Active or passive?

[Lory]

Following on from the very interesting 'Dreamstate' (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/showthread.php?p=116953#post116953) thread, I thought I'd do a poll (cos we all love them :rofl: )

It might be the key to why we click with different partners! :really:

I've made this a public poll, so we can see who's voted for what and make up our minds if the theory is right. :wink:

Also, us followers might believe we're one thing but the lead might not agree! :eek:

You can vote more than once if your a lead and follow! :nice:

[David Bailey]

Looks like I'm the only nutter control-freak so far - surely there's someone else who likes passive people...?

[MartinHarper]

With experienced women, I prefer a more active follow from my partner. Experienced passive followers tend to make me feel like I'm holding a masterpiece of a musical instrument, superbly crafted, gracefully balanced, perfectly tuned, and I'm busy playing "three blind mice". Experienced passive follows are fantastic to watch, though, particularly in the hands of those who really know how to "play" them.

With mortals, I have a slight preference for active followers, but less so. The active/passive thing isn't as important as the following/not thing.

[foxylady]

I would categorise myself as a definite active follow, and whilst I can follow passively I don't enjoy doing so....

[Clive Long]

I'm too busy remembering the moves to give my partner "space and time" to create.

:blush:

Yet another thing on the list to be remedied.

Clive

[Yliander]

I'm an active follow - although I did also vote for I can do both.

Active follow is my natural state - but depending on who am dancing with how active I am will vary and with beginners i tend to become a passive follow so as to not throw them off their lead

[Piglet]

I think I'm an active follow (still learning though) but if anyone would care to correct me I'd love to hear :)

[Gadget]

I think I'm an active follow (still learning though) but if anyone would care to correct me I'd love to hear :)I would say passive, but given space to be, then active: IMHO the best way to be :D :flower:

[Sparkles]

I haven't voted yet because I don't know what I am :sick:
Answers on a postcard (or in a PM) please! :flower:

S. x

[tsh]

With experienced women, I prefer a more active follow from my partner. Experienced passive followers tend to make me feel like I'm holding a masterpiece of a musical instrument, superbly crafted, gracefully balanced, perfectly tuned, and I'm busy playing "three blind mice". Experienced passive follows are fantastic to watch, though, particularly in the hands of those who really know how to "play" them.


I get the same sort of feeling quite often when I'm dancing with very good followers, but I'm not sure that the differentiation is as simple as active or passive following. It's more about the connection, and how much the follower expects from me.

An experienced follower in 'passive' mode might not actually be being passive - e.g. in the beginners class last night I was told I needed a more positive lead for the spin at the end of a catapult, despite my partner having moved perfectly where I expected her to (without appearing to anticipate).

Thinking about it a bit more, I don't know that these terms are really very accurate at all. I have danced with followers who are competant and genuinely passive, and there is no point. I feel that I could dance just as well with a manequin! The distinction could maybe be about how much the follower adds to the dance (even if that's going wrong, intentionaly or not!).

I like to get some feedback about my leading from the way my partner follows, but I also like to believe that I'm mostly in control (because I can't react well enough to allow my partner to have very much influence).

Sean

[Lory]

I would categorise myself as a definite active follow, and whilst I can follow passively I don't enjoy doing so....
:yeah: I'd say that pretty much describes me too.

I CAN and DO follow passively, when dancing with a beginner or someone who doesn't seem 'up for it' but dancing like this will never produce one of those 'special' dances for me. :wink:

[Piglet]

:whistle: I shoulod really have read that Dreamstate thread before voting on here - oops!

Too late now - I've definitely got a bit of work to do on that active side of things.

Cheers for the lovely comments Gadget. :hug:

[spindr]

Passive partners == no connection : not my favourite type of dances.

Don't understand the question -- all followers should be active all of the time -- at least actively participating in the connection and the "terpsichorean conversation" even if it's just "listening attentively". And of course actively styling arms, etc. to fit in with the lead.

If you mean active, as in sabotages and taking over the lead -- then fine, but to be used hopefully sparingly (and of course leaders can sabotage a sabotage) -- I sort of consider this as "changing the subject in the conversation abruptly".

I prefer the middle ground (the third way? :) ) -- where the follower deftly inserts their own interesting styling such that you feel compelled as a leader to throw away any planned moves and just go along with it, just to see how it ends. Personally, that's a really very rare situation -- guys, if you ever manage to dance with Jules (who used to teach at Hipsters with Nigel) then you might understand what I mean.

SpinDr.

P.S. Of course if can be fun if you're in the mood that the follower deliberately changes hands positions, etc. while you're dancing so that you try to lead from the new unexpected position -- but that's something more like slapstick :)

[Doc Iain]

Personally I feel a real active follow is great, kind of like driving a very powerful car round a tight bend you know you are in control... but only just!! Dances like these are great, every slight neuance (?) in your lead is elaborated on and it is just great!

[Sheepman]

I haven't voted yet because I don't know what I am :sick: I'd say you were active, especially when I try a move you don't want to do!
Oops, sorry, was that supposed to go in a pm :blush: :devil:

Saying that, I'm basing it on this definition -

An 'active' follower is always trying to add something to the dance. As a leader you have to be watching all the time so that you let her finish what she is doing. But as the dance is less about preserving her momentum, it becomes easier to change the speed of the dance. though I do struggle a bit with the "always", because that suggests that every move, or every beat is something where the follower is trying to change something.
As I understand "active", it is a matter of listening to the music, and as well as being ready to take the opportunities when they are presented by the leader, if the leader is missing something in the music then you will add something to emphasise it, but that is not the same as taking over the dance and disrupting the flow. Where moves are "stolen" they are done within the phrasing of the music, and not done leading up to a big accent, if the man is planning something big for that accent.
Inevitably this is going to mean that if you both hear the same things in the music, then it all works much better, and that presumably has a lot to do with experience of dancing with that partner.
I recently had a first dance with a top Latin dancer (she is new to MJ), we were dancing to a Latin style track, and it was clear to me that we were hearing very different things in the music, she was certainly active, but it wasn't working well for me. On being active you have to be "dancing to the same beat."
So, if you are both hearing the same things in the music, and you are used to dancing with each other, does the "active" become less "active" because you know what is likely to happen?

Greg

[Sparkles]

I prefer the middle ground (the third way? :) ) -- where the follower deftly inserts their own interesting styling such that you feel compelled as a leader to throw away any planned moves and just go along with it, just to see how it ends.

I think this is what I (in my own head) aim for, but not all the time, just on moves where I feel like I can do it without interrupting the flow too much - I have seen Jules dancing :worthy: and Catriona too :worthy: :worthy: and hope some day to be able to dance like them... whether I ever actually achieve that or not I'm not sure.
Something tells me it comes across as 'I don't want to do that move so we'll do this instead' :blush - not what I'm intending at all.
Othertimes, however, I find myself being passive - usually when I'm in awe of my partner and don't feel that I have enough mental or physical capacity to keep up with them *and* add inspiration of my own to the dance aswell.

Following can be a very difficult business!
S. x

[David Bailey]

Personally I feel a real active follow is great, kind of like driving a very powerful car round a tight bend you know you are in control... but only just!! Dances like these are great, every slight neuance (?) in your lead is elaborated on and it is just great!
Well, I'd like to defend passive follows (hey. someone's got to...).

If we're talking cars, I'd say it's the difference between a top-flight luxury car (passive) and a top-flight sports car (active). Both can be great and pleasurable experiences, but they're different; one's an adrenaline rush, and one's pure pleasure. I really don't believe that one is active is better than passive - they're both good in different ways.

As a very general point, I prefer more passive, as I don't like having to "keep an eye on my partner" too much, it's hard work, and as I like a relatively well-defined dance structure, tempo and movements.

That doesn't mean I'm not happy with interpretation, and indeed I do now try to put at least one "go out and play" moment in one dance, where I sit back and let the lady do her thing. However, I want to set the start and the end of "playtime", depening on my interpretation of the music.

I'm more likely to reach this fabled "dreamstate" when I don't have to be alert, I can relax and let the music carry us on in confidence. If I'm not concentrating on watching my partner like a hawk, I can concentrate more on my job, which is (as I see it) to raise the level of dancing as high as possible, safe in the knowledge that I'm dancing with a partner who'll follow my somewhat weird (most of the time) moves and style perfectly.

Again, I'm not an extremist, and I don't believe one is better than the other, but in these terms, I'm definitely on the passive camp. Stand up and be counted, oh passive ones! Oh, hold on, you're too passive... :)

[Zebra Woman]

Stand up and be counted, oh passive ones! Oh, hold on, you're too passive... :)


ZZZZZZZzzzz....

oh... er...... yeah.........( I'm lying down over here )

:devil:

[spindr]

I think this is what I (in my own head) aim for, but not all the time, just on moves where I feel like I can do it without interrupting the flow too much - I have seen Jules dancing :worthy: and Catriona too :worthy: :worthy: and hope some day to be able to dance like them... whether I ever actually achieve that or not I'm not sure.

Ok, been thinking about this and I think part of the skill that Jules has is that she doesn't try "active following" on the actual whole "MJ" count (maybe even the beat) -- but rather adds footwork and syncopations that are in time but not necessarily starting when I'm just about to lead.
It might be a good policy to leave the whole "MJ" counts for leaders and keep the gaps between them as time to actively follow, etc.

The difference then is that I can tell that she wants to add an embellishment because I have information before I'm going to actually assert the lead. And when I do assert the lead, then she follows it.

If the leader and follower both try to do different things on a whole "MJ" count, then I think that there's some potential for confusion -- since at least one partner has to back off at that point, which means that there's some time while the lead/follow is recovered.


Something tells me it comes across as 'I don't want to do that move so we'll do this instead' :blush - not what I'm intending at all.

Don't know, but that might happen if you try to do something different than the lead -- as mentioned above, if you give the guy some notice (a beat, or even half a beat) then eventually the guy should notice that something different is happening.


Othertimes, however, I find myself being passive - usually when I'm in awe of my partner and don't feel that I have enough mental or physical capacity to keep up with them *and* add inspiration of my own to the dance aswell.

Bah humbug, I reckon you should be able to outdance most leaders :)

I understand that a quick shimmy, body roll, ripple, etc. can "confuse" most leaders, and give you enough time to add some of your own inspiration.


Following can be a very difficult business!
S. x

And there was I thinking one simply had to keep one's mind blank -- which certainly doesn't take me long when I'm following :)

SpinDr.

[baldrick]

Hey no fair, I voted as a lead and now this stupid computer wont let me vote as a follow. :tears: :tears: How are you to gat a true picture when the system is predudiced(help spelcheck please) :tears:

[JoC]

I keep re-reading and thinking about this thread, and I'm not really understanding the distinction between active and passive. I get a sense that people don't feel passive is as good (apart from DJ...). Can someone put it another way...?

I have to admit that I think if I were to say one or the other I am probably more passive than not ( :confused: ), but I hope that doesn't mean that you can't interpret music, style, or give your partner a decent dance. Otherwise :tears:

So getting back to definitions, if I dance with a great partner and don't play up because I'm being swept around the dance floor in dreamstate (or busy concentrating) is that passive? Whereas if I'm dancing with a less experienced partner who say loses me and I sieze the moment and zip off for a second to 'shine' (supposing I could) is that active...?

I think I'm out of my depth...

[David Bailey]

I get a sense that people don't feel passive is as good (apart from DJ...).
And Zebra Woman, albeit in a very passive way :)


I have to admit that I think if I were to say one or the other I am probably more passive than not ( :confused: ), but I hope that doesn't mean that you can't interpret music, style, or give your partner a decent dance. Otherwise :tears:
:yeah: One of the reasons I came on strong for the passives was that I got the feeling people thought "Active = empowered = independent = yay, you go girl" or something like that. It's not true.

Like all models of human behaviour, this one has some truth in it, but don't ever feel constrained in your dancing by artificial and simplistic dance terms. Dance the way you want to - don't worry about what your style "should" be.


So getting back to definitions, if I dance with a great partner and don't play up because I'm being swept around the dance floor in dreamstate (or busy concentrating) is that passive? Whereas if I'm dancing with a less experienced partner who say loses me and I sieze the moment and zip off for a second to 'shine' (supposing I could) is that active...?
The best analogy I could come up with was motoring - ie. comparing an F1 car with a top-range luxury Porsche. With the F1, it's an exhilarating-but-scary experience, you're focussing all the time, can't let go or relax for an instant. With a Porsche, you've got a great ride, exciting, but you probably can relax more and enjoy the ride.

Silly analogy, really, people aren't cars. The best dancers connect and react to each other on a non-verbal level; they have chemistry, they read each other, they work together to create art between them. Plonking labels on such an endeavour such as Active or Passive is not really relevant to that experience.

In other words, don't worry about it :hug:


I think I'm out of my depth...Aren't we all. Personally, I just live in hope that no-one who actually knows what they're talking about notices what junk I talk most of the time... :blush:

[Gadget]

I keep re-reading and thinking about this thread, and I'm not really understanding the distinction between active and passive. I get a sense that people don't feel passive is as good (apart from DJ...). Can someone put it another way...?
How about "Active" and "Reactive".
"Active" takes an active role and stamps their own mark on the dance.
"Reactive" follows what was led inserting their own style into what was given.

I don't like "Passive" either - it gives more of the impression that the followers don't do anything other than meakly go where the lead takes them. I've danced with many dancers that are not "Active", but certainly not "Meak"!

[MartinHarper]

I get a sense that people don't feel passive is as good

It's like hats. Good dancers tend to wear hats, but wearing a hat won't make me a better dancer.
Similarly, experienced women tend to be active, but being more active won't make me a better follower. It'd probably make me worse.


Plonking labels on such an endeavour such as Active or Passive is not really relevant to that experience.

Nod. We're just describing the feel of a dance, just as wine buffs make up all kinds of words to describe the taste of a wine. That's not to say that these labels aren't useful, but the map is not the territory.

[Lynn]

Wasn't sure what I was - and it does depend on who I'm dancing with and when (eg I was extremely 'passive' when dancing with Andy at Britroc 'cos I was so scared!* :rofl: ). I tend to be much more passive with beginners as don't want to throw them off. But I think I must tend towards the 'active' end of the scale after some comments during the week in Spain about me 'doing my own thing' at times and the guys trying to follow/fit in... :whistle: I must admit sometimes I just get carried away with the music - but I think you can pick up fairly quickly whether a guy likes that or not - and if he doesn't or it puts him off then I go back to passive and being a good little follower.

I must admit that the best dances do tend to be those where I have a more active role - it feels like we are both 'creating' the dance, both a have a role to play in shaping it and it takes the dance beyond being a 'series of moves' to being an expression of the music...

* of the competition I must add, not Andy!

[JoC]

So based on the poll results, all a woman (or male follower) has to do is be all things to all men (or lady leads)...

I know a song about that!

:mad: :wink: :flower: :hug: :devil: :innocent:

[MartinHarper]

Perhaps a little off-topic, but...

I used to be unfond of sabotage, because I often felt like I didn't get any warning - it just tended to happen, and I had no choice but to stand there looking worried until things went back to normal. Like Lory (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/showthread.php?p=134211#post134211), I'm not fond of standing around all lemon-like while my partner shows off. So far, so control-freaky.

I'm starting to mellow to them now. It feels like the lack-of-warning thing could be due to inexperience or oversight, just as a guy might inadvertantly throw his partner into some move without properly preparing her for it. So, I feel I should tolerate such things, try to become better at spotting the signals, and trust that my partners will likewise become better at signalling them.

When sabotage works well - when I can feel what is about to happen, and can see what my options are to interact with it as it happens, it's very pleasant - almost as good as following. I guess the occasional bout of lemon impersonation is a price worth paying.

[RogerR]

Is there an answer!?! The worst dances I've had all were bad because my partner wouldn't follow me or the music, the best dances were so good because my partner followed and followed creatively, hence giving me back a response and styling. The really good dances flow like a conversation back and forth and follow the beat, bar and phrase of the music.

[ducasi]

I used to be unfond of sabotage, because I often felt like I didn't get any warning - it just tended to happen, and I had no choice but to stand there looking worried until things went back to normal. Like Lory (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/showthread.php?p=134211#post134211), I'm not fond of standing around all lemon-like while my partner shows off. So far, so control-freaky.

I'm starting to mellow to them now. It feels like the lack-of-warning thing could be due to inexperience or oversight, just as a guy might inadvertantly throw his partner into some move without properly preparing her for it. So, I feel I should tolerate such things, try to become better at spotting the signals, and trust that my partners will likewise become better at signalling them.:yeah:
I had three or four dances at JJ's last night with more "active" ladies. I like to surprise my partners, and it's fun when they can surprise me too.

Usually they're adding extra style and interpretation that I'm not capable of.

That said, it's possible to have too much of a good thing. :nice:

(You can read more about last night (http://ducasi.org/blog/2005/07/27/how-long-has-it-been/) in my blog. (http://ducasi.org/blog/) :D)

[latinlover]

The best analogy I could come up with was motoring - ie. comparing an F1 car with a top-range luxury Porsche. With the F1, it's an exhilarating-but-scary experience, you're focussing all the time, can't let go or relax for an instant. With a Porsche, you've got a great ride, exciting, but you probably can relax more and enjoy the ride.

Silly analogy, really, people aren't cars. The best dancers connect and react to each other on a non-verbal level; they have chemistry,


This is a great analogy
I have in the past likened a few lady dancers to a Rolls Royce with power steering.
I guess what this means they are perfectly balanced all the time and have 'lightning' reactions to the most subtle of leads.
the experience of dancing with them is every bit as thrilling as driving a powerful, comfortable, EXPENSIVE car :drool:
Sadly they are also as rare.....
But at the risk of using a rather male-oriented terminology, if ever there was a way of describing something to aspire to ladies....
Of course , it is well known that men describe their cars, boats ,(er trains.,steam engines......) as SHE
it is intended as a compliment :flower:

[Daisy]

ZZZZZZZzzzz....

oh... er...... yeah.........( I'm lying down over here )

:devil:

:yeah: