikely to be well enough connected to have much of a problem with that. If a beginner dances with an intermediate (or an advanced dancer), the connection will be better, and the intermediate will be able to dance in many rhythms and thus can adapt to the rhythm of the beginner. This is a good adaptation to make, for both leaders and followers. When two intermediates dance together, or an intermediate dancer dances with an advanced dancer, they can both dance in a variety of rhythms. Here, I think the dance works best if the leaders leads the rhythm of choice and the follower follows. This allows for swift changes of rhythm to match the music. When advanced folks dance together, you sometimes start to see more bidirectional communication of rhythm, just as you see more bidirectional communication in other aspects of lead-and-follow.


I have a feeling that following in someone else’s rhythm is easier than leading in someone else’s rhythm.

Better dancers should ideally be able to dance smooth, or staccato, early or late, syncopated or simple, without feeling that they are dancing in "someone else’s rhythm". Until then, I agree that it's easier for a follower to adjust. When I'm following, all my attention should be on my partner, so his rhythm should be relatively obvious. Leaders need to pay attention to more things, and may not be able to pinpoint the differences that are causing problems.

[Gadget]

Nightclub two step is a partner dance.:confused: is it? I was referring to "handbag" dancing - what people do in a night-club on the dance floor when the music is playing. {A standard nightclub: none of those kinky specialist clubs that I've heard about :rolleyes:}

[straycat]

:confused: is it? I was referring to "handbag" dancing - what people do in a night-club on the dance floor when the music is playing.

It surely is (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKjDnGJ4Np4).

[Agente Secreto]

It surely is (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKjDnGJ4Np4).

Stray, don't think Gadget is disagreeing with you. He's probably meaning the old side-to-side shuffle that you see the muggles doing in noisy clubs and not NC2S which as you say is definitely a partner dance.

[Agente Secreto]

When advanced folks dance together, you sometimes start to see more bidirectional communication of rhythm, just as you see more bidirectional communication in other aspects of lead-and-follow.

I love this description, but it can't be right since I can manage this with several of the follows I dance with and we're not advanced.:waycool:

I think that lots of people could reach this kind of bi-directional dancing if they were taught differently. Back to the debate about teaching people to dance rather than simply teaching them to do moves to a rigid timing and a thumping track............

Agent 000
Licensed to Dance

[straycat]

Stray, don't think Gadget is disagreeing with you.

I don't think that ;). I think he asked Martin a question, and I think I gave an answer. I think there's an even chance that the answer might have been informative (unlike this one, which is just self-indulgent of me :rolleyes:). Or at least - I think I think that. There's always the chance that I'm spectacularly wrong, and have brought about the premature end of the world. Which wasn't really supposed to happen until next week. :cool:

[jim]

Martin, I think you understand exactly what I'm talking about. Thank you for you reply.

[jivecat]

It's already been discussed here and on other threads (I claim a robd on this one - too lazy to find the actual posts to quote) that teaching follows to become more involved with the dance isn't taught.

I am never more involved with a dance than when I am concentrating completely on picking up the signals the leader is giving me, both consciously and unconsciously, so that the dance is as smooth and seamless and "at one" with each other - and the music - as possible. To give the leader full attention in this way seems to me to be the utmost compliment a follower can pay which is apparently unappreciated by some leaders. To say that followers can be more involved with the dance by pursuing their own agenda is quite contrary, IMO. The pressure to "play", whether it's an appropriate moment for me or not, can take away that element of concentration from a good dance rather than enhance it.




no i am just a gentleman and not a bully so i dont intend to dominate the whole dance by insisting my partner does as i command
i allow them the space to play if they want to


If the leader suddenly stops leading with the follower kept waiting out on the end of his arm until she "does something playful", she has very little choice in the matter even if no domination is intended. That is not the same as allowing them space, that is forcing them to take the space whether it fits with her mood or the music or not.

It remains my belief that leaders should maintain a smooth, continuous and musical lead (ideally) and that followers should fit their interpretative elements into that framework. Anything else just results in dance floor anarchy.

[timbp]

My leads are purely invitations

So are mine.

Of course, the tone of the invitation may vary from "His Supreme Ultimateness invites you to grovel at His Feet" to "I'm goin' down the street. Y'wanna come too?".

[timbp]

I understand the 'picture/frame' analogy you refer to as meaning this: the picture is the focus and the frame is there to show off the picture to the maximum.

I spent many years as a copyeditor. A copyeditor corrects spelling, grammar, punctuation and other errors so that the author's message can get through to the reader with as few misunderstandings as possible.
At an editors' christmas party there was a competition to give one sentence to sum up "editing".
I won with "Editing is an art only apparent in its absence".
How often have you read a book and commented at the end that the spelling and grammar was perfect and the copyeditor must have done a good job?
And how often have you commented that the book would have been better with a decent copyeditor? (Maybe I'm the only person who notices these things.)

In a dance performance, if people watch the follower and everything is perfect, then the leader must have been perfect. If they watch the follower and she makes a mistake, then may the mistake was the leader's.
I think that is where the picture/frame analogy comes from. people look at the picture, but whether the picture looks good can depend a lot on the frame.
I don't really like the picture/frame analogy. Why are people watching the follower not the leader or the couple? Because she has a great body and a skimpy costume.

[timbp]

The pressure to "play", whether it's an appropriate moment for me or not, can take away that element of concentration from a good dance rather than enhance it.

If the leader suddenly stops leading with the follower kept waiting out on the end of his arm until she "does something playful", she has very little choice in the matter even if no domination is intended. That is not the same as allowing them space, that is forcing them to take the space whether it fits with her mood or the music or not.

It remains my belief that leaders should maintain a smooth, continuous and musical lead (ideally) and that followers should fit their interpretative elements into that framework. Anything else just results in dance floor anarchy.

Absolutely.
Definitely.
Beyond doubt.

I'm not sure what the current laws are in the UK (nor in Australia, for that matter). But I'm sure sabotage and hijacking are classified as terrorist acts, and I'm sure it is illegal to teach them. It may also be illegal to associate with anyone who is involved in teaching or carrying out sabotage or hijacking.

So leaders should lead, and followers should follow. Followers can add to the dance by recognising places where they have time to add something without affecting the leader.
And leader can give followers opportunities to play for a while without forcing them.

When I started dancing, we were often taught moves in which the leader brought the hand down sharply between the leader and the follower. Then the followers were expected to "play".
I hated this, and quickly found that most of the women I danced with hated it even more.

More recently I have learned ways to give followers a chance to take time to play, but where the dance continues unchanged if they don't.
One option is the touch turn (taken from WCS). Lead the follower straight towards you, then block her with a flat palm. Even a first time follower will interpret that as a turn (although she might try to turn the wrong way) and when she finishes the turn, you continue with the next move. She doesn't even have to know you hoped she would play.
A more advanced follower will take her time with the turn, putting on a show, and when she finishes the turn, you continue with the next move.
And at times a more advanced follower will just do the turn, and when she finishes the turn, you continue with the next move -- and think about what was in the music that you expected the follower to play with (you didn't really expect her to play just because you said "play", did you?).