Leaders – I love being hijacked on every move I lead
Leaders – I like being hijacked but not excessively
Leaders – The odd hijack keeps me on my toes
Leaders – The odd hijack slightly annoys me
Leaders – Constant hijacking is annoying
Leaders – I hate being hijacked on every move I lead
Leaders – For me I think it can be dangerous
Followers - I love hijacking on every move
Followers – I like to hijacking moves occasionally
Followers – I never hijack as I don’t like to
Followers – For me I think it can be dangerous
Why do you want to keep people on their toes?
Possibly, the guy simply thought you'd followed incorrectly - or that he'd led incorrectly - and wanted to get it right? There's a whole other discussion of whether "practicing" is acceptable in social dancing of course, but that's the obvious alternative explanation.
And I'm also tempted to say that if your hijack wasn't clear - that is, you didn't clearly take the lead, and clearly hand it back - then it's largely your responsibilty. As you're the leader during a hijack, you get the responsibility as well as the power.
Well I trust you don't need me to copy and paste dictionnary definitions here - they both convey the idea of some sort of agression and the use of force.
Not something I want to be part of any dance (at least the ones I am involved in).
So, if a follow use force or any sort of sneaky way to do something that is not lead, well I think it deteriorates any connection you may have, and is not something I aspire to do.
However if a follow manages to do something that is not lead without damaging the connection, and the lead respond to that well (i.e. not a beginner who may be thrown off by it), I call that 'contributing' to the dance, and it is something I enjoy doing (or trying to, I can't say I'm the queen of smooth everytime) and that IMO adds another dimension to the dance.
Depending on the dancers abilities, that could be as simple as extending a move by a couple of beats, or a full change of lead for a couple of bars as Stray described above.
'Sabotaging' for the sake of it (i.e. 'got you!') is just silly IMO (unless it's a game both dancers enjoy). Doing something unexpected that fits the music, while not damaging the connection, is a different ball game.
I find I dance at my best when the follower takes an active part in the dance. This can sometimes take the form of hijacking. (Or sabotage, or whatever you want to call it.)
There are other factors though, such as how good the follower is at hijacking, what form the hijacks take, and the mood of the music. (A really nice slow, smooth blues track usually doesn't call for hijacks.)
One of my favourite partners over the weekend at Southport hijacked me a lot. I really enjoyed my dances with her. At my last Southport, another lady hijacked me a lot, and I didn't enjoy it so much.
Learning to hijack, I guess is a bit like learning to lead. It takes time, and ultimately you can really only learn in freestyle. So I can put up with a few awkward hijacks along the way to get to dance nirvana.
Oh, I should say I don't like hijacks where my follower tries to lead me – I'm a crap follower, and usually miss the lead.
Think hijacking followers need to be very careful bout who they hijack though. Some guys don't seem to cope so well. Maybe it's a control thing...
Let your mind go and your body will follow. – Steve Martin, LA Story
lmao... Call it what U like, Caro, but it's still sabotage.
Sabotaging the lead is very different to sabotaging a dance. It would be a great pity if someone's ego led to the two becoming mixed, or even worse embroiled into the same thing...
Sabotage is one thing: I love it when people do it well, but understand when people try it. I know I'm more difficult to sabotage when I know/loike the track because I have definite ideas... However, people like Plum, Yli, etc all do so with great aplomb.
Hijacking is different and feels more instant to me: Nicole, FH and Witty are my favourite hijackers.
When being led, I will hijack/sabotage. Generally, because I feel I can contribute within the parameters of the lead and the music. Much as whet many have said above...
So... drop the ego.... become an agent saboteur...
And.. drop the ego... become an agent sabotee....
If I remember right CJ sabotaged me at Sp this weekend and I did the same to him as we were both swapping leads in a truly monumental dance that, quite franckly was epic in all of its proportions.
And modest with it too.
One of us had a Kilt on and one of us pink finger nails....Who had what?????
DTS Dave XXX XXX
I like to sabotage* occasionally but only when I think the lead can cope with it and then it's only on a few moves per dance (and not on every dance)
Most people would say that I'm fairly playful but hopefully not in a detrimental way - there's definitely a time and a place for it
(*my definition of sabotage is changing one move into another - i.e. neckbreak/sway into catapult - I'm a rubbish leader so wouldn't take the lead of the dance)
As DavidJames says, we need definitions to talk meaningfully. Here are mine:
I'm a bad follower, so I aim to "request" a hijack no more than once a dance, and not "demand" at all.
If every move turns into a "request", then that can be fun as an occasional one-off. It needs both me and my follower to be very much on form, though.
This is what I would call Hijack.
I would call this friendly sabotage. If it is done with a leader that likes it, or can at least cope with it, it is probably better called "play".
I would reserve the term sabotage for its more severe connotations, where the follower refuses to follow. This can be for very valid reasons, i.e. being lead into a drop or UCP against their will. More capable followers can do this in a playful fashion. The less skilled have to do it as best they can in self defence. My definition of sabotage is a negative one, where some form of hostility exists on the part of the leader, trying to lead where the follow does not want to go, and some negative reaction by the follower which disrupts the dance.
I'd be happy with Lee's definition, although I would simplify it.
- Sabotage is when the follower deliberately stops following.
- Hijacking is when the follower starts leading for a short period of time
I'd also separately define:
- Lead swapping as switching the roles throughout the dance.
- Self Preservation is when the follower stops following for safety reasons. This is always allowed.
In the context of dancing with someone you don't know
Sabotage and hijacking both mean the same thing to me - the follower has decided to do something different to what I led. As a leader, I don't usually like that. As I've said before, do it too often and my reaction goes from to to to
If however a follower embellishes what I have led, then I'm all for it. If I don't give a complete lead (direction, rotation, connection, momentum & timing), then the follower is welcome to do what she likes with the bits I've left out. Or at the extreme if I haven't led anything, then the follower can do anything she wants. All this is still 'lead and follow'.
Sabotage is not lead and follow. Hijacking is 'follow and lead', and may not be what your partner wants.
If you still want to sabotage or hijack with someone you don't know, then my advice would be:
- Don't sabotage coming up to an interesting bit in the music. The Leader is (hopefully) thinking ahead, and may be setting up for something. Any sort of sabotage would throw him off. (Similarly leaders shouldn't expect ladies to do some stunning improvisation in the boring bits of a track. Respect the fact that it is a partnership.)
- If you are going to hijack, then make sure the man knows how to follow, or you know how to lead.
- Watch and remember the reaction when you do it.
If dancing with someone you do know, and you know what they like
then why are you asking me? Just get on the floor and start dancing.
I rarely get hijacked - maybe every couple of months. I get sabotaged even less. That is about the right amount for me.
Well, yes. Errr, that's kind of the point.
To me, they describe the end of a spectrum - the other end could be "interpretation / enmbellishment".
So, don't do it?
I'm sorry, but I still don't understand your point. Not all improvisation is "sabotage", so why get worked up about a type of behaviour, which you don't do?
Or are you saying that we should ban the words themselves? Or that you think "sabotage" is synonymous with all stylistic interpretative dancing? Coz I'm still deeply
Arrghh!!!
Sure - I don't think I'd call that sabotage either.
I agree. And I'm not sure why we're arguing, because I've never said otherwise. Is this a French thing?
ok I guess what I'm saying is that the follow can do say, thing A, and depending on how she does it, and who she does it with, it is perceived by the leader as a sabotage or as an embellishment. Yet it is the same thing A. Depends on how smoothly she does it, and how well the lead reacts to it.
So it's almost a social skill to be able to improvise things without them be perceived as sabotage (which as I said, I don't want to do).
So ideally I'll adapt what I do that's not led (happy?) to the guy I'm dancing with.
Am I making more sense here ?
at least I didn't confused it with laid
Very flattered to be a favourite hijacker of CJ
The thing is, I don't think those of us who contribute to the dance in this way really view it as "hijacking" or "sabotage". For me, it is just what happens when dancing with people who have the capacity to let me be who I am (and more) when I dance. It is not conscious.
When I know I am dancing with someone who has to think out their moves, I consciously subdue myself. With very nervous people, I eliminate footwork variations, stick to their beat (except when the music makes me do otherwise - that can be tough) and rarely do more than a single spin. This is actually rather hard work.
At Southport, I had a first dance ever with someone I don't know and he made some comment about no one being able to control me on the dance floor.
I must say I felt a little misunderstood.
On the other hand, I guess this maybe why I don't get asked to dance a lot. Whilst I can always moderate my behaviour a bit, I am who I am, and that goes for dance as well as life. It means I really appreciate those leads who seek me out and appreciate me for who I am.
Yeah, it sounds like there's a large degree of subjectivity involved - it's like a group being perceived as "cliquey".
But, again, I'd submit that the opinion of the person doing the "whatever you want to call it" is not relevant - in the same way that the opinion of a person inside the group is not relevant. The important thing is how the other person (or the people outside the group) view it.
If someone says you're sabotaging them, then you are sabotaging them - because that's the way they feel.
Sounds like honest feedback - why did it upset you? Did he say it in a nasty way or what?
As a leader I'm always more wary on a very crowded dance floor, and I do try my best to lead my partner into free space.
I'd be worried that in that environment, reckless saboteurs might end up crashing into other dancers.
Love dance, will travel
No, he didn't say it in a nasty way. Negative feedback from a complete stranger always feels a little wierd, don't you think? Imagine if I started telling leads before I even danced with them that I found their style dull and controlling. Call me a sensitive wee soul if you like but I think there needs to be a relationship for that kind of feedback, I think.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks