I'm a little confused too - for example, I can't see much frame in a Cerocspin.
I always assumed that frame referred to the positioning when in (ballroom) hold, in that this hold provides the, err, frame.
I wish teachers wouldn't use the word "frame".
"Frame" seems to mean whatever the listener wants it to mean. So it reinforces any idiosynchrasy the listener already has.
Some people say every move has a "frame". But do they mean anything more than having tension?
To a muggle onlooker, moves like the Columbian and Manhattan have, in muggle English, a very clear frame which moves like the Return and First Move don't have.
Is muggle English wrong?
I had asked Gadget whether the return has a "frame" to see what he meant by "frame".
Clearly it's completely different from what I mean by "frame".
OK. So what is the word I should use to describe, in the Columbian, Manhattan, etc, leader and follower keeping their shoulders and upper bodies fixed relative to each other, and only wiggling their other bits?
I call it a "frame", because it looks like one. I'm happy to call it by some other word. But it makes discussion of the concept virtually impossible if everyone's in Freudian denial by refusing to give the concept a name at all.
Should "frame" mean a two-person thing, or a one-person thing?
And if a one-person thing, what word should describe the two-person thing?
I'm a little confused too - for example, I can't see much frame in a Cerocspin.
I always assumed that frame referred to the positioning when in (ballroom) hold, in that this hold provides the, err, frame.
The key aspect of a frame is connection – in a wooden frame, what makes it a frame is that the bits are connected to each other.
In a human frame, it's about connecting your arms to your body so that moving your body moves your arms and visa versa – (someone) moving your arm moves your body.
Frames don't have to be rigid or fixed though.
Let your mind go and your body will follow. – Steve Martin, LA Story
A Cerocspin wouldn't work without frame, as it requires that the lady's arm is connected to her body, else you'll just get a floppy arm and no spin.
Ideally, the man has frame between his body and arm too, so that he can lead the spin from his body and not just with his arm.
Let your mind go and your body will follow. – Steve Martin, LA Story
I'd be interested in hearing from an experienced teacher, on what they think "frame" is – Franck?
I'd say that frame is more than just tension though – it's engaging muscles so that tension and compression can be transmitted through them.
You don't need a "box" to have a frame – ballet dancers have frame, and use it to keep themselves balanced during their spins for example.
Let your mind go and your body will follow. – Steve Martin, LA Story
I would still think of that as a "box" though , any position you can hold and get the same every time (or try to) when dancing is a "frame" in my book. A precise body position on your own or with a partner counts as a "frame" . This covers lots of moves including the "first move" as it has a very strong frame when you step back and the follower can be led into many, many things from there. I would not suggest return or spin moves have a frame though, what body position do you adopt there other than your own personal posture ? Even the cerocspin is just a bit of tension and a push - no specific frame.
Happy to oblige as indeed, 'Frame' is one of the most misunderstood concept (after connection).
The confusion arises because in partner dancing we use different types of frame, all of which are referred as such by various teachers / dancers.
As you mentioned, the first frame is your own body posture and integrity. We connect our limbs to our torso by engaging dorsal muscles and by adding variable degrees of 'tension' (another misused word). This allows us, for example, to move one hand at the same time as the other via the torso, or to communicate a body lead via our hand connection to our partners instantly.
Developing this (I refer to it as 'Inner') frame is crucial for controlled, in time and smoothly led partner dancing, as well as looking better and improving balance, etc.
The second frame is the one we create with our partner and is a means of attaching two independent frames together via connection (be it physical or visual). The aim, however is the same: to be able to communicate movement to any other part of the (multiple) frame as instantly as possible.
The Cerocspin is a good example, as the lead should be able to communicate a spin by starting his own spin (anti-clockwise), the momentum being communicated through his frame > the connection with his partner > her frame - so that both spins are exactly synchronized.
I realise my description above is not the exact Cerocspin, but a version where both spin, and is body led, rather than arm led, but I wanted a clearer example.
What is often referred to as a 'Ballroom Frame' is a closed (often more rigid but not necessarily) between two partners with multiple points of connection (instead of one or two). This type of frame is very useful for leading close hold walks and faster pivots (and changes of direction) where you want to minimize the margins of error (so you don't step on each other's toes). The more connection points there are, the more the two (inner) frames move together and the more ambitious the patterns you lead / follow can be.
I apologize for the essay above, but there is so much to say on the subject and my Focus workshops cover all those aspects individually over many hours.
Franck.
There's an A.P.P. for that!
My Latin ballroom teacher always explained it as: Frame = your arm position and topline whilst dancing. Dancers have frames not moves!
I'd say to be able to create a good frame with a partner, both parties firstly have to have good frames independently of each other.
By this, I mean 'good posture,' with enough tension in their arms, through to their core's, that whatever body movement they give/recieve, (however small) applied to any area of the 'frame' (be it the hand, arm, shoulder or back) it will be transferred back to/from the entire body (core)!
IMO, the lead should lead from his body, even though it may only be his hand thats touching
And likewise, the follow, may recieve the lead only through her extremities but if she has a good frame, her whole body should react.
MODERATOR AT YOUR SERVICE
"If you're going to do something tonight, that you know you'll be sorry for in the morning, plan a lie in." Lorraine
I agree with the rest of your post, but this is not accurate. Body leads are very useful and should be used as much as possible when appropriate, but arm leads can be just as important and useful (as well as visual leads, foot leads, knee leads and even verbal leads on occasion).
I always try in my classes to separate the connection from the lead, to avoid confusion. Once you are connected properly (and both of you therefore have connected frames) you can use the type of lead which is most appropriate for the move / pattern you're trying to achieve. Sometimes a body lead will be best, other times, a different type of lead will be required. This doesn't mean that your body positioning is not important and does indeed help in prep-ing the lead and confirming the arm or hand lead's intention to the follower.
Well posture is only one part of 'inner frame' and can also be confusing. Asking someone to improve their posture might mean something altogether different to them, and it is possible to have great posture but a poor frame if the dorsal muscles (behind and around the shoulder blades) are not engaged and you have little muscle tone in the arms.
Franck.
There's an A.P.P. for that!
Yes, sorry, I agree..
My mind was more focused on leading 'using' the frame
as an aside...
There's nothing worse than a lead who gives conflicting signals... (saying one thing with their body and something completely different with their hand ) I think its probably worse for an experienced follow, who picks up on lots of subtle movements!
MODERATOR AT YOUR SERVICE
"If you're going to do something tonight, that you know you'll be sorry for in the morning, plan a lie in." Lorraine
Guys, frame is useful to learn:
- If you are interested in dancing - then frame let's you control and move the lady's chest.
- If you aren't interested in dancing - then frame lets you control and move the lady's chest.
SpinDr
Let me try to summarise …
(I hope nobody feels they're being framed. Or deframed.)
DavidJames thinks of "frame" as a two-person thing, a sort of box, and TA Guy agrees:
Gadget [;383847] and ducasi think of "frame" as a one-person thing, present even in a return; ducasi specifies it as tension plus engaging muscles, and Dreadful Scathe almost agrees:
Lory recognises both one-person and two-person "frame" [;384430], and mikeyr [;384437] agrees, while spindr [;384456] has his mind on the higher things!
And Franck, who appears to be in the frame business , defines three types of "frame": a one-person "inner frame", a second two-person frame (no name given), and a specific two-person "ballroom frame" (all good stuff, but too long to quote). [;384382]
What strikes me most is that those who think "frame" means a two-person thing do recognise the one-person thing, but call it something else; but those who think "frame" means a one-person thing don't seem to want to talk about the two-person thing.
They're in a sort of Freudian denial about it, which makes discussion of two-person "frame" difficult.
Now I'm completely in the frame, I'd go with Franck's terminology: "inner frame" for the one-person thing which you can feel but can't necessarily see; "frame" for the two-person thing which even a muggle can always see; and "ballroom frame" where specifically appropriate.
Just to add something inane, I use a Dalek simile when I'm talking about the individual "frame". I say something like "girls, imagine that you are a like a Dalek and your arm is the exterminator. You've got very little side to side movement* with your exterminator so you mostly have to move your whole body if somebody pushes your exterminator". I go on to say stuff about the guys being gentle if the they want to avoid "extermination" and the ladies being dangerous, scary, etc, etc.
*I'm not really sure how much side to side movement an exterminator has, it definitely can't point behind a Dalek's back, and people seem to get the idea in a light hearted way.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks