Misleading moves

[Ghost]

What moves suggest something else to the lady if she doesn't know them?

The two that spring to mind are

Wurlitizer - The push away suggests "please do a 360 free spin"
Hook Over - suggests "I want to dip you"

In both cases the end result can cause damage which is not good. :tears:


Luckily ive never had anyone confuse my signals for something else to a dangerous end, but i remember there was one move i learnt in London that had a not too complicated lead that dancers up here saw as a signal for something else and turned the opposite way without me leading them as they anticipated something else - I think they thought id forgotten the move they were trying to do when i had no clue what it was

Another good example of lead and signal combined is the Ballroom drop - the signal is right hand across your own chest whilst mens right to ladies right - lady grabs with spare hand (if shes knows its a ballroom drop or not) - you turn her out with straight arms, lead back in and drop - except if she didnt realise it was a signal AND a lead... she would have been following the lead and just stands there ...so you do a double handed return instead of the drop (before she gets a chance to realise thats not what you meant all along )


[QUOTE=Gus]Uurrrr ..... methinks this is maybe a good example of singal confusion :confused: The official ceroc signal is actualy "The man's left hand on his right upper arm". Thats the way most independant instructors, including myslef, teach the move. The real lead is actualy a combination of the turn out and the change in hand grip. I'm curious as to where the hand across chest came into vogue. Is that how its taught in Scotland?


I also do a really dangerous drop called 'the neck drop' where the lady falls over and gets caught by one hand behind the neck is lowered to the floor and back up. The 'lead' for this is me saying 'neck drop', leading into a wurlitzer and placing my hand behind the neck when she returns and lowering from an upright position as she falls - funnily enough only my regular partner would follow all three of those . (And if she didnt feel my hand at the back of her neck she wouldnt drop - could be sore after all )




Very true ... another dangerous move ... but loads of variations to get into it. You can just lead a lady into it without a signal ... but as you point out ... its a move that should only be done with a regular partner.

The only other common signal drop that comes to mind is the Robbie Dip .... not currentlly an official Ceroc move but fairly cmmon down South. However, I've seen and experienced this signal mistaken a few times so its now used very sparingly.


I really don't like 'signals' as leads (I'm taking the view that offering the hand behind the back for a pretzel isn't really a signal, but an integral part of the move (and other similar examples)).


This is exactly the sort of reason for not wanting to use signals. They are very easy to mis-interpret, and could lead to accidents. I've also found that they tend to vary in different parts of the country, ie. a hand signal for a jump in London, is a signal for a drop in Brighton (or a signal for your partner to run off the floor, screaming, in Aberdeen).

The only signal to ever use is to bring your partner into a close move and say the name of the move. And if there's anything other than comprehension in her expression (fear is a definite no-no), then the move should be aborted.

Steve

Thanks
Christopher

[TiggsTours]

The most dangerous is the back drop, where the girl is expected to fall backwards and be caught by the guy, in a move that has exactly the same lead as a number of others that are not drops! When I first got taught this in Brighton, we got taught a signal for it, but that never gets taught anywhere now.

Personally, unless the guy has made it plainly clear he wants me to drop, then I won't. Quite often guys look surprised, or actually say "you were supposed to drop" well I'm sorry, but unless you make it obvious, (after all, I have my back to you, I don't know where you are or what you're doing) then I'm not going to risk ending on landing painfully on my arse, just to make you look good if I read your mind correctly, and you are actually there to catch me! Some guys lead this really well, by staying in contact with you and lowering you down into the drop, but more often than not they just expect you to be mind reader!


What moves suggest something else to the lady if she doesn't know them?

The two that spring to mind are

Wurlitizer - The push away suggests "please do a 360 free spin"
Hook Over - suggests "I want to dip you"

In both cases the end result can cause damage which is not good. :tears:

[QUOTE=Dreadful Scathe]Luckily ive never had anyone confuse my signals for something else to a dangerous end, but i remember there was one move i learnt in London that had a not too complicated lead that dancers up here saw as a signal for something else and turned the opposite way without me leading them as they anticipated something else - I think they thought id forgotten the move they were trying to do when i had no clue what it was

Another good example of lead and signal combined is the Ballroom drop - the signal is right hand across your own chest whilst mens right to ladies right - lady grabs with spare hand (if shes knows its a ballroom drop or not) - you turn her out with straight arms, lead back in and drop - except if she didnt realise it was a signal AND a lead... she would have been following the lead and just stands there ...so you do a double handed return instead of the drop (before she gets a chance to realise thats not what you meant all along )











Thanks
Christopher

[Ghost]

The most dangerous is the back drop, where the girl is expected to fall backwards and be caught by the guy, in a move that has exactly the same lead as a number of others that are not drops! When I first got taught this in Brighton, we got taught a signal for it, but that never gets taught anywhere now.

Ouch! :tears:


Personally, unless the guy has made it plainly clear he wants me to drop, then I won't.

:worthy:

I've been wondering if there should be some kind of reply sign for the ladies for some of these moves to indicate they both know the move and consent to it? Too complicated? I like the Tramp's

The only signal to ever use is to bring your partner into a close move and say the name of the move. And if there's anything other than comprehension in her expression (fear is a definite no-no), then the move should be aborted.


Quite often guys look surprised, or actually say "you were supposed to drop" well I'm sorry, but unless you make it obvious, (after all, I have my back to you, I don't know where you are or what you're doing) then I'm not going to risk ending on landing painfully on my arse, just to make you look good if I read your mind correctly, and you are actually there to catch me!

:clap:


Some guys lead this really well, by staying in contact with you and lowering you down into the drop, but more often than not they just expect you to be mind reader!

Having browsed a fair few posts I suspect quite a few guys would be very worried if the ladies could read their thoughts while they're dancing :whistle:

Take care,
Christopher

[LMC]

I'm not madly keen on too many 'block' moves in a dance - a few are OK and make sure that I'm paying attention (I do *try* to be easily led on the dance floor 'cos I'm so b****y obstinate in all other areas of my life). Unfortunately, some leaders seem to love to catch you out :( - and if they are yankers, then block moves can be VERY painful.

Having to do a quick/sharp change of direction really interrupts the flow of the dance and if leaders don't allow momentary "freeze/recover" time it can actually be a bit painful. Only a split second is needed, but a split second longer than the reaction time for a "flowing on" follow - if you get me - e.g. being stopped abruptly and spun round the opposite way to the way you were expecting without any "recovery" time can really throw you off balance - or maybe that's because I'm too slow as a relative beginner.

Block moves in moderation can be quite nice if led well and fit in with breaks though :drool:.

[Msfab]

I'm not madly keen on too many 'block' moves in a dance - a few are OK and make sure that I'm paying attention (I do *try* to be easily led on the dance floor 'cos I'm so b****y obstinate in all other areas of my life). Unfortunately, some leaders seem to love to catch you out :( - and if they are yankers, then block moves can be VERY painful.

Having to do a quick/sharp change of direction really interrupts the flow of the dance and if leaders don't allow momentary "freeze/recover" time it can actually be a bit painful. Only a split second is needed, but a split second longer than the reaction time for a "flowing on" follow - if you get me - e.g. being stopped abruptly and spun round the opposite way to the way you were expecting without any "recovery" time can really throw you off balance - or maybe that's because I'm too slow as a relative beginner.

Block moves in moderation can be quite nice if led well and fit in with breaks though :drool:.

I couldnt of put it better myself!
In fact sometimes I think they are sometimes dangerous! :angry:

[ChrisA]

Having to do a quick/sharp change of direction really interrupts the flow of the dance and if leaders don't allow momentary "freeze/recover" time it can actually be a bit painful. Only a split second is needed, but a split second longer than the reaction time for a "flowing on" follow - if you get me - e.g. being stopped abruptly and spun round the opposite way to the way you were expecting without any "recovery" time can really throw you off balance - or maybe that's because I'm too slow as a relative beginner.

Not necessarily. If a lead is going to do this, it's his responsibility to know how much (reaction time) + (momentum-change time) you as a follower need.

So even if you're a beginner it's still his fault.

But that doesn't absolve you of the responsibility to be in control of your own momentum. So when you step back for instance, you should provide some tension, but not so much that he has to balance your whole weight.

[ChrisA]

... by the way, just noticed your avatar.

Is that the proverbial wet haddock?

(or was it a halibut??)

Whatever... :D

[Ghost]

Unfortunately, some leaders seem to love to catch you out :( - and if they are yankers, then block moves can be VERY painful.

I just got a horrible mental image of one of these "leaders" dancing all the above leads in order to 'catch out' the lady :angry: :tears:

Take care,
Christopher

[Gadget]

:rofl: I think *All* of my moves are missleading :rofl: {...as anyone who has danced with me will testify :rolleyes:}

The closest thing to a signal I have is offering my hand: I think that you should be able to lead everything if the lady has her eyes closed - the lead is conveyed primaraly through touch. Visual clues may back it up, but IMHO are more likley to be miss-read and result in the follower anticipating rather than following.

[Minnie M]

"When's a tunnel not a tunnel" always gets me :confused:

The sometimes double tunnel, when follower is behind the lead, does she go back under the tunnel or flip turn - normally the lead is definite enough to know, but sometimes not :whistle: :eek:

[Rebecca]

My partner hates saying the names of moves when dancing, for exactly the reason that Gadget put forward - that is, that leading by touch and pressure is so much more fulfilling; and I agree. . .

However, I have to say that when dancing with other guys I would love to hear a word or two in my ear on occasion (as the Tramp suggests), especially the words 'drop', 'dip', 'freeze' (if it's not obvious by reading the music), and especially 'DUCK!!!' :


"When's a tunnel not a tunnel" always gets me :confused:

The sometimes double tunnel, when follower is behind the lead, does she go back under the tunnel or flip turn - normally the lead is definite enough to know, but sometimes not :whistle: :eek:

[TiggsTours]

My partner hates saying the names of moves when dancing, for exactly the reason that Gadget put forward - that is, that leading by touch and pressure is so much more fulfilling; and I agree. . .


I couldn't agree more there is nothing (and I mean nothing) I hate more when dancing than being told verbally what's coming! If the guy can't lead it properly, then he shouldn't do it! Even if I did remember all the names of all the moves, it just puts a dampner on the whole mood of the dance. What particuarly bugs me is when a guys goes to spin me and shouts "double" at me, I'll do a double when a) its led properly, b) it suits the flow of the dance and c) I bl**din' well want to!

[ChrisA]

What particuarly bugs me is when a guys goes to spin me and shouts "double" at me, I'll do a double when a) its led properly, b) it suits the flow of the dance and c) I bl**din' well want to!
There's a guy I've seen at Ashtons a few times who wears the same sort of stuff for dancing as I do, despite being about 400 years older than I am (mental note to self: change dress style used for dancing well before I hit 80 :eek: :eek: )...

... anyway I've watched him with some incredulity signalling the number of spins he wants the girl to do by holding up a corresponding number of fingers.

When the signal is missed (only 100% of the time... duh... :rolleyes: ), he then explains, apparently finding it hugely amusing. For some reason, the girls don't seem to find it quite so funny. I haven't seen any of them signal a double (or even single) spin to him yet though...

[TiggsTours]

There's a guy I've seen at Ashtons a few times who wears the same sort of stuff for dancing as I do, despite being about 400 years older than I am (mental note to self: change dress style used for dancing well before I hit 80 :eek: :eek: )...

... anyway I've watched him with some incredulity signalling the number of spins he wants the girl to do by holding up a corresponding number of fingers.

When the signal is missed (only 100% of the time... duh... :rolleyes: ), he then explains, apparently finding it hugely amusing. For some reason, the girls don't seem to find it quite so funny. I haven't seen any of them signal a double (or even single) spin to him yet though...

Interestingly enough, I've not managed to spot him, can't wait now though! :devil: :clap:

[LMC]

I don't think verbal leads should be necessary either.

In reality, any move can be misled - I figure that if I can follow a move with one leader then it isn't necessarily *all* my fault if it goes completely pear-shaped with another leader... :whistle:

[Ghost]

I don't think verbal leads should be necessary either.

Personally I'm not fond of them in case I'm mis-heard "I** g**in* to d* a *a****** dr**" isn't the greatest signal ever, but it depends on the music etc.

My current solutions are
A) It's a safe move that can misinterpretted in a safe way (eg potentially any beginners move danced with a beginner.) - be aware of what can happen and flow with what the lady decides to dance.

B) It's a safe move when done properly (eg wurlitizer), but can be harmful if misinterpretted - only dance it with experienced dancers and be ready to lead the appropriate different move if it's misinterpretted eg let her hand slip out of yours if she goes for a 360 spin in the wurlitzer.

C) It's a potentially harmful move (eg drop) and can be harmful if misinterpretted - only dance it with specific people and always preface it with the same unusual (but simple) move (in effect using a move as a signal)

Thoughts?

Christopher

[Saxylady]

Personally I'm not fond of them in case I'm mis-heard "I** g**in* to d* a *a****** dr**" isn't the greatest signal ever, but it depends on the music etc.



Quite! My usual response to a lead telling me what's coming next is to say "Eh?..What?...".

If I do catch what they say I'm usually thinking, "Help - I dunno what that is, hope they can lead it".

I love dancing with leads who don't tell me moves but simply change what they do if I don't quite do what they had in mind.

The exception is that I'm very happy for a lead to give warning of / ask permission for a drop.

[ChrisA]

I love dancing with leads who don't tell me moves but simply change what they do if I don't quite do what they had in mind.

You mean some don't?

What do they do then?

[TiggsTours]

Personally I'm not fond of them in case I'm mis-heard "I** g**in* to d* a *a****** dr**" isn't the greatest signal ever, but it depends on the music etc.

My current solutions are
A) It's a safe move that can misinterpretted in a safe way (eg potentially any beginners move danced with a beginner.) - be aware of what can happen and flow with what the lady decides to dance.

B) It's a safe move when done properly (eg wurlitizer), but can be harmful if misinterpretted - only dance it with experienced dancers and be ready to lead the appropriate different move if it's misinterpretted eg let her hand slip out of yours if she goes for a 360 spin in the wurlitzer.

C) It's a potentially harmful move (eg drop) and can be harmful if misinterpretted - only dance it with specific people and always preface it with the same unusual (but simple) move (in effect using a move as a signal)

Thoughts?

Christopher
Perfect. :D

[David Bailey]

If the guy can't lead it properly, then he shouldn't do it!
:yeah:

I used to think there were exceptions to this rule - for example, the "Duck" instruction to tell the lady to, well, duck. But then I realised that even this could be led without a verbal signal.

So I'm now coming to the conclusion that very few moves, even choreographed ones, can't be led. And, if a part of a choreographed move isn't followed, a good leader should be able to adjust the lead to compensate (in other words, I should always have a Plan B).

[MartinHarper]

I love dancing with leads who [...] simply change what they do if I don't quite do what they had in mind.

Nice irony.


You mean some don't?

It would be nice to be able to quickly compensate for every way my partner might misread my lead and every way I might lead something other than what I was intending. However, this talent of "following the follow" is one I've yet to master. For most of us, it's a learned skill. Beginners, and lots of intermediates, simply don't have it.

Do you remember when you couldn't do this?


What do they do then?

Continue along original plan, and let the follower adjust appropriately.
Or, let go. Face partner. Re-offer hand. Semi-circle. Step back.

[Saxylady]

Nice irony.

Continue along original plan, and let the follower adjust appropriately.
Or, let go. Face partner. Re-offer hand. Semi-circle. Step back.

Either of those options is fine, especially with a smile or a laugh.

Far preferable to barking out of instructions as you go along - or the dreaded 'You don't seem to be getting this, lady, let me talk you through it again...'

[Ghost]

Or, let go. Face partner.
At this point if the last move went completely to hell in a hand basket, I deliberately take a moment, close my eyes, let out a breath and then

Re-offer hand. Semi-circle. Step back.

Otherwise I'm too rattled and the rest of the dance suffers. :tears:

Take care,
Christopher

[Ghost]

Either of those options is fine, especially with a smile or a laugh.

I'm careful that it's a gentle "stuff happens" smile :) or a "It's in the past, let's dance" smile :wink: as I'm aware that if the lady's rattled and feels she messed up the move it's possible for laughter to be miscontrued as laughing at her.

But yes, the right smile definitely takes the edge off :hug:

Take care,
Christopher

[Ghost]

Perfect. :D
:flower:
Thanks,
Christopher

[Saxylady]

I'm careful that it's a gentle "stuff happens" smile :) or a "It's in the past, let's dance" smile :wink: as I'm aware that if the lady's rattled and feels she messed up the move it's possible for laughter to be miscontrued as laughing at her.

But yes, the right smile definitely takes the edge off :hug:

Take care,
Christopher

Yes, I meant a nice sharing laugh of course - if it's meant that way it usually comes across OK. But a smile will do very well :)

[ChrisA]

However, this talent of "following the follow" is one I've yet to master. For most of us, it's a learned skill. Beginners, and lots of intermediates, simply don't have it.

Do you remember when you couldn't do this?

In all honesty, no - if anyone can remember dancing with me more than about three years ago, I'd love to know how they remember me. And I really don't mind if that boils down to "dreadful", cos I really was in some ways.

I can remember the very beginning (97? 98?), when I felt so crap that I could barely bring myself to go at all. And I can remember the last couple of years quite well, since I started to realise that dancing "moves" all the time with no regard to the music was no way to improve, and a few people were really pivotal in my heading to places where I could really get some direction...

... but the times in between are something of a blur, and I don't remember them at all well.

But this thing about adjusting the plan when the lady does something unexpected... I think the key to it is realising that attempting to enforce one's will as "leeduh" on the proceedings is a recipe for looking like a prat.

Once you've got your head round this, the highest priority is to keep it all looking smooth, flowing as if nothing can phase you. So adjusting the plan moment by moment becomes second nature.

And that's cool, whereas getting narked and starting to get stressed and exert force when something doesn't go the way you wanted, is about the uncoolest thing you can do.

I've 100% learned this now, and I about 80% remember it, so I'm nearly there... :whistle:

[Gadget]

But this thing about adjusting the plan when the lady does something unexpected... I think the key to it is realising that attempting to enforce one's will as "leeduh" on the proceedings is a recipe for looking like a prat.

Once you've got your head round this, the highest priority is to keep it all looking smooth, flowing as if nothing can phase you. So adjusting the plan moment by moment becomes second nature.
:yeah::yeah:
I discovered that the 'best' bits of my dancing (well, the bits I thought "that was cool" anyway) were when I screwed up the lead and/or the lady did something unexpected and I had to improvise to recover. :waycool:

Getting over that "PANIC!" moment is the first hurdle, after that it's just a matter of knowing {remembering} enough movements to think "I'm almost in the position for this movement, I could simply slip into the last bit of that move".
It took me years to learn to let go of a hand. I'm in the middle of learning that although the lead goes through contact, I don't need to actually catch/use the hand to lead.

[Ghost]

:yeah::yeah:
I discovered that the 'best' bits of my dancing (well, the bits I thought "that was cool" anyway) were when I screwed up the lead and/or the lady did something unexpected and I had to improvise to recover. :waycool:

Definitely. I think of it as "dancing in the style of Ceroc". It's particularly cool when the lady thinks you were deliberately leading the move as was and it's just one she didn't know.

:clap:

Take care,
Christopher

[Tellina]

I couldn't agree more there is nothing (and I mean nothing) I hate more when dancing than being told verbally what's coming! If the guy can't lead it properly, then he shouldn't do it! Even if I did remember all the names of all the moves, it just puts a dampner on the whole mood of the dance. What particuarly bugs me is when a guys goes to spin me and shouts "double" at me, I'll do a double when a) its led properly, b) it suits the flow of the dance and c) I bl**din' well want to!
:rofl: Yes, yes yes. I agree! Although when I recently started learning to lead, I found that during the class I was saying the names of the moves out loud as I did them. So now I always wonder if the guys who do this are telling me the moves they plan on doing to "help me out" or if they are just thinking out loud to themselves.

It's so good to read that moves should be lead correctly and that we shouldn't rely on visual signals when dancing :clap:

Lily

[Ghost]

Q. What do you do if it's too dark and the lady can't see your signals? :blush:

A.
It's so good to read that moves should be lead correctly and that we shouldn't rely on visual signals when dancing :clap:

Lily :clap:

Thanks,
Christopher

[MartinHarper]

I think of it as "dancing in the style of Ceroc"

Following the follow is hardly a concept unique to Ceroc. I'd say that it's a technique that's a lot more important in WCS and Lindy than in Ceroc.


Q. What do you do if it's too dark and the lady can't see your signals?

Stop dancing MJ. If my partner can't see my hand from six feet, it's too dark to dance MJ - particularly if we're dancing next to a metal staircase.

Q: What do you do if the lady is smeared with contact poison and a gang of Russian mafia have insisted that you dance with her or die?

[Gadget]

Stop dancing MJ. If my partner can't see my hand from six feet, it's too dark to dance MJ - particularly if we're dancing next to a metal staircase.Naaaa - just need to step in closer and blues it :devil:


Q: What do you do if the lady is smeared with contact poison and a gang of Russian mafia have insisted that you dance with her or die?
Wear gloves? Wouldn't it be hard to dance with a corpse anyway?

[David Franklin]

Q: What do you do if the lady is smeared with contact poison and a gang of Russian mafia have insisted that you dance with her or die?All together now...

Shoot the hostage!
(Yes, that answer makes no sense. But it didn't make a lot of sense in the original movie either...)

[Lou]

But it didn't make a lot of sense in the original movie either...)
I beg to differ.... :drool:

[clevedonboy]

Q. What do you do if it's too dark and the lady can't see your signals? :blush:



Q what do you do if a lady sees your signal but hasn't a clue what it means?

If a man holds up two fingers to you what does it mean?

A he no longer wants to dance with you?
B you're going into an obscure move where he performs the same action twice and you should damn well know what he means?
C it's time to dance with somebody who leads moves and doesn't use signals

[LMC]

If a man holds up two fingers to you what does it mean?

A he no longer wants to dance with you?
B you're going into an obscure move where he performs the same action twice and you should damn well know what he means?
C it's time to dance with somebody who leads moves and doesn't use signals

None of the above.


There's a guy I've seen at Ashtons a few times who wears the same sort of stuff for dancing as I do, despite being about 400 years older than I am (mental note to self: change dress style used for dancing well before I hit 80 )...

... anyway I've watched him with some incredulity signalling the number of spins he wants the girl to do by holding up a corresponding number of fingers.
(my emphasis)

On a serious note, I've come across "thumb tap" signals recently being taught - unfortunately, even though I was in the lesson and it was only two weeks ago, I can't remember what they were for. So that was useful :rolleyes: Additionally, different teachers *do* use different signalling methods. In doubt, I would always ignore any signal and go with DavidB's advice ( :worthy: ) - "follow the hand" .

[MartinHarper]

Q. What do you do if a lady sees your signal but hasn't a clue what it means?

Depends on the signal.
If it's a signal for some kind of optional styling element (pointing in Lindy Points, clicking in Side-to-Side Clicks, etc), then it doesn't matter much. So she doesn't click - who cares?
If it's an early warning signal (touching the girl's shoulder in a Catapult, early left hand in a Corkscrew, etc), then the girl might be a little less prepared than she would otherwise be. Maybe she'll have her weight slightly misplaced as a result, and need to switch it quickly. Again, no heartache.
If it's a signal that reinforces the lead (various neckbreak gestures, false pretzel signal, etc), then I hope my lead and her follow are up to scratch, and if not I adapt as best I can. Chances are, though it might not be as fluid as with a signal, it'll still work well enough.

[Ghost]

Following the follow is hardly a concept unique to Ceroc. I'd say that it's a technique that's a lot more important in WCS and Lindy than in Ceroc.
Ah, sorry wasn't clear. What I meant was while following the follow I'm still doing so in a Ceroc style so that someone watching could mistake the whole move for an actual Ceroc move. So if the lady went left when I wanted her to go right, I'll flow along but try and guide the move back into a Ceroc finish using Ceroc type moves along the way.



Stop dancing MJ. If my partner can't see my hand from six feet, it's too dark to dance MJ - particularly if we're dancing next to a metal staircase.
:tears: Valid point.



Q: What do you do if the lady is smeared with contact poison and a gang of Russian mafia have insisted that you dance with her or die?
A. Dance my socks off and really enjoy my last dance.
"Tomorrow is promised to no-one"

Actually I use this trick if a dance just doesn't have spark - what if this was my last ever dance?

(The clever answer is to lead her without touching :cheers: )

Personally I tend to work backwards from worst case scenarios as the concepts are easier to see (less subtle) and then tone them down into subtleties for my own dancing. So for example applying the info from the CQB thread in a room and it's just crowded rather than jammed makes the dance safer and more pleasant. So a toned down version of the contact venom one would be what do you do if the lady is covered in hand cream / lotions and she's not wearing much at all.

Thanks for the thoughts (and especially the answers they inspired from the forumites :rofl: )

Christopher

[Ghost]

On a serious note, I've come across "thumb tap" signals recently being taught

In a recent class the teacher explained that the way to signal an armjive swizzle was to thumb tap the lady's left hand just before you go into the swizzle to show you were going to keep hold.



In doubt, I would always ignore any signal and go with DavidB's advice ( :worthy: ) - "follow the hand" .

It's sooo nice that all these ladies are happy to be led :flower:

Take care,
Christopher

[Ghost]

Naaaa - just need to step in closer and blues it :devil:

Also good. :wink:

The other situations I had in mind with the whole "can't see signals thing" is when the lady has her eyes closed, or is looking elsewhere.

Take care,
Christopher

[LMC]

OK, I've just thought of another one which annoys me, because I don't think it's a clear lead :mad: - only come across it very recently, but a few times, is it a new variation?

Comb variation: the move starts off like a normal comb. Then the lead lets go of the follow's R hand and puts his R hand to comb them (L hand is still on the follow's hip/R arm, depending on lead's style). This, apparently, is a cue for the follow to remove their R hand and take the hand offered behind their head. Unfortunately, since I can't *see* the hand, unless I get some other clue, I'm always a bit slow to cotton on unless the lead adds some kind of lead from their left - like the gentle shove for a normal comb exit. Usually what happens is that they have to tell me to take the hand or wiggle their fingers so I get it. Maybe I'm just thick. Perhaps we could add in a hair-pulling signal? :devil: (actually, that would probably make matters worse... I'd just keep wiggling :innocent: )

[Ghost]

Depends on the signal.
If it's a signal for some kind of optional styling element (pointing in Lindy Points, clicking in Side-to-Side Clicks, etc), then it doesn't matter much. So she doesn't click - who cares?
If it's an early warning signal (touching the girl's shoulder in a Catapult, early left hand in a Corkscrew, etc), then the girl might be a little less prepared than she would otherwise be. Maybe she'll have her weight slightly misplaced as a result, and need to switch it quickly. Again, no heartache.
If it's a signal that reinforces the lead (various neckbreak gestures, false pretzel signal, etc), then I hope my lead and her follow are up to scratch, and if not I adapt as best I can. Chances are, though it might not be as fluid as with a signal, it'll still work well enough.

Good points.


If it's an early warning signal (touching the girl's shoulder in a Catapult,
Hmm now this sends the question back the other way. I've never heard of this signal. So if the lady was relying on signals then in this instance she could assume I was going to do a different move entirely because I didn't touch her shoulder.

And again compounded by the sheer number and variety of signals.

Another question I ran into when considering styling is
"What if you are signalling something but don't know it?" Take a new intermediate who's just letting their free arm swing around them. They can be signalling the secret, pretzel etc and have no idea. :confused:

Take care,
Christopher

[Lou]

If a man holds up two fingers to you what does it mean?

(D) It's the Standard Accepted Bristolian LeRoc signal for a Boomerang*. :na:





If it's an early warning signal (touching the girl's shoulder in a Catapult,

Hmm now this sends the question back the other way. I've never heard of this signal. So if the lady was relying on signals then in this instance she could assume I was going to do a different move entirely because I didn't touch her shoulder.
My fault. I've been leading Martin a fair bit lately & I learnt that particular signal from Sherif. It's just a handy signal meant to warn the follower that it's not going to be a standard Catapult (but it doesn't specify in any way how the Catapult will vary). I find it very useful when I'm taxiing for Improvers.



*The two fingers may equally be a signal to indicate that he's about to be pounced upon by a particularly pushy woman....

.... or a non-verbal request for double trouble....

....but my money's on the Boomerang.

[ChrisA]

In a recent class the teacher explained that the way to signal an armjive swizzle was to thumb tap the lady's left hand just before you go into the swizzle to show you were going to keep hold.

:confused: :confused: :confused:

Well this is nonsense. The only thing needed, if anything, is to hold on to her hand slightly more firmly so that she can't take it away.

Even so, if she really pulls, you shouldn't hold on.

Anyone that is sensitive enough to a leader to notice such a tap in the middle of a move like that, doesn't need it in the first place.

The only difference between the "swizzle" version of this move and the normal exit is that the lead doesn't let go of the lady's left hand. It's his job to ensure that it's no more painful than if he does.

[Ghost]

OK, I've just thought of another one which annoys me, because I don't think it's a clear lead :mad: - only come across it very recently, but a few times, is it a new variation?

Comb variation: the move starts off like a normal comb. Then the lead lets go of the follow's R hand and puts his R hand to comb them (L hand is still on the follow's hip/R arm, depending on lead's style). This, apparently, is a cue for the follow to remove their R hand and take the hand offered behind their head. Unfortunately, since I can't *see* the hand, unless I get some other clue, I'm always a bit slow to cotton on unless the lead adds some kind of lead from their left - like the gentle shove for a normal comb exit. Usually what happens is that they have to tell me to take the hand or wiggle their fingers so I get it. Maybe I'm just thick. Perhaps we could add in a hair-pulling signal? :devil: (actually, that would probably make matters worse... I'd just keep wiggling :innocent: )

If I'm understanding this move properly, wouldn't it be easier / clearer for the guy to keep hold of your right hand as he combs your hair? :confused:

This reminds me of when I first learnt the catapult. As a beginner I wondered "How do you know if the lady realises she's supposed to grab the other hand when you can't see what she's doing?". :confused: Thankfully it was explained to me that the action of stepping back and right pretty much means that they have to grab you hand, it just might take them a while if they don;t know the move.

Does anyone know how many "official" signals there are Ceroc? :confused:

Take care,
Christopher

[Ghost]

My fault. I've been leading Martin a fair bit lately & I learnt that particular signal from Sherif. It's just a handy signal meant to warn the follower that it's not going to be a standard Catapult (but it doesn't specify in any way how the Catapult will vary). I find it very useful when I'm taxiing for Improvers.


Out of interest, the first time you do this signal with someone do you explain what it means or do you hope they cotton on after a while?

I now have visions of Cerocers everywhere cheerfully making up their own signals.

Thanks,
Christopher

[Ghost]

:confused: :confused: :confused:

Well this is nonsense.

:rofl:



The only thing needed, if anything, is to hold on to her hand slightly more firmly so that she can't take it away.

Even so, if she really pulls, you shouldn't hold on.

Anyone that is sensitive enough to a leader to notice such a tap in the middle of a move like that, doesn't need it in the first place.

The only difference between the "swizzle" version of this move and the normal exit is that the lead doesn't let go of the lady's left hand. It's his job to ensure that it's no more painful than if he does.

I'm with you on this. If anything, I found that doing the thumb tap actually distracted the more aware women. The look in their eyes went something like

"In the flow and having fun; why's he doing that?; oh, right it's that armjiive swizzle signal thing" The 'why's he doing that?' is just long enough to break the flow and momentum of the dance.

And yes, like you, even if when I signalled the thumb tap, if the lady kept on going anyway then I'd just let go of her hand. :cheers:

Take care,
Christopher

[ChrisA]

Does anyone know how many "official" signals there are Ceroc? :confused:

Please,

Don't use "signals"

You signal that a lady is to take your hand by offering it to her.

If she doesn't take it, do a different move.

Getting caught up with visual and verbal signals is a way to delay learning how to lead properly.

[David Bailey]

Well this is nonsense.
:yeah: Tap in the centre of the hand? What's all that about then? Was this a Ceroc class?


The only difference between the "swizzle" version of this move and the normal exit is that the lead doesn't let go of the lady's left hand.
Again, yes - although you can use your right (and her left) hand to gently pull her a bit if it's not clear to your follower what she should be doing, or to add a bit of oomph for a fast turn-dramatic finish kind of thing.


Does anyone know how many "official" signals there are Ceroc? :confused:
There are lots of ways Ceroc teaches (or used to teach) signals for things - manspin, secret whatevers, neck-breaks, you name it.

But I think the more you dance, the less you need to make a big thing out of these signals - they're generally just a shorthand for "put your hand in this position, so you are naturally ready to lead that move".

Signals for choreographed moves are Evil - simply because they're open to (mis-)interpretation, and the leader should always clearly communicate his intent.

EDIT: just noticed that ChrisA got there before me. Just put me down for a :yeah: to all his points...!

[Lou]

Out of interest, the first time you do this signal with someone do you explain what it means or do you hope they cotton on after a while?

As I hope I'd explained, I normally do it when taxiing - and by then it's already been explained during the class. It's just that I did it unconsciously whilst dancing with Martin. As it happens, he asked what it meant. ;)


I now have visions of Cerocers everywhere cheerfully making up their own signals.
Interesting. But I'm not sure why. :confused:


Getting caught up with visual and verbal signals is a way to delay learning how to lead properly.
:yeah: Of course - with the proviso that signals do help beginners. They enable them to dance a lot sooner than if we wait for them to master lead & follow. However, I totally agree with you when it comes to Intermediate level.:)

[LMC]

Please,

Don't use "signals"

... signals do help beginners. They enable them to dance a lot sooner than if we wait for them to master lead & follow. However, I totally agree with you when it comes to Intermediate level. :)

*settles into back row with popcorn*

I'm in the "no signals" camp (hope you don't mind me quoting you bigger Chris, want to borrow my halibut? :grin: ).

[Lou]

*settles into back row with popcorn*
Oi! I basically agreed with him! :rofl:

[LMC]

:na: sorry Lou, couldn't resist :hug:

On a serious note though, no-one explained lead and follow properly to me as a beginner. It wasn't until ChrisA, er, took me firmly in hand (so to speak... ) that the lightbulbs went on and I realised why I was having problems working out what I was supposed to be doing. Unfortunately, that meant I was, to a point, back to square one - but not for long. ChrisA explained the basics of lead and follow to me over the course of two tracks = ~6 minutes - and it was a b****y good start to a learning journey which will never end. I certainly don't have any intrinsic talent for dancing, or prior experience, nor would I say I'm "special" in any way (except for the obvious of being a unique human being, child of the universe blah blah blah). SO, if I can "get" it in 6 minutes and start working on it, then so, IMO, can *any* beginner. Therefore, I think that lead and follow should be taught from the outset - forget signals - as ChrisA said, they will just delay learning to lead properly - and I would add follow properly.

[Msfab]

Ive tried this a few times now with a couple of leads!

I dance with my eyes closed! :na:

Totally in the hands of the lead! Initially is was a bit weird and scary :eek: not seeing where I was going, but once I got over that I had some really good dances. I needed to see no visual signals or verbal ones! According to one lead I was more easier to handle.
Give it a go with someone you trust!:whistle:
(On a not so busy dance floor)

[Lou]

if I can "get" it in 6 minutes and start working on it, then so, IMO, can *any* beginner. Therefore, I think that lead and follow should be taught from the outset - forget signals - as ChrisA said, they will just delay learning to lead properly - and I would add follow properly.
Totally excellent points, LMC. :nice: And I had a very similar history, so I know exactly where you're coming from. Having taught for a bit, I've found from experience it's too much for a beginner to take in the whole concept of lead and follow, particularly when they're concentrating on learning the moves. And even more particularly, when they're trying to learn to lead. (Actually, it's not too difficult to teach a beginner the idea of following - however, it's a very difficult thing to learn when they're dancing with a beginner lead.)

Signals allow both learners to begin dancing with each other, enabling them to practice and to gain confidence. Even at improver level, whilst people are getting used to the idea of lead & follow, use of signals can help an inexperienced follower understand what a leader wants her to do. So this is why I do believe that Signals Can Be A Good Thing - as a teaching/learning device.

But, yes, as our dancing improves, a good follower needs no signals, and should be able to interpret a lead - and a good leader should be able to adjust his lead to communicate his intentions to the follower.

[MartinHarper]

(signals) are generally just a shorthand for "put your hand in this position, so you are naturally ready to lead that move".

Meanwhile my partner is thinking "my - he looks like he's naturally ready to lead a neckbreak. I wonder what move he might be about to lead". And then afterwards "A neckbreak - what a compelling surprise! And he lead it entirely without signals, too".

[ChrisA]

But, yes, as our dancing improves, a good follower needs no signals, and should be able to interpret a lead - and a good leader should be able to adjust his lead to communicate his intentions to the follower.
Ok, so how, specifically, once you have a whole generation of recent beginners who have got the whole "signalling is how to do it" thing ingrained into their dancing (without a trace of tension/leverage except in those that get it naturally), do you teach proper leading and following? :confused: :confused:


use of signals can help an inexperienced follower understand what a leader wants her to do. So this is why I do believe that Signals Can Be A Good Thing - as a teaching/learning device.
How, if he doesn't use signals?

I find this shocking, really (though not surprising, given the average levels of leading and following skills all over), as a teaching technique - teach them something in the beginning that is actually wrong, and makes it harder to learn how to do it right later on. :eek: :really: :eek:

Simplification is fine as a means of helping people in the beginning, but at least teach a foundation that doesn't have to be excavated and replaced with a new one later on.

Teaching signals achieves nothing in my view, except bad habits. That mostly are never lost :tears: .

I know you're not Ceroc, Lou, so this is a slight aside... but I always find it ironic that Mike Ellard never taught semicircles as a way of starting moves in his classes (well not in the last 7 years or more, anyway).

I'm still waiting for him to find the balls to get rid of them now that he runs the organisation. :devil:

[Ghost]

Please,

Don't use "signals"

You signal that a lady is to take your hand by offering it to her.

If she doesn't take it, do a different move.

Getting caught up with visual and verbal signals is a way to delay learning how to lead properly.

Ok, one my first impressions when learning Ceroc was "why all the signals?". One of the things I really like about Ceroc is that you can dance it with anyone. They don't have to know your pre-set routine or be able to do complicated steps. Signals to me fly in the face of this. I understand the concept of making it easier for beginners, but then why do they persist in Intermediate classes and why do teachers make such a big deal about them? I get the feeling I'm missing some useful element here :confused:

Or is this just a case of Emperor's New Clothes?

Take care,
Christopher

[ChrisA]

Ok, one my first impressions when learning Ceroc was "why all the signals?". One of the things I really like about Ceroc is that you can dance it with anyone. They don't have to know your pre-set routine or be able to do complicated steps. Signals to me fly in the face of this.

Quite right.


why do they persist in Intermediate classes and why do teachers make such a big deal about them?
Good question. Because the signals are in the CTA teaching manual? I don't know, of course, since I've never seen it. But AFAIK, Ceroc teachers are expected to teach moves in a very specific and prescriptive way. The best ones don't necessarily stick to this, of course :whistle:

[Lou]

(without a trace of tension/leverage except in those that get it naturally), do you teach proper leading and following? :confused: :confused:
Ach - we do emphasize the use of tension, even with beginners.


teach them something in the beginning that is actually wrong, and makes it harder to learn how to do it right later on. :eek: :really: :eek:
As I was typing, I was smiling to myself as it's somewhat ironic, as I once had a discussion on here with Franck....

(Turn away now, DavidJames - nothing to see here for you....)

....about footwork (Look! I told you to turn away, DJ....). For the same reasons as you've mentioned for signals, I couldn't see the logic about not teaching any footwork at the start, as I felt it encourages bad habits in beginners. With experience, I've now seen the wisdom in Franck's words, and I'm far less hung up on it nowadays.

The model of MJ teaching is to get people dancing as soon as possible. Some (but not all) ways of achieving it are by:
* Using signals
* Not teaching footwork
* Not concentrating on Lead Or Follow
* Bouncing to catch the rhythm
* "Semi-Circle to the right and step back"

All of these can lead to bad habits in dancers. However, I think they can be seen as a necessary evil, developed over time, in order to achieve what I understand the main MJ goal to be - to produce a dance that can be easily learnt by the average man or woman.

Now, of course, the goal is to break many of these bad habits with experienced dancers. And I personally feel that too few MJ organisations concentrate on these key things with their improvers and intermediate dancers. But, then, isn't that a recurring topic on here anyway?:)

[Ghost]

:yeah: Tap in the centre of the hand? What's all that about then? Was this a Ceroc class?

Yes. A fortnight ago, which leads to wonder if
A) LMC and I were in the same class
B) There's a new memo going round the Ceroc teachers explaining Thumb taps

Anyone want to defend the use of thumb taps?



But I think the more you dance, the less you need to make a big thing out of these signals - they're generally just a shorthand for "put your hand in this position, so you are naturally ready to lead that move".

(See my answer to Martin in a couple of posts time)

At the moment I sometimes use them as style / interpretation points. So rather than just signal a neckbreak, I might do it more Zorro style (imagine throwing back an imaginary cape over your right shoulder :cool: ) or playful waggling fingers lead into a false pretzel depending on what fits at that point.
[/QUOTE]

Take care,
Christopher

[Ghost]

As I hope I'd explained, I normally do it when taxiing - and by then it's already been explained during the class.

Thanks for clarifying that. I wasn't sure if you meant it was something you did while taxiing as part of your own taxiing technique, or if it was something explained in class that you reinforced as a taxi (I don't know who Sherif is - I'm guessing the teacher?).

:cheers:



Interesting. But I'm not sure why. :confused:
The effect of Chinese Whispers.


If it's an early warning signal (touching the girl's shoulder in a Catapult
My original understanding of it what Martin said was that touching the girl's shoulder is a signal for a catapult. (I realise I was mistaken).

Hey, even if a signal is taught in class it's no guarantee that everyone was paying attention. :tears:

Take care
Christopher

[Asif]

A good posting Ghost :clap:

When i first started dancing (MANY years ago), a good friend of mine (and a really good dancer called Maggie - of Maggie & Phil fame) told me NOT to call out any of the moves names OR use any "obvious" signals when i was dancing with her. She said that if i did, she wouldn't dance with me. More seriously though, she didn't want me assuming that she knew the name of the moves i was telling her or that she knew what my signals were for.

The main reason for this was to get me to LEAD moves properly and not end up in a situation where i was trying to do one thing and she was just trying to "follow" another. The other reason is that different people sometimes get taught moves slightly differently and the signals are not always the same.

I tell exactly the same thing to all the beginners that i teach. The signals are just there as a guide to "learning" a move.

[Ghost]

But I think the more you dance, the less you need to make a big thing out of these signals - they're generally just a shorthand for "put your hand in this position, so you are naturally ready to lead that move".


Meanwhile my partner is thinking "my - he looks like he's naturally ready to lead a neckbreak. I wonder what move he might be about to lead". And then afterwards "A neckbreak - what a compelling surprise! And he lead it entirely without signals, too".

:worthy:

I try to dance the move that fits that into particular moment in the dance. So in this case the signal is just where my hands would naturally end up and is (hopefully) where the lady is flowing towards. The essense / shorthand of the signal (unless I'm doing a Zorro move) just acts as a qualifier that yes, she is going the right way. I found that relying to the signal to get the lady to do the next move
A) invites backleading
B) can break the flow of the dance

Take care,
Christopher

[Ghost]

The best ones don't necessarily stick to this, of course :whistle:

In my experience that's the mark of a good teacher (in anything)

:worthy:

Thanks
Christopher

[Ghost]

A good posting Ghost :clap:
Thanks :cheers:


When i first started dancing (MANY years ago), a good friend of mine (and a really good dancer called Maggie - of Maggie & Phil fame) told me NOT to call out any of the moves names OR use any "obvious" signals when i was dancing with her. She said that if i did, she wouldn't dance with me. More seriously though, she didn't want me assuming that she knew the name of the moves i was telling her or that she knew what my signals were for.
I had the opposite experience during the break of a workshop. The lady asked if I would say out loud the name of each move as I danced it so she could remember them more easily. It totally threw me, but I managed and she seemed happy.


The main reason for this was to get me to LEAD moves properly and not end up in a situation where i was trying to do one thing and she was just trying to "follow" another. The other reason is that different people sometimes get taught moves slightly differently and the signals are not always the same.

:clap:

This can be dangerous if you're on 'autopilot'. "Ok I've signalled neckbreak, she can lead herself for a bit, now what was that really cool move I wanted to practice again?" as the beginner promptly clotheslines herself :tears:

Just sedgewaying slightly, but are beginners supposed to say "I'm a beginner" at freestyles or is the guy supposed to ask "How good are you?" or what? I've danced with ladies who I didn't know were beginners but were following really well. Likewise I've danced with ladies who were intermediate and just having an off day. Personally I err on the side or caution, but I'm curious as to whether there's an actual recognised way of doing this. Maybe get "I'm a beginner" badges printed up. Or section off a part of the hall for beginners - anyone would be allowed to dance with them, but in doing so you'd be aware that everyone around you was a beginner and dance accordingly.

Take care,
Christopher

[Ghost]

*settles into back row with popcorn*

I'm in the "no signals" camp (hope you don't mind me quoting you bigger Chris, want to borrow my halibut? :grin: ).

Ok, who wants to champion the side of using signals once you're an intermediate?

:cheers: :flower:

Thanks in advance,

Christopher

[Asif]

I had the opposite experience during the break of a workshop. The lady asked if I would say out loud the name of each move as I danced it so she could remember them more easily. It totally threw me, but I managed and she seemed happy.
So that she could "REMEMBER THEM MORE EASILY". What kind of a workshop was it!! :eek:

She most probably seemed happy because she was able to just do the moves without having to think about following them. No disrespect here but i imagine she will never become a very good dancer if she relies on this.


Ok, who wants to champion the side of using signals once you're an intermediate?
Not me! :whistle:

[Ghost]

So that she could "REMEMBER THEM MORE EASILY". What kind of a workshop was it!! :eek:

Beginners Plus (I think).

Sorry, I'm probably misrepresenting this poor lady. :blush: I think she meant it made it easier for her to remember the names.

Take care,
Christopher

[MartinHarper]

Ok, who wants to champion the side of using signals once you're an intermediate?

That's normally my job. Firstly, the defence:

There are bad ways to use signals, and to react to signals. There are bad ways to lead and follow. And?
It's possible to dance without signalling. It's possible to dance without leading. And?
It's possible to lead whilst signalling. They are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, at int+ level, I'd say that guys should always be leading, and only using signals in addition to their lead.

Ok, so now a slightly more positive tack:


she seemed happy

Ding! First prize.
The ability to use appropriate signals, and the ability to react to signals, are very useful when dancing with beginners. If you want to give beginners an enjoyable dance, these are useful skills to acquire. So you have the "now I'm going to conspicuously switch over to my left hand, but don't read anything into that" signal for the Cerocspin. All fun stuff.


Don't use "signals"

Directly after this, Chris remembers that the signal of offering a hand and hoping it'll be taken up is very useful, consistent across several dances, and there's really no reason not to use it. Accordingly, the dance police like to claim that offering a hand is not a signal, but is in fact an ignalsay, and thus acceptable.

Another handy signal is the "don't-put-your-hand-on-my-shoulder" signal, as used in the neckbreak, and not in the first move. The simple act of raising the arm makes the shoulder less accessible, and guides the girl towards leaving her arm in front of the boy. This is consistent across both MJ and Lindy, and no doubt other dances too. It's such a popular signal that you can choose from many variations: Ceroc How!, Leroc Praying Mantis, Devils Horns, etc. You can also choose the I-can't-believe-it's-not-a-signal signal of waving your arm vaguely over to the right somewhere between the first and second count.

Completing my trio of signals I wouldn't do without is the classic signal of changing to a palm-to-palm or ball-and-socket grip. Again, that's used in several dances, and it signals that I won't be pulling my partner with this hand, at least until I change grip again.


That's not a signal - it's style!

Signals are a lot more stylish than dead arm syndrome. Plus, because you were no doubt taught them as a beginner, you don't have to think about them. All you have to do is ignore the dance police, and continue to let your spare hand wave around where it's used to waving around.
I guess an intermediate could choose to go to a style workshop, and practice various elegant arm motions, with the fingers moving in a manner reminscent of raindrops. If that's you, feel free to drop the Big Chief Talking Bull "How!" signal in favour of light showers, turning heavy later.

[ChrisA]

Accordingly, the dance police like to claim that offering a hand is not a signal, but is in fact an ignalsay, and thus acceptable.

Only just, in fact, but let me elaborate.

A hand shouldn't be offered where the girl has to dive for it.

In fact, an offered hand doesn't mean "please take my hand".

It means, "I am going to take your hand when it gets close enough."

And getting it close enough is part of what the lead is all about.

Ignalsays are Ok, IMO, when the girl can follow them with her eyes shut. And yes, I do include the pretzel. It requires that the girl has her hand in a nice waist level position, not glued elsewhere, but that's all.

[LMC]

Only just, in fact, but let me elaborate.

A hand shouldn't be offered where the girl has to dive for it.

In fact, an offered hand doesn't mean "please take my hand".

It means, "I am going to take your hand when it gets close enough."

And getting it close enough is part of what the lead is all about.

Ignalsays are Ok, IMO, when the girl can follow them with her eyes shut. And yes, I do include the pretzel. It requires that the girl has her hand in a nice waist level position, not glued elsewhere, but that's all.
:yeah:

Even for a neck break, the lead is from the lead's LH pulling the follower forward - the raised arm just stops the follow putting their hand on the lead's shoulder, as MH said.

[ducasi]

Besides "signals" of having your hand in a certain place with the hope that the girl might connect with it (e.g. in pretzels and "secret" moves), the only signal I can recall being taught was for the neck-break. I've also been taught it with the signal deliberately excluded – I think we were told it wasn't necessary. (It's not a move I do very often but I think the times I have used it, I did it without the signal to no ill effect.)

I am 99.9% pure Ceroc taught, so I'm finding this thread a touch confusing.

[DavidB]

I am 99.9% pure Ceroc taught, so I'm finding this thread a touch confusing.Franck is teaching the fundamentals of lead & follow at the BFG. Hopefully after that you would no longer be "confused by the touch"

[ducasi]

Franck is teaching the fundamentals of lead & follow at the BFG. Hopefully after that you would no longer be "confused by the touch"
Perhaps it's because 99% of my Ceroc teaching has been by Franck's team that I find all these references to signals I have never been taught confusing... :confused:

Would like to attend some of your workshops at the BFG, but I don't think I'm advanced enough... :sad:

[Gadget]

Please,

Don't use "signals"

You signal that a lady is to take your hand by offering it to her.

If she doesn't take it, do a different move.

Getting caught up with visual and verbal signals is a way to delay learning how to lead properly.
grrrrr I hate this, but I agree entirley with everything above.

You should be able to lead the lady in silence when her eyes are closed. Without collision or mistaken moves {or no more than usual :whistle:}. Signals are a sign of a new or poor lead IMHO.

...Or a couple/dance partners. I allow some leeway in my judgemental thinking for folk that work together enough to develop there own signals :devil:

[MartinHarper]

A hand shouldn't be offered where the girl has to dive for it. In fact, an offered hand doesn't mean "please take my hand". It means, "I am going to take your hand when it gets close enough."

That's a very elegant formulation.
I would instead say: a girl shouldn't dive for an hand offered out of reach; an offered hand means "please take my hand when it gets close to one of yours".


Ignalsays are Ok, IMO, when the girl can follow them with her eyes shut. And yes, I do include the pretzel.

How about the Yoyo (http://www.afterfive.co.uk/guide/latest/html/classic_yo_yo.html), Nigel's Move (http://www.afterfive.co.uk/guide/latest/html/nigels_move.html), and the Secret Move (http://www.afterfive.co.uk/guide/latest/html/secret_move.html)? How would someone lead the difference between those three on a blindfolded partner?
(open question, not particularly directed at ChrisA or Gadget)

[Gadget]

How about the Yoyo (http://www.afterfive.co.uk/guide/latest/html/classic_yo_yo.html),
Yo-Yo is simply opening out.


Nigel's Move (http://www.afterfive.co.uk/guide/latest/html/nigels_move.html),
This is just opening out, but collecting the spare hand behind your back.
Not tried yet, but it could be led by a slight adjustment of where you are in relation to the lady - a slight step forward, timed right, means that the lady's hand which was going for the shoulder would fall into your hand behind... I'll try it tonight and see.
Alternativly, move so that you are side to side, and placing your own hand behind your back to rest on the lady's hip should entice her to cover it with her hand.


and the Secret Move (http://www.afterfive.co.uk/guide/latest/html/secret_move.html)
That's the same, but catching the spare hand in-front rather than behind. A little bending at the knees and slight movement back should be able to intercept the lady's hand as it goes for the shoulder. I have done this before.

The alternative to these is to already have hold of the hand before going into the other variations. Or simply not to lead moves that are ambiguous or require a signal. :shrug: I don't think I'll run out of moves before having to resort to the 'how' of a neck-break.


(open question, not particularly directed at ChrisA or Gadget):blush: sorry :D

[Lou]

[Nigels Move] is just opening out, but collecting the spare hand behind your back.
Not tried yet, but it could be led by a slight adjustment of where you are in relation to the lady - a slight step forward, timed right, means that the lady's hand which was going for the shoulder would fall into your hand behind... I'll try it tonight and see.
Alternativly, move so that you are side to side, and placing your own hand behind your back to rest on the lady's hip should entice her to cover it with her hand.

I would be impressed with anyone who could follow a Nigel's Move blindfolded. It really does rely on the follower being able to see the hand offered behind the leader's back. The only ways I could imagine it working were if the follower was dancing with a leader she knew well and could recognise the little nuances in his body position, or if every time she was brought into his side (as per the start of the Yo-Yo), she would feel to see if the hand was there. Sounds fun, but blooming difficult!

Actually, I'm not sure a Nigel's Move is that leadable, anyway, to a follower who is unfamiliar with it. It's a very common LeRoc move, so 99% of Bristolian dancers will know it - however, when leading a Ceroc™ trained follower, there's a skill in getting her to pause on 3, and flick back on 4. (Variations on Nigel's where the leader doesn't let go with his right hand are easier!)

[clevedonboy]

Actually, I'm not sure a Nigel's Move is that leadable

Definitely agree from my experience. I can't lead it so I don't use it.

[ChrisA]

That's a very elegant formulation.

Thanks. But if you insist on:


I would instead say: a girl shouldn't dive for an hand offered out of reach; an offered hand means "please take my hand when it gets close to one of yours".

then of course, lots of moves such as


How about the ....examples snipped...

become unleadable if the lady can't see your hand.

I'll repeat: the lead is not the offered hand. It's what comes before it that enables the hand to be taken. Of course, the guy also has to position himself to make this smooth both to do and to watch.

All that the lady then needs to do is keep her arm and hand in an attractively takeable position, and lots of things become possible while she's blindfolded.

[clevedonboy]

I love this selective quotation lark


All that the lady then needs to do is keep .... in an attractively takeable position, and lots of things become possible while she's blindfolded. :blush:

It's a good point you're making though

[Gadget]

:blush: didn't read past the start of it... but I assume that if you can get the hand, then the rest of the move is standard leading.

There is a skill involved in getting any follower to pause on any beat! :D

[ChrisA]

There is a skill involved in getting any follower to pause on any beat! :D
It's not too difficult if there's a nice connection, and if the lead and follow are both hearing the music similarly it makes it a lot easier still.

Without a connection, it's virtually impossible.

[Asif]

I love this selective quotation lark
Can i join in as well then? :whistle:

All that the lady then needs to do is keep her arm and hand in an attractively takeable position, and lots of things become possible while she's blindfolded.
I have asked loads of women to close their eyes when we are dancing and just "feel" their way around the moves and they have told me that it has been quite an experience and they have learnt a lot from it (plus it gives me the chance to have a quick feel :yum: ).

[jockey]

In the "Ghost" post there is reference to a "neck drop";this is the "John Brett Special" (to Nigel and Nina) or a "one-arm drop" (in Australia). The Australian signal for this is the lead imititating an archer with his spare (left) hand as he sends her out for the whirlitzer start and tapping his right shoulder (see Simon Delisle on a Camber video circe 2001).
To add to the thread the signal that I have had most trouble with (because no follower knows what it means..)is thye signal for the first jump or first move jump-viz., tapping R shoulder with R forefinger. i usually get a firemans lift or a lap sit (aargh!)...:rofl: :sad:

[Ghost]

:clap: :cheers: :worthy:
For the debate so far. Very interesting.

The folllowing is just a shot in the dark (so apologies if I hit anyone :whistle: )
Statement 1
"Intermediates are taught signals because it's a quick way to get them to learn some of the core Intermediate moves
eg Wurlitzer, Neck Break, Pretzel, Secret, Accordian
and a safety feature so more "advanced" (I really want to say risky) drops can be taught and used in freestyle.

This way the Ceroc student has the basic 19(ish) moves, picks up the core Intermediate moves to which the teacher can then teach variations and learns some drops / dips. This lets the teacher add in another move to expand the repertoire without being too taxing and even if the student doesn't get it, they still have the core move / variation and drop to play with."

Statement 2 (follows on from Statement 1 but I realise people might agree with only one so I'm seperating them for ease of discussion)
"Once the Intermeidate student has got the core Intermediate moves down, they then gradually stop using signals and develop their lead. This always leaves them the options of using the signals
A) For style points
B) With a newish Intermediate
C) The move is a pain to lead otherwise
D) In the flow ie Martin's "Oh look your hand just happens to be in the right position for a pretzel"
E) You're having a bad night, your leading is lousy and you want to make it clearer what you're doing
F) Because you want to :cheers: "

I'm quite happy for the ideas to be shredded, but am curious as to why more people aren't advocating signals for Intermediates given how engrained into Ceroc class it appears to be.

Thanks
Christopher

[ChrisA]

I'm quite happy for the ideas to be shredded, but am curious as to why more people aren't advocating signals for Intermediates given how engrained into Ceroc class it appears to be.

Because, fortunately, most people, here at least, realise that:

a) if a move is so specialised (such as drops* or aerials) as to need a signal, it has no place on the social dance floor, due to the risk of the signal being misinterpreted with the consequent risk of injury, and also since those moves tend to take up a lot of space and force other dancers out of their space, which is rude.

b) if a move is suitable for the social dance floor it is leadable without signals, and that looks and feels much nicer for all concerned.


* some of the simple drops don't need signals either, but they're still usually not appropriate if it's even remotely busy, due to the amount of space they take up.

[Gadget]

I'm quite happy for the ideas to be shredded, but am curious as to why more people aren't advocating signals for Intermediates given how engrained into Ceroc class it appears to be.
Wat ChrisA said, and...

Signals rely on the follower understanding what they mean. This leads to some problems:

* You have to be dancing with a follower that knows the signal to do the move. How can you tell untill you try the signal?

* You have to be sure that the follower's interpritation of your signal is the same as yours.

* What do you do when you scratch an itchy nose and suddenly find that your partner has launched themselves at you?

* You are telling the follower what to expect, which puts them into 'anticipation' mode rather than 'follow' mode and makes them harder to lead

* If a signal is missed, it looks like a signal is missed; if a lead is missed, you can bluff it so that it looks seamless and intentional.

And, as chris said - any moves that require a signal are generally air-steps; most folk are now tending to use verbal signals for these (AFIK) so that visual signals don't 'spoil' the look of the dance.

[DavidB]

Picture the scene in a new TV ad.

A man goes to a dance class, and learns a new drop with a unique signal. Pat the lady on her bum, and she will do this amazing dramatic drop. He travels around the UK and it seems to work everywhere.

Then he goes to Australia, and it still works. Then New Zealand, and even Singapore on the way back. All the girls love this move, and can't wait to do it.

Finally he ends up at Jango. He tries patting Kate on the bum, and she knees him in the balls.

The scene fades, and the tag-line scrolls into view:
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
"Never underestimate the power of Local Knowledge.
HSBC - the Worlds local bank"

[MartinHarper]

Not tried yet, but (Nigel's Move) could be led by...

Try it. Come back and tell us if it worked.
I tried it once, as it happens, and it didn't work for me. My partner ended up doing something like a slow hatchback, if I recall correctly. This is how I verified that, for Nigel's Move, I am relying on a combination of lead+signal.
If I believed that all signals are evil, I would shun the move, as Gadget and ChrisA recommend. I would never use it again until I was sure I could lead it purely based on the lead alone, because "if I can't lead it properly, don't lead it at all".


Signals rely on the follower understanding what they mean. This leads to some problems:

Bad use of signals causes problems.
Solution A: never use signals! Signals are evil!
Solution B: don't use signals in bad ways.


You have to be dancing with a follower that knows the signal to do the move. How can you tell until you try the signal?

Me, I make an educated guess. For example, if I'm walking into a local Ceroc class, and I see that the board with the beginner routine has the words "Man Spin" on it, then I can be reasonably confident that the beginners there will recognise the Ceroc hand signal for a man spin, and will react appropriately to the verbal signal "man spin?".
This is what I do for lead/follow too. I choose movements that I guess I'll be able to lead on my partner, and sometimes I'm wrong, and it's no big deal.


What do you do when you scratch an itchy nose and suddenly find that your partner has launched themselves at you?

Hypothetically, I let her land on her bum, and look puzzled. Reacting to an unclear aerial signal, from an unfamiliar guy, in the absence of any lead for an aerial, would be pretty dire following. It's not happened to me yet. Has it happened to you?
(are your women defective, or do they just enjoy doing UCP with the dancefloor?)

[ChrisA]

recognise the Ceroc hand signal for a man spin
This has got to be among the worst ones.

Given that in the manspin, there is nothing whatsoever for the lady to do except walk past, since it is the guy that wraps in, the idea that you need a signal of any kind is nonsense.

But even in Ceroc classes, at long last, we're starting to see a move away from this complete rubbish about the guy's arm raised at waist level being a "signal" for a manspin.

Raising the arm serves one purpose only... to stop it getting trapped, and from looking stupid, glued to the guy's side. And to their credit, some Ceroc teachers are starting to teach it as such. :clap:

[Lou]

And, as chris said - any moves that require a signal are generally air-steps; most folk are now tending to use verbal signals for these (AFIK) so that visual signals don't 'spoil' the look of the dance.
With the exception of that pesky Nigel's Move, which seems to be our example for this thread.

(Of course, one could argue that Nigel's Move has no place on the dancefloor either - not because it's dangerous or unleadable, but because it's so NAFF that it's a Crime Against Cool Dancing. That bit where both dancers make the "traffic stop" pose with their hands? It's a wonder a couple of Ceroc™ Beginners don't run onto the dancefloor to join them to try and do a Neckbreak! And don't get me started on the Nigel's variation with the clicky snappy fingers going on..... :rolleyes: )

But that's besides the point.

If a Leader can use signals to make things clearer for his Follower, isn't that a good thing? And surely a good Leader will use every trick & skill he possesses, to make the best possible dance for his Follower? Which brings us around to Martin's

Solution B: don't use signals in bad ways.

It is possible to use signals in good ways.

I like my tap on the shoulder signal (which started this whole debate off) because I think it shows courtesy to a less experienced Follower, and warns her that something different is coming up. I often use it in Catapult and Figure of 8 variations.

When following, I will also sometimes use a squeeze of the hand to indicate to my partner that I'd like some time to play. And I've had it done to me by the Leader, to say that there's an opportunity to take control, if I want.

The use of a head movement, or simply a look by the Leader, can help the Follower understand a change of direction that he wants her to step towards.

I've already touched on the example that signals are a good learning mechanism for beginners - but I just want to expand on that & give another reason why. And that is to ensure that the Leader's arm and body position are best placed to perform the move. To take the Ceroc™ ManSpin as an example, the signal ensures that the man's right arm is away from his body, as thus it's harder for him to trap it as he wraps himself in whilst changing places with the lady.

ETA after seeing ChrisA's crossed post: Other examples are Neckbreak, Figure of 8, First Move, etc... not just the ManSpin!

Yes, signals have drawbacks. They can be confusing. I remember the first time I ever saw a Ceroc™ Neckbreak signal. I stopped. (Well, what else do you expect to do when you see a man signalling "stop" at you?! But at least it wasn't some sort of dangerous airstep!) They can encourage anticipation. And they can look ungainly. However, with moderate and appropriate usage, I still think they're an extremely helpful tool.

[David Franklin]

* You have to be sure that the follower's interpritation of your signal is the same as yours.

To add to the thread the signal that I have had most trouble with (because no follower knows what it means..)is thye signal for the first jump or first move jump-viz. , tapping R shoulder with R forefinger.This is probably the biggest danger with signals - not that the follower doesn't know it, but that she "knows" it to mean something completely different. I've seen the shoulder tap taught as a signal for both a half-loop and lapsit; I've also heard of a bloke who uses it as a signal for a supergirl. :tears:


And, as chris said - any moves that require a signal are generally air-steps; most folk are now tending to use verbal signals for these (AFIK) so that visual signals don't 'spoil' the look of the dance.For myself, it's got nothing to do with the look of the dance; speaking is a simple, clear form of communication, and it's a lot more flexible than signalling - for example I might murmer "backangel on the break coming up", or "I'll put you down after two turns". And of course it's rather hard to signal during an aerial, while until I resort to using my teeth for a lift, talking isn't so much affected... :wink:

[LMC]

:non-existent lightbulb smiley: (I'm blonde, all right?)

The whole tap on the shoulder thing - I have had some partners do this before leading some moves. Don't ask me which moves, because they seem to work in spite of the shoulder tap not because of it :rolleyes: - I'm hopeless with remembering names of moves anyway. But I confess that I thought it was just an emphasis to "I'm holding onto your hand, don't let go and turn"...

(If I can reach) I acknowledge by tapping the lead's shoulder in return - might that be hellishly confusing for them? hope so :devil:

[Lou]

(If I can reach) I acknowledge by tapping the lead's shoulder in return - might that be hellishly confusing for them? hope so :devil:
:devil: I sometimes do that too - with an evil twinkle, of course... :whistle:

[MartinHarper]

Even in Ceroc classes, at long last, we're starting to see a move away from this complete rubbish about the guy's arm raised at waist level being a "signal" for a manspin.

It's an arm gesture made by the leader that the follower will see. Whether I intend it as a signal, a style point, a way of avoiding trapping my hand, or an attempt to order a pint of bitter, my partner will still see it. Since she can't read my mind, she'll react to it precisely as much (and as little) to its signalling aspect, regardless of whether I regard it as a signal or not.

[David Bailey]

It's an arm gesture made by the leader that the follower will see. Whether I intend it as a signal, a style point, a way of avoiding trapping my hand, or an attempt to order a pint of bitter, my partner will still see it. Since she can't read my mind, she'll react to it precisely as much (and as little) to its signalling aspect, regardless of whether I regard it as a signal or not.
But, for a manspin, I thought the main point was that the lady doesn't need to do anything abnormal, therefore raising the hand and using it as a signal is kind of pointless.

Obviously, raising the hand is a good idea to get it out of the way, but that's it. And the difference between an exaggerated manspin signal and a neckbreak signal may not be obvious in freestyle - so leading potentially to more confusion.

Having said that, I don't think all signals are always bad - but most of them mostly are :)

[Lou]

Having said that, I don't think all signals are always bad - but most of them mostly are :) :clap: Bless you, Young Paduan. Wise, you are, in the way of the dance....

LMC - any of that popcorn left?

[David Bailey]

:clap: Bless you, Young Paduan. Wise, you are, in the way of the dance....
This is true, I can't deny it.

But I thought it was "padawan" - or was that just some subtle insult instead of compliment last time someone said that to me? :eek: :whistle:

[Gadget]

It is possible to use signals in good ways.

I like my tap on the shoulder signal (which started this whole debate off) because I think it shows courtesy to a less experienced Follower, and warns her that something different is coming up. I often use it in Catapult and Figure of 8 variations.
:what: ok, to a beginner, everything is "something different". And you use the same signal for multiple variations - won't that lead to more confusion rather than less?


When following, I will also sometimes use a squeeze of the hand to indicate to my partner that I'd like some time to play. And I've had it done to me by the Leader, to say that there's an opportunity to take control, if I want.Personally, I would take a hand squeeze as a 'that was good' or 'thank-you' (unless there is a terrified expression on my partner's face at the time) Most partners who want time to play, generally just take it when the opportunity arrives or I lead them into some 'dead' space.
Was the hand-squeeze followed by a lack of leading? If so, why the hand-squeeze in the first plce?


The use of a head movement, or simply a look by the Leader, can help the Follower understand a change of direction that he wants her to step towards. So can leading... although the thought of simply leading by standing and nodding the head too and fro is amusing :D


{good signals}... ensure that the Leader's arm and body position are best placed to perform the move. To take the Ceroc™ ManSpin as an example, the signal ensures that the man's right arm is away from his body, as thus it's harder for him to trap it as he wraps himself in whilst changing places with the lady.But why prepare so far in advance? And the action of 'winding up' means that the signaling arm wants to continue on this path - much harder to deviate and go into a different move from a man-spin start. Harder to catch left because the right is already heading towards your partner's hand. It also can unballance the lead; one arm is out to the side and the other is close in - this can result in the leads raising their leading hand/elbow without realising it just to balance out.
Yet another problem is the 'half-hearted' signals that are even more confusing than 'proper' signals: the follower is left wondering "was that a signal? If so, which one was it?


{snip agreeing points} However, with moderate and appropriate usage, I still think they're an extremely helpful tool.How do they help? They encourage the follower to anticipate rather than follow and the lead to signal rather than lead. Using them only to indicate there's a tricky move coming up conditions them into being on 'auto-pilot' for the rest of the dance and only paying attention when you signal for it.

signals = bad.

[Lou]

But I thought it was "padawan" - or was that just some subtle insult instead of compliment last time someone said that to me? :eek: :whistle:
I think both are valid - maybe the dialect & spelling depends on where you are in the galaxy?

[Lou]

:what: ok, to a beginner, everything is "something different". And you use the same signal for multiple variations - won't that lead to more confusion rather than less?
Not if they're used to the common beginner's move version. By indicating that it's a variation, it helps the Follower learn to "listen" to what the Lead is asking her to do. Remember - I'm advocating the use of signals for inexperienced dancers here.


Was the hand-squeeze followed by a lack of leading? If so, why the hand-squeeze in the first plce?
Just a matter of courtesy, to allow the Follower a nano-second more to understand that playtime is coming up. That means that she knows that the Leader is aware there's a break coming up & she can do something, without hi-jacking his lead (which, if I recall correctly, is something you're not too fond of). Also, I use it if I'm in a R-R hold going into a return & I fancy doing a ronde. Quite often a chap will fancify a R-R return himself - so this warns him that I'd like a go... :whistle:


So can leading... although the thought of simply leading by standing and nodding the head too and fro is amusing :D
Why do I suddenly get an image of DavidB popping into my head...


But why prepare so far in advance?
Good training for a beginner lead to think in advance of what move he can do next?


And the action of 'winding up' means that the signaling arm wants to continue on this path - much harder to deviate and go into a different move from a man-spin start. Harder to catch left because the right is already heading towards your partner's hand. It also can unballance the lead; one arm is out to the side and the other is close in - this can result in the leads raising their leading hand/elbow without realising it just to balance out.
Sorry, Gadget - you've lost me there. Maybe we can experiment at BFG & you can show me what you mean?


How do they help? They encourage the follower to anticipate rather than follow and the lead to signal rather than lead.
Sorry? I'm confused? How does that help? I listed that as a disadvantage previously. Are you disagreeing? :confused:


Using them only to indicate there's a tricky move coming up conditions them into being on 'auto-pilot' for the rest of the dance and only paying attention when you signal for it.
Actually, autopilot is a lovely stage to be at as a Follower. I'd rather not think! ;)

[MartinHarper]

I thought the main point was that the lady doesn't need to do anything abnormal, therefore raising the hand and using it as a signal is kind of pointless.

I find it's good for reassurance when dancing with beginners.

[David Bailey]

I find it's good for reassurance when dancing with beginners.
Yeah, but the problem with all these cheats or tricks or handy hints is that they tend to turn into bad habits all too soon, and it takes years to get rid of them.

Of course, it's a trade-off as always in MJ between getting people dancing quickly, and getting them dancing well. But let's not fool ourselves - the "getting everyone to dance" concept is a largely commercially-driven proposition, designed to maximise retention numbers.

And the tools Ceroc (mainly) uses to do this aren't tools designed to get everyone to dance ideally - they're tools designed to get beginners to a level where they can sort of dance, very quickly.

Signalling is such a tool - it may be useful for teaching purposes, but I'm not keen on them in any freestyle, it simply reinforces bad habits in my opinion.


So can leading... although the thought of simply leading by standing and nodding the head too and fro is amusing
That sounds like a challenge to me... OK, I'm game. I'll give it a go next time I'm with a super-follower.

[LMC]

That sounds like a challenge to me... OK, I'm game. I'll give it a go next time I'm with a super-follower.
Pick me, pick me - I don't count as a super-follower (not even close) but I *am* game for a laugh...:devil:

Signals are Evil. Even for moves with more or less universally recognised signals eg the manspin, the *lead* - i.e. follow steps forward - is the important thing.

[clevedonboy]

Regarding the Man Spin or Change Places.

As a veteran of two Swing Dance classes, I can talk (a little) about the what I presume to be the original version.

In six count swing in an open hold the shape for the lead goes rock (quick) step (quick) step forward on the left (slow) taking your left hand (partner right) to your left hip release grip step onto right and pivot (slow) collect partners right hand. You do have to be aware of what your right hand is doing so as not to get tangled but there is no exagerated right arm across the chest movement.

Not sure what it adds to the conversation but I've been dying to tell people about how much fun I'm having doing it

[Gadget]

Not if they're used to the common beginner's move version. By indicating that it's a variation, it helps the Follower learn to "listen" to what the Lead is asking her to do. Remember - I'm advocating the use of signals for inexperienced dancers here.So it's a matter of "I can't actually lead this next bit, but if I signal to you what I mean, you will execute the move." Yes? SO... you want inexperianced leaders to get into the habbit of letting the followers lead themselves, and the inexperianced followers that they lead to get into the habbit of anticipating.

I agree, it has been used as a tool for beginner dancers. It does work to get people dancing because both partners are watching for signals and working together to perform the move. BUT I think that relying on obvious visual signals instead of "feeling" and using the tactile signals of lead and follow {which is not that different} inserts a barrier to the dancer's progress before they have even begun to progress!


Just a matter of courtesy, to allow the Follower a nano-second more to understand that playtime is coming up. and that nano-second couldn't be a subtle deceleration or lightening of the lead instead? Why use an obvious signal that probably takes longer and has to be translated by your partner instead of easing them into it?

...without hi-jacking his lead (which, if I recall correctly, is something you're not too fond of).{:whistle:} With some of the ladies I dance with, I've had to become a bit more tollerant in my old age :innocent: Na - I still dislike someone hi-jacking - I am just a bt more aware of the "signals" and l pretend that it was all my idea in the first place :D :rofl:


Why do I suddenly get an image of DavidB popping into my head...yea... I deleted a reference to him before I actually posted that :)


Sorry, Gadget - you've lost me there. Maybe we can experiment at BFG & you can show me what you mean?
Simple really: stand on one foot. extend left hand as if holding your partner's right. Signal for a man spin (real-time, not bullet-time) and see what happens to the left hand. Remember that beginners are much more enthusiastic in signals and movements - the act of raising the right elbow and pulling back twists the shoulders and torso to almost start the follower moving to the lead's right before the move has even started to be led.
You may see this as a good thing. Personally, I want my partner to be moving towards me, not to my right: I will move out her way and collect with her on the same line. I like to be aware of my movements and how they affect my lead - signals (and excessive stylings :blush: ) can result in unintentional messages being given through the lead.
{I hope I will be too busy dancing with you to bother about experiments like this. :flower:}


Sorry? I'm confused? How does that help? I listed that as a disadvantage previously. Are you disagreeing? :confused: Badly put perhaps - the intent was to show why signals were bad.


Actually, autopilot is a lovely stage to be at as a Follower. I'd rather not think! ;)There is the 'dream state' of following that you are refering to, but there is also the 'auto-pilot' where it's autonomous "first move"-execute-"arm-jive"-execute-"basket"-execute-"octo.... that is almost catatonic rather than dream-like.

[Tellina]

:devil: I sometimes do that too - with an evil twinkle, of course... :whistle:
Oh no! I do that all the time (tapping the guy's shoulder after he taps mine). I had no idea that it was a signal and I just copied it thinking that it was a styling thing. Actually, I seem to remember that one guy I danced with actually told me that I should tap his shoulder too. This was way back, before I had even heard of visual signals for moves.

Lily

[Lou]

So it's a matter of "I can't actually lead this next bit, but if I signal to you what I mean, you will execute the move." Yes?
No. :D It's not that the Leader can't lead. It's more that he knows that the Follower is less experienced, so he's asking her to listen closely to the lead he's going to give her next.


I agree
:clap:


it has been used as a tool for beginner dancers. It does work to get people dancing because both partners are watching for signals and working together to perform the move. BUT I think that relying on obvious visual signals instead of "feeling" and using the tactile signals of lead and follow {which is not that different} inserts a barrier to the dancer's progress before they have even begun to progress!
Yup. Totally. Wouldn't disagree at all. In fact, this is the point I've been arguing all along. Yup - it does insert that barrier that you mention - however, I think the good outweighs the bad because signals do get new beginners dancing together sooner.

What I was hoping was that this thread might have veered off & started talking about how teachers can best convey concepts such as Lead & Follow to their Iprovers & Intermediate dancers.


and that nano-second couldn't be a subtle deceleration or lightening of the lead instead? Why use an obvious signal that probably takes longer and has to be translated by your partner instead of easing them into it?
Dunno. I have partners who do both. And both methods work fine.


Na - I still dislike someone hi-jacking - I am just a bt more aware of the "signals" and l pretend that it was all my idea in the first place :D :rofl:
:hug:



Signal for a man spin (real-time, not bullet-time)
Meaniehead. With bullet-time at least I can pretend my partner is Keanu...


I will move out her way and collect with her on the same line
*swoon* You're a rare man indeed, Gadget! :flower:


. I like to be aware of my movements and how they affect my lead - signals (and excessive stylings :blush: ) can result in unintentional messages being given through the lead.
Again - totally agreed. But I never argued that signals are right for everybody. We have a local dancer who uses a lot of signals. He points to where he wants his lady to follow. He gestures. He signals. It actually works well for him, and although I have to admit that the styling isn't to my personal taste, I find him extremely pleasant to dance with.

See ya at BFG for those dances! :hug:

[Lou]

Actually, I seem to remember that one guy I danced with actually told me that I should tap his shoulder too. This was way back, before I had even heard of visual signals for moves.
Ahhh.. there is a move called the Back Barrier, when sometimes both dancers are encouraged to tap shoulders - for style, of course.... ;)

[Tellina]

Ahhh.. there is a move called the Back Barrier, when sometimes both dancers are encouraged to tap shoulders - for style, of course.... ;)

Oh ok, maybe that's the move. Thanks! :cheers:

[bigdjiver]

When I send a lady into a spin I do not use just the right amount of force to make her turn 360 degrees. It is her that decides how far she will turn. Some beginners stop at 120 degrees, and then give the "what now?" look. Some of the advanced spin twice, or more. a lady might spin 1 1/2 times, and stick out there arms behind them, trying to take the lead into a catpult exit. The lead is all nearly signals. For me the only right or wrong issue is whether the partners understand each other, and are content.

[Ghost]

Ok,
I had an experiment with signaling and not signalling. Found out a couple of things.

Firstly the signal for the neckbreak doesn't seem to make sense in the context of Ceroc. I was dancing with a newish Intermediate who knew the signals for the secret and the pretzel. I deliberately keep my spare hand hidden form the lady's view if I don't want her to take it to avoid confusion. So her train of thought is that if I offer my other hand she's supposed to take it. Fair enough. I raised my hand into the neckbreak signal and the best way I can describe it is that she tried to high five me with her left hand as we stepped in. I have to admit, this makes perfect sense to me. The signal reads to someone who doesn't know it as "please take my raised right hand". If the lady does take your raised right hand it does leave you in a position to do some interesting moves.

I found that not signalling wth a couple of other people made the dance flow more smoothly as they weren't trying to anticipate which variation of the neckbreak I was going to do.

Take care,
Christopher

[David Bailey]

Fair enough. I raised my hand into the neckbreak signal and the best way I can describe it is that she tried to high five me with her left hand as we stepped in.
That's classic :rofl:

Hmmm, there's no need to signal a neck-break - you can just lead a first move, then transfer her hand from your left to your right at the appropriate point. I think it looks a little smoother if you transfer as a continuous motion, but the staccato version may also have advantages.

[Ghost]

Hmmm, there's no need to signal a neck-break - you can just lead a first move, then transfer her hand from your left to your right at the appropriate point. I think it looks a little smoother if you transfer as a continuous motion, but the staccato version may also have advantages.

:cheers:

Agreed - had a "lightbulb goes off over my head moment" when I was leading this without signals and realised that it's just a first move variation. Definetely a lot smoother without the signal.

I also tried Cynthia's Pretzel without signalling and found that if I only kept one hand contact it goes a lot more smoothly

Take care,
Christopher

[LMC]

Well, I've never been able to take a crucifix seriously since Southport (and it's ALL killingtime's fault - well done that man). And yesterday's intermediate class demonstrates that there will never be any hope... me and the crucifix will never be friends

Crucifix variation. Follow "goes down" (yes, that's a quote :non-existent zippy mouth guy: ) for two beats. The lead is, apparently, for the lead to shout "Go down". This really happened - ask wittybird if you don't believe me :innocent:

*wanders off again, trying NOT to snigger - WARNING: any guy who tries this may get more than they bargained for... 99.9 recurring % probability of a slap...*

[Ghost]

Well, I've never been able to take a crucifix seriously since Southport (and it's ALL killingtime's fault - well done that man). And yesterday's intermediate class demonstrates that there will never be any hope... me and the crucifix will never be friends

Crucifix variation. Follow "goes down" (yes, that's a quote :non-existent zippy mouth guy: ) for two beats. The lead is, apparently, for the lead to shout "Go down". This really happened - ask wittybird if you don't believe me :innocent:

*wanders off again, trying NOT to snigger - WARNING: any guy who tries this may get more than they bargained for... 99.9 recurring % probability of a slap...*

:rofl:
I have a mental image of trying this lead with someone who doesn't know the move :whistle:

What's the line from Stealth? "I believe a man should kneel before a woman, but there are times when a woman should bow down before a man"

Take care,
Christopher

[David Bailey]

Crucifix variation. Follow "goes down" (yes, that's a quote :non-existent zippy mouth guy: ) for two beats. The lead is, apparently, for the lead to shout "Go down". This really happened - ask wittybird if you don't believe me :innocent:
OK, let's not confuse a cr&p teacher (blue touchpaper, here I come baby) with a nice move.

Anyone teaching that you need to shout, in order to lead any move should be shot - OK, they should hung, then drawn, then quartered, then shot (then nuked from orbit to make sure).

I like the crucifix - it's an opportunity for the follow to play around. I think it's supposed to be difficult to lead any move - the follower chooses what she wants to do at that point, and she can pretty much control the sequence. The most the follower can do, even with a rigid frame, is suggest or invite.

Both Miss Conduct and ZW both have very clear and very :drool: ideas about what they can do with a crucifix... :whistle:

[MartinHarper]

The signal for the neckbreak doesn't seem to make sense in the context of Ceroc... Her train of thought is that if I offer my other hand she's supposed to take it.

Well, as ChrisA has pointed out, she is supposed to take it (or allow it to be taken, as Chris prefers) "when it gets close enough". Important difference.


I raised my hand into the neckbreak signal and the best way I can describe it is that she tried to high five me with her left hand as we stepped in. I have to admit, this makes perfect sense to me.

It depends on the lead that's accompanying the signal. If I'm leading my partner to come straight forwards, I'd expect her to pick up my hand by "high fiving" it. As you say, that can develop into various different moves.

In a neckbreak, I should be leading my partner to come forwards and then rotate. The signal can be similar, but the lead is different, so it results in a different move.


There's no need to signal a neck-break - you can just lead a first move, then transfer her hand from your left to your right at the appropriate point.

I find it's necessary to faster music. If I'm dancing a neckbreak to the Jive Aces, I'll probably want to "throw" her right hand between my hands. That only works for me if I signal, so my partner keeps her hand high whilst it is being thrown.

[LMC]

Both Miss Conduct and ZW both have very clear and very :drool: ideas about what they can do with a crucifix... :whistle:
And I bet it doesn't include an aeroplane (with sound effects) :rofl: - sorry, I just can't take that damn move seriously. Maybe I need a dance with a (sex?) god to reverse the trauma... :whistle:

[Ghost]

Well, as ChrisA has pointed out, she is supposed to take it (or allow it to be taken, as Chris prefers) "when it gets close enough". Important difference.

Valid point. She did jump the gun by raising her hand early at which point I didn't want to lead her into a rotate as it would have involved her slapping me in the face.


I find it's necessary to faster music. If I'm dancing a neckbreak to the Jive Aces, I'll probably want to "throw" her right hand between my hands. That only works for me if I signal, so my partner keeps her hand high whilst it is being thrown.
I found it easier without the signal to faster music, but then I haven't heard the Jive Aces, so I don't know how fast you're talking.

Thanks for your thoughts :cheers:

Christopher

[David Bailey]

And I bet it doesn't include an aeroplane (with sound effects)
Not so far - although I'll be sure to suggest it.

In salsa, that's called the Titanic ('coz of the Kate Winslet-like pose, and no smutty jokes about going down please :whistle: ).

[Gadget]

I like the crucifix - it's an opportunity for the follow to play around. I think it's supposed to be difficult to lead any move - the follower chooses what she wants to do at that point, and she can pretty much control the sequence. The most the leader can do, even with a rigid frame, is suggest or invite.
{I take it you meant 'leader'?}
I like it - a nice move with *loads* that can be done within it. I don't think I've ever done a blusey dance without at least one variation of the crucifx thrown in.
Is it just with me, or do most ladies who know it automatically think "Oh! a crucifix! I know this one... wiggle, wiggle, slide down and extend foot, back up again turn and face." :rolleyes: Perhaps it's just that's always the way it's taught. (oh, or the reverse body-roll: that's always fun :devil::whistle: )