PDA

View Full Version : Should Walks be led?



Gadget
9th-February-2005, 10:34 PM
I have seen many classes and moves where a part of it is inducing the lady to walk 'crossover' or 'stepping' by leading her back and forward like you're rowing a coracle. Why?
OK, I understand that in order to convey to the lady that you want her to do this, you have to lead it, but why would you want her to? If there is an area in the music to walk like that, then isn't it better to just lead her into some 'blank' space and let her decide what's best? She is listening to the music too; it is a collaborative thing, isn't it? Lead her into an area and take her out of it again when the music suits, but why define what she does in there?
You control the rest of the dance (allegedly :whistle: ) - I think that it's demeaning and slightly condescending to say "yes, good, now step here, here, here, and out..."

{Note: I'm not talking about wrapped in walks where you are side by side and /or where some synchronicity is desired - but even then, you could take your cue from the lady.}

baldrick
9th-February-2005, 10:59 PM
Yes,
by a properly qualified, experianced and insured mountain leader

MartinHarper
10th-February-2005, 12:08 AM
For sufficiently experienced women, what they do isn't nailed down by what I lead - they can choose to interpret the same lead in a number of ways. If I just lead them into blank space and let them play, that's kinda cool, but I'm making them do all the work, which is a little disrespectful. Better to give them a flexible lead to play around with. It's more collaborative, and I learn more from the dance.

There are other reasons.

Will
10th-February-2005, 12:01 PM
Should walks be lead?
That is a question for my dog.

Gadget
10th-February-2005, 03:18 PM
For sufficiently experienced women, what they do isn't nailed down by what I lead - they can choose to interpret the same lead in a number of ways.
So you are giving an ambiguous lead, relying on the experianced woman to decide for herself what you mean. To me that sounds like an excuse for relaxing and getting sloppy with your leads when dancing with someone of experiance.


If I just lead them into blank space and let them play, that's kinda cool, but I'm making them do all the work, which is a little disrespectful.
Really? I would say that it's showing the utmost respect towards them; you are confident in their ability and musicality. It's like saying that the lead does all the work by creating the path that the lady's have to dance down. You come to a wider area of the path and are leading her like a blind woman - as if she can't see the music too.


Better to give them a flexible lead to play around with. It's more collaborative, and I learn more from the dance. "flexible lead"? ie ambiguous. How often have ladies said that they want a clear lead above all else? Collaborative, perhaps - but you are almost deferring the lead to the lady; you have become an accessory to her dance rather than it being a true collaboration.


There are other reasons...which are?

Andy McGregor
10th-February-2005, 06:28 PM
..which are?
A desire to be enigmatic?

IMHO walks should be led. How can you partly lead something? You're either leading or you're not. There are some things you leave for the follower to do, but where they put their feet is not one of them.

MartinHarper
10th-February-2005, 06:29 PM
So you are giving an ambiguous lead, relying on the experianced woman to decide for herself what you mean.

One example would be "log walks", where you step left over right, then step right over left, and repeat as desired. I find it tricky to lead these properly, but I try.

A sufficiently experienced woman can choose a variety of things to do to overlay those log walks, whilst still being faithful to my lead. Just looking at footwork, she can do steps, triple steps, tap steps, or kick steps, or she can anchor and pivot (on either foot), and so on. If she chooses to break frame or hijack, she's got even more options.

Thus, when I lead log walks to such women, I don't feel that I'm saying "yes, good, now step here, here, here, and out...".

Daisy Chain
10th-February-2005, 08:34 PM
One example would be "log walks", where you step left over right, then step right over left, and repeat as desired. I find it tricky to lead these properly, but I try.

Thus, when I lead log walks to such women, I don't feel that I'm saying "yes, good, now step here, here, here, and out...".

Glad you brought this one up as I was just about too. I struggle to keep my balance on log walks and really did think it was me, until I danced with a man who managed to lead it perfectly and had me stepping over his logs effortlessly. I think that he had power steering and used a very light lead but I can't be sure............... I still can't quite work out what my problem is with most men though... :confused: Perhaps they should present me with smaller logs?

BTW for years, I thought The Log Walk was actually called The Long Walk

Daisy

(A Hard of Hearing Little Flower)

Lory
10th-February-2005, 11:02 PM
I struggle to keep my balance on log walks and really did think it was me, until I danced with a man who managed to lead it perfectly and had me stepping over his logs effortlessly. I think that he had power steering and used a very light lead but I can't be sure............... I still can't quite work out what my problem is with most men though... :confused:
:yeah: I made a major discovery this week during Nigel's class, I'm in the same boat as you, I often loose my balance during log walk but it's NOT us, its men who over steer us! :clap:

The hold must be firm and steady, so we can use it to balance us.

Nigel made the man stand with his hands just wider than his body, hands facing, as though he was holding a giant ball.

Then the ladies placed their hands inside, palms facing the floor.

The pressure between our touch being firm, ladies pressing out and men pushing in (squeezing their balls :whistle: :D )

Then the men just swayed from foot to foot, I personally found the smaller the movement the easier it was and also much better after an initial rock step, as there was no confusion as to which foot to use or direction to go! :)

I hope that makes sense :confused:

Gadget
10th-February-2005, 11:33 PM
IMHO walks should be led. How can you partly lead something? You're either leading or you're not. There are some things you leave for the follower to do, but where they put their feet is not one of them.
I agree with the words, but not the conclusion {:rolleyes: what's new...} I am 100% behind the statement that you can't partly lead something - you lead an entrance into a walk and an exit from a walk. In the middle of these, the lady is free to elaborate the music. She is led into the space, the lead is removed, and restored once the music demands it.
This is not soley leading her into a break or an 'ornimentation' where you give her her own space and admire the results - you may follow her, mirror the footwork, match the tempo, be a canvas for her to decorate... it is led into rather than having the lead vanish.

One example would be "log walks", where you step left over right, then step right over left, and repeat as desired. I find it tricky to lead these properly, but I try.Is that the "monkey" walk? (here they come...walking down the street...get the funniest looks from... every one they meet...)
Personally, I would lead her into a walk and if she presented the start of the walk like that, I would continue it - no physical lead to tell her what walk; it comes from her and just flows seamlessly.

A sufficiently experienced woman can choose a variety of things to do to overlay those log walks, whilst still being faithful to my lead. Just looking at footwork, she can do steps, triple steps, tap steps, or kick steps, or she can anchor and pivot (on either foot), and so on.but you are trying to lead the 'log walk' (...hey hey we're the monkeys...): She is ignoring this lead and doing her own thing anyway. What's the point in trying to lead it? In this case, I would submit that you are not actually leading the walk at all - just providing a stable frame for the lady and trying to match her footwork.

If she chooses to break frame or hijack, she's got even more options. true, but she could do that at any point. By giving her this freedom to create her own walk, she is less likley to want to hi-jack, breaking the frame is up to her and you can restore the lead at any point. You maintain controll of the dance and you both create a better dance from it.

I struggle to keep my balance on log walks and really did think it was me, until I danced with a man who managed to lead it perfectly and had me stepping over his logs effortlessly. I think that he had power steering and used a very light lead but I can't be sure............... I still can't quite work out what my problem is with most men though... Perhaps they should present me with smaller logs?
My guess is that people were trying to lead you through the walk instead of stepping it with you and following your movements. The ballance thing would be from the leads pulling and pushing you to try and tie in their hand movements to your feet - the signals would come when they wanted you to step, which is contrary to where your body would be to actually step on time. (if that makes any sense) Try ignoring the 'walk' part of the lead and just doing the log walk next time.

MartinHarper
11th-February-2005, 11:16 AM
I would lead her into a walk and if she presented the start of the walk like that, I would continue it - no physical lead to tell her what walk; it comes from her and just flows seamlessly.

That's cool too, and has many benefits. With sufficiently experienced women, it's not my preference. I'm glad that it's working well for you.


You are trying to lead the 'log walk' She is ignoring this lead and doing her own thing anyway.

A log walk with triple steps, tap steps, or kick steps is still a log walk as far as I'm concerned. It's a footwork variation, not a different move. I see it as elaborating on or reinterpreting my lead, rather than ignoring it.

Daisy Chain
11th-February-2005, 08:07 PM
:The pressure between our touch being firm, ladies pressing out and men pushing in (squeezing their balls :whistle: :D )



*goes to check thread on inappropriate touching*


Daisy

(An Appropriate Little FLower)

Zebra Woman
11th-February-2005, 08:27 PM
I like the walks to be tightly led, especially if they're to the side and interesting and syncopated possibly with a lunge at the end.

I like log walks to be led mostly tightly, but sometimes loosely - so that I can improvise if I get the urge :really:


.....or the music dictates :devil:

Trish
14th-February-2005, 12:25 PM
Is that the "monkey" walk? (here they come...walking down the street...get the funniest looks from... every one they meet...)
Personally, I would lead her into a walk and if she presented the start of the walk like that, I would continue it - no physical lead to tell her what walk; it comes from her and just flows seamlessly.

...snip...

My guess is that people were trying to lead you through the walk instead of stepping it with you and following your movements. The ballance thing would be from the leads pulling and pushing you to try and tie in their hand movements to your feet - the signals would come when they wanted you to step, which is contrary to where your body would be to actually step on time. (if that makes any sense) Try ignoring the 'walk' part of the lead and just doing the log walk next time.

In my understanding of it a log walk is different from a monkey walk. In a log walk you're facing your partner, with the guys holding the girls hands in a strong "butterfly grip". The guy sweeps his left leg (and the girl her right) through the middle, and then the same with the right (left for girls), then left, then right again - mirroring each other. This needs to be lead as you're relying on your partner for balance, and without a lead you tend to fall over. The lead should be as Lory described, with a strong frame, and some steering from the guys (moving the right hand with the right leg and left with left) - similar to what you described above if I've understood you right. You both need to be going in the same direction though - sometimes I've not been concentrating and have missed the lead for a log walk, and you end up feeling like you're pulled off balance, rather than flowing in the same direction as the guy that you're dancing with.

The Monkey walk when I've done it is usually side by side, but it could be regional variation in naming of moves, and we might be talking about the same thing! I think of this as side by side with the guy stepping his right leg in front of the girls left and then the girl stepping her left in front of his right (I think that's right anyway - it's how I see it in my head!?!). I'd better stop there before I confuse myself! :what:

Andy McGregor
14th-February-2005, 01:07 PM
I agree with the words, but not the conclusion {:rolleyes: what's new...} I am 100% behind the statement that you can't partly lead something - you lead an entrance into a walk and an exit from a walk. In the middle of these, the lady is free to elaborate the music. She is led into the space, the lead is removed, and restored once the music demands it.
Removing the lead, whatever next!

The whole of a walk is led - no question in my mind. If you as the leader don't lead where the followers feet go how do you know what to do with your own feet? :confused:

Maybe some people are saying they have trouble leading a walk. That's a different matter. There's a whole control panel on people's backs for leading walks - press the right buttons and, hey-presto :clap: , their feet go where you put them. Simply remove the lead and you have a puppy on a lead situation where you have no idea where your partner will wander :confused:

Gadget
14th-February-2005, 01:30 PM
Removing the lead, whatever next!
I know; next thing you may actually be listening to your partner, giving them room for musical interpritation and actually dancing with them :what: Who knows where it may lead!


The whole of a walk is led - no question in my mind. If you as the leader don't lead where the followers feet go how do you know what to do with your own feet? :confused: :rofl: like I would know what to do with my feet by leading hers! You mirror her. You dance to the music. You do a "chug-shuffle" or "riff-drop" {<-tap steps I looked up}. What do you do with your feet when she decides to improvise normally?


Maybe some people are saying they have trouble leading a walk. That's a different matter. There's a whole control panel on people's backs for leading walks - press the right buttons and, hey-presto :clap: , their feet go where you put them.
Fine for stepping and controling the lady's position on the dance floor - but I wouldn't use them in an attempt to lead walks; too many varaiations and possible interpritations for the lady to assume you are leading.


Simply remove the lead and you have a puppy on a lead situation where you have no idea where your partner will wander :confused:
And that's not derogatory and demeaning to your ladies? You've been dancing with them; they trust you, why can't you trust them to perform a simple walk?


{BTW: "Log walks" - it dosn't really matter if we are talking about crossover steps or "monkey" walk; the theory is the same: lead them into it and out again. If the lady requires a firm frame for the crossover, then you should feel it and apply equal return tension.}

MartinHarper
14th-February-2005, 05:48 PM
This needs to be lead as you're relying on your partner for balance, and without a lead you tend to fall over.

It's possible to do log walks without relying on your partner for balance - indeed, it's possible to do them solo. You get a different feel that way. I don't know which is "correct". My gut feeling is that it's useful to be able to do both styles, as then you can dance with more people and with more variety.

Andy McGregor
14th-February-2005, 07:45 PM
I know; next thing you may actually be listening to your partner, giving them room for musical interpritation and actually dancing with them :what: Who knows where it may lead!

snip

And that's not derogatory and demeaning to your ladies? You've been dancing with them; they trust you, why can't you trust them to perform a simple walk?


If you remove the lead you will just be holding hands and dancing independently - you don't have a clue what she's going to do - and he/she doesn't have a clue what you want him/her to do. Basically the best you can expect to do is dance like you're a pair of muggles holding hands who also do MJ. But you're just holding hands and dancing independently if there's no lead and follow. I really can't see what Gadget is on about :confused: You remove the lead in a led dance and you don't have a led dance any more - are you still doing MJ? :confused: :confused:

Gadget
14th-February-2005, 09:48 PM
If you remove the lead you will just be holding hands and dancing independently - you don't have a clue what she's going to do - and he/she doesn't have a clue what you want him/her to do. Basically the best you can expect to do is dance like you're a pair of muggles holding hands who also do MJ. But you're just holding hands and dancing independently if there's no lead and follow. I really can't see what Gadget is on about :confused: You remove the lead in a led dance and you don't have a led dance any more - are you still doing MJ? :confused: :confused:
I take it you don't lead any breaks for the ladies then? You don't like it when they elaborate or embelish the dance - after all, you're not leading that. How do you control her spare arm? Where she's looking?
It's not your dance: it's a partner dance - they are not just a fancy flourish at the end of your arms that jerk and twist like a marrionette. You are both listening to the same music, you are both dancing with each other. The lead is an invitation, not a directive.

Curious: what happens if you ever 'loose' the lady? How do you regain them without mucking up the dance? Do you lunge for them and reel them in as quick as you can? Or do you use that lack of lead as an invitation to play some more?

You lead her into a walk and out of a walk. What walk she does and how she fills this gap you have left her is up to her.

If you attempt to control this, then I can see one of three things will happen: 1) she has no idea what you are trying to lead and it feels 'wrong' to both of you. 2) she is experianced enough to add flourish and style to the walk, so you have to compensate your walk to match. 3) You have danced with them before and they know what you require of them from that lead.

1) why should she know? - I am yet to be convinced that 'proper footwork' can be led without prior knowledge of what's expected. 2) what's the point in leading the walk you know she will take over and perform without any input from you? 3) you are no longer leading the move, but signaling 'do this move now'. ie you lead into it, are decoration while it's performed, and then lead out of it... so why go through the motions and delude yourself? why not acknowledge that the ladies actually have control of the dance during this move and stop trying to lead it - all that results in is pulling them off-balance.

Andy McGregor
15th-February-2005, 01:47 AM
1) why should she know? - I am yet to be convinced that 'proper footwork' can be led without prior knowledge of what's expected.
At last I understand Gadget! He doesn't think it's possible to lead footwork, including walks. When I dance with a good follower I've got complete control of their feet. By changing the direction and attitude of the frame I can control the speed and direction of any chosen foot, I've got control over weight transfer too. And I don't think I'm doing anything special in this. Most guys do it - don't they?

Of course there's loads left for the follower to do within what I've led. I'm not leading that stuff. But the basic framework of the dance must come from the leader - anyone got anything else to say on this subject or am I a lone voice? :whistle:

MartinHarper
15th-February-2005, 02:35 AM
I am yet to be convinced that 'proper footwork' can be led without prior knowledge of what's expected.

I don't think it'd be possible to convince you otherwise via an internet forum. The main person who convinced me was Johnny Lloyd (Lindy). Amir (Jango) was also compelling. I'm not yet convinced that it's possible in pure MJ (whatever that is), but I've got an open mind.

It's not possible with arbitrary women. It's not necessary for an enjoyable dance. One can be an entirely competent MJ dancers and never lead anything below the hips. After all, MJ is the "no footwork" dance, right?


She is experienced enough to add flourish and style to the walk, so you have to compensate your walk to match. [...] What's the point in leading the walk you know she will take over and perform without any input from you?

Just because a lady is adding flourish and style to what I'm leading doesn't mean that I've no longer got any input. On one extreme, there's following exactly what is lead, no more and no less. On the other extreme, there's completely ignoring the lead. There's lots of space between those two extremes.

Gadget
16th-February-2005, 03:05 AM
At last I understand Gadget! He doesn't think it's possible to lead footwork, including walks. When I dance with a good follower I've got complete control of their feet. By changing the direction and attitude of the frame I can control the speed and direction of any chosen foot, I've got control over weight transfer too. And I don't think I'm doing anything special in this. Most guys do it - don't they?
You understand me? :what: oh dear.
Yes, FWIW I do think that it is possable to lead the lady to which foot she is steping on at what count, but I'm still to be convinced of a good argument as to why I should need or even want this much control over the lady. :confused: For me, it requires a lot of processing power to lead that, work out my own feet and listen to the music. If I drop the lead variable, I have freed up space to concentrate on the other elements and enjoy both my partner and the dance more.


Of course there's loads left for the follower to do within what I've led. I'm not leading that stuff. But the basic framework of the dance must come from the leader It is! you lead into the walk and out again: you create the space for the lady to fill: by narrowing the band you give her to travel, you are excluding her possable input and she has to make the most of the little freedom you give her. Walks are not about testing the lady's skill in weaving beautiful lines round the thread of your movement (they do that for the rest of dance); it's about giving them a strip to embroider. {sp?}


- anyone got anything else to say on this subject or am I a lone voice? :whistle:looks like it's you and me with Martin trying to keep the peace :rolleyes: :whistle: Anyway, you're winning at 4 votes to 3! :na:



I don't think it'd be possible to convince you otherwise via an internet forum. I have seen people lead footwork, I have seen ballroom footwork, I maintain that to get specific footwork patterns, the lady needs to have prior knowledgeof what's trying to be led before she can equate it to what she should do - and this is not not 'leading' : it's pavlovian response.


After all, MJ is the "no footwork" dance, right?:D As much as I dislike footwork and agree with the sentiment, no. MJ is simply dancing with a partner through lead and follow. If the dancing you're doing at the time contains elements of WCS or BRJive or Salsa..., then it uses footwork. It's easer sometimes to think of MJ as the all-encompasing root where all these dances originated from rather than the other way round.

Dreadful Scathe
16th-February-2005, 10:59 AM
At last I understand Gadget! He doesn't think it's possible to lead footwork, including walks. When I dance with a good follower I've got complete control of their feet. By changing the direction and attitude of the frame I can control the speed and direction of any chosen foot, I've got control over weight transfer too. And I don't think I'm doing anything special in this. Most guys do it - don't they?

Of course there's loads left for the follower to do within what I've led. I'm not leading that stuff. But the basic framework of the dance must come from the leader - anyone got anything else to say on this subject or am I a lone voice? :whistle:
I dont know why I voted now, I dont think its simply a yes/no answer as Ive done both - you can lead off and let her do her own footwork or maintain a frame and control to lead her footwork. If all you do is lead her forward and get out of the way she will generally make up her own walk. Close control is needed if you are leading a walk but its the only time you'll be dancing as one - if shes walking on her own it doesnt look as good. Amirs tip for leading a walk are excellent (as usual) i.e. Dont make the mistake of moving your feet first, get the follower to move their feet first according to your lead.


But the basic framework of the dance must come from the leader - anyone got anything else to say on this subject or am I a lone voice?

Yup, theres a big difference to leading a follower forward and letting them make up their own walk and you actually leading a walk. In fact if you do let them make it up and try and copy it, you become the follower :).

and yes I am crap at walks, i need practice - but I understand :)

David Franklin
16th-February-2005, 11:04 AM
It's easer sometimes to think of MJ as the all-encompasing root where all these dances originated from rather than the other way round. :rofl:

Dreadful Scathe
16th-February-2005, 11:10 AM
:rofl:
Its easier for me to pretend I look like Keanu Reeves, its better for my self-esteem :)

MartinHarper
16th-February-2005, 11:46 AM
Gadget - given your preference for having your partner freely embroider during walks, unencumbered by your lead, how do you handle travelling walks? For example, I sometimes lead a travelling return followed by a few backward steps for my partner. Do you simply avoid moves of this type?

Trish
16th-February-2005, 12:20 PM
It's possible to do log walks without relying on your partner for balance - indeed, it's possible to do them solo. You get a different feel that way. I don't know which is "correct". My gut feeling is that it's useful to be able to do both styles, as then you can dance with more people and with more variety.

Yes, it is possible, but it is less comfortable and less controlled - especially for the lady (I know this, as I can also lead it). If you're doing them solo then you are not expecting to use your partner for balance (and your partner to use you for balance - the lady also has to hold the frame), and therefore you are concentrating on balancing yourself - also the guy can't then pull you off balance. If you're not doing log walks solo, then although you can hold your own balance (and if the guy isn't giving you a frame then you have to, so I guess it is a useful skill to have) IMO this is more difficult and can look ungainly if either partner isn't centred. Personally I've always been taught that you should have a strong frame for a log walk, and I find it works better this way - although I do see your point.

Gadget
16th-February-2005, 03:17 PM
Gadget - given your preference for having your partner freely embroider during walks, unencumbered by your lead, how do you handle travelling walks? For example, I sometimes lead a travelling return followed by a few backward steps for my partner. Do you simply avoid moves of this type?
Is that a "walk"? perhaps I'm only referring to 'promanades' - actually, no because 'log walks' are done infront of the lead.
In this case, I would lead the steps, then perhaps finish by turning myself into her side and letting her decide the promanade walk back.

To me a "traveling walk" is a promanade, and she is normally at my hip; a gentle start to the walk and see where it goes. If it's too complex for me to match/keep up with, then I quickly lead an exit from it into another move :blush:

MartinHarper
8th-November-2006, 01:27 AM
I have seen people lead footwork, I have seen ballroom footwork, I maintain that to get specific footwork patterns, the lady needs to have prior knowledgeof what's trying to be led before she can equate it to what she should do - and this is not not 'leading' : it's pavlovian response.

Year and some later...

... it's possible to lead specific footwork patterns that the follower has no prior knowledge of. Absolutely. It won't work with every follower. For more complex footwork patterns on completely unaware followers I have to lead the precursors first, and build up to lead the maximally complicated version through the song. A lot depends on how the follower is connecting to me. Still, it's possible, and it is leading.

ducasi
8th-November-2006, 01:57 AM
Interesting thread!

While I will often lead my partner to walk (and move) and will usually be aware of where she has her feet and more importantly her weight, I *very rarely* lead footwork in walks.

If my partner is experienced enough, she'll make up something that she likes, that suits the music. If she's not, she's probably not ready to follow complicated walk patterns.

That said, I had very few walks taught to me, so maybe it's simply that I can't do them...

Genie
8th-November-2006, 07:49 PM
I have had leads take control of my footwork in walks before. "Left foot goes there, right foot goes - wait for it! - there!" I like a man who can read me as well as I can read him - preferably better. Gadget is a good example. Gadget can lead walks. He can lead the footwork too. But it's nice when I can express the music with some footwork of my own. That I can step forwards and backwards and add a hip wiggle and he provides - not a frame exactly - more a reflection. He doesn't copy, but he compliments. If I step one way he'll be there with me. He won't try and drag me there himself. It may be a male led dance, but it's nice - from a follower's perspective - to get to truly enjoy the music and feel like 'I am Dancing' rather than 'He is dancing for me'. Does this make any sense :confused:

Although in some of the fast travelling moves, I don't have time to think about where to put my feet. We're covering too much distance. How I ever manage to avoid treading on his feet I don't know :what: :grin:

There's another lead in Aberdeen who does something similar - leads into a walk but I find myself too wrapped up in the music to notice that we've done a really cool walk that looked very synchronised, but was not really led that way - I don't think it could have been led that way. He just seemed to feel where I wanted to go and took me there (Ooo, er :blush: )

Genie
8th-November-2006, 07:50 PM
Gadget - given your preference for having your partner freely embroider during walks, unencumbered by your lead, how do you handle travelling walks? For example, I sometimes lead a travelling return followed by a few backward steps for my partner. Do you simply avoid moves of this type?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

'nuff said.

MartinHarper
9th-November-2006, 12:28 AM
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

'nuff said.

Enough said if you know Gadget, perhaps, but I've not had the pleasure. Could you elaborate?

Gadget
9th-November-2006, 01:47 PM
I tend to "take a tour" of the dance floor on occasion :innocent: - I don't uphold the theory that MJ is a static dance and tend to move from one space into another whenever the muse takes me (or it gets too crowded where I am and I can see space elsewhere).

The "footwork" on walks is simply R-L-R-L-R-L... dosn't need much leading :wink: