I think I will just go and paint the kitchen wall!!
There, that should keep robd happy.
So your on the fence here then geoff332.
DTS XXX XX
I think I will just go and paint the kitchen wall!!
There, that should keep robd happy.
This post kinda confused me. What do you mean by "only connection" - tension rather than compression? You need one or the other to exert any force on your partner's body in order to move them, assuming it's you leading moves/movements and not them doing it themselves, which would be hijacking. In fact, to some extent, that would count as stealing the lead, even if only for a beat or two, since they're now moving themselves while connected to you which means you must move too.
Also not sure how leading a follow back into your right hand/arm during the "step back together" beat of the first move creates tension? Would have thought it was compression of the follow's back against your hand/arm that was governing their movement at that point. Especially in Whitebeard's example where that is literally all you have. I'm not getting at you, I'm just not sure what you mean. I still think that besides the matter of who enjoys what, we're probably not actually disagreeing...
(on which note, what I meant was that a dance with a beginner lady who goes 'ooh, thank you, that was lovely' and grins afterwards is infinitely more rewarding than a dance with a hotshot lady who is already walking off by the time you've finished failing to impress her.)
From having a very similar discussion elsewhere, I realised that it's not clear whether people regard this connection as tension or compression. Personally, I would call it tension, although I can also see where you are coming from.
Strictly considering the physics, you're right, there's compression at the point of contact. But then this is true of *every* connection you have in dance. It's not often I'll use that qualifier, but I can't think of any exceptions in this case - even if a classic 'leverage' position, the actual fingers are in compression against each other at the point of contact.
Well, you'll learn how to dance better with beginners but not learn anything about improving your dancing. I took your statement: "I believe you can learn just as much if not more by dancing with a less experienced dancer compared to an experienced dancer." to be talking about making yourself a better dancer generally - every new dancer will be different and you adapt to dance with them, but that's something that just happens when you are a sociable dancer, as I'm sure we all are. Enjoyable dancing is one thing and often our entire aim, but do we actually learn anything useful from beginners? I'm not sure I do as a leader, but perhaps that's just me.
you statment was a flat "you can learn more from beginners" I am only trying to suggest that in any pursuit, this is fundamentally wrong. Football was just one easy analogy.We are not talking about the same thing then.
Gaaah, you're Alesha Dixon aren't you .But we wasn't.
Well if that's true for you, fine. But I can't say I learn anything from that myself other than bad habits. Not that I care, I rarely dance to learn, I just like dancing.Where I change my way of leading I have to think more and due to that I learn more.
No it isn't . I have never suggested my words were yours. I am suggesting 'fumbling' as a short descriptive word to replace this statement you type referring to beginners :"you are constantly trying to work out what moves to lead to give them a good dance", as it sounded like fumbling to me.I never used the words fumbling. If this is your experience when dancing with less experienced dancers I am not surprised you disagree with what I am saying. And incidentally, this is the second time you have used your own words as mine in this argument.
As you get better, yes you do need to understand why your lead does not work, but I would still suggest you learn far more from dancing with someone better than you.I would suggest to you the process of working out why a less experienced follower is not following the way you leading is an important learning experience.
You don't like children in analogys? How about lemurs? Can i use lemurs? Although lemurs are less likely to be read bedtime stories...hmm...no, I think children were a better choice to be honest. Children around the age that they would require bedtime stories, to be specific.DS, why do you keep using children in your examples. they seem to have little relevance in the discussion we are having
No its the native speaker that is teaching you as the person learning the language by dancing/speaking with the beginner because you are suggesting that's a better way to "learn more". In fact, if you are suggesting the native speaker ( i.e. someone who will mostly only be speaking to people worse than them at the language) will only improve in a workshop/class situation then how can you say that when the rest of us dance with beginners in freestyle, we learn more from those beginners than we would from a native speaker? er...dancer...er...I would suggest to you that a native speaker will only improve his native speaker skills in a learning environment.
so...now I'm confused. Do you think we learn more from beginners in a workshop or freestyle environment ? I always assumed you were talking freestyle.
I must confess that this is a pet passion of mine. I have danced for almost 17 years and still go in time for the beginners class. I cannot stand people who within a few weeks of THINKING that they are intermediates, then stop dancing with beginners or even turning up for beginners (time constraints not withstanding). CEROC IS ABOUT THE BEGINNER. That is it's main purpose to teach non dancers how to dance, and the only way all of us get better is to dance with beginners. As an established intermediate I once asked Viktor how he copes when he is asked if he is any good. He told me that you can only be as good as your partner. Some years ago I took a friend of mine for his first class. During the beginners freestyle he was asked for a dance. Halfway through the song she suddenly stopped and told him that he was not good enough for her and walked off............. I better stop before I burst. Thank you for this thread.
I agree and disagree.
I agree with it as a literal statement.
I disagree with its implication that to qualify as a good lead(er) then you need to be able to dance with a wide range of abilities and experience levels. The description/status/whatever of being a good leader can only be conferred by followers therefore if a leader can lead followers at a similar level of ability/experience well he will probably be viewed as a good leader by those people even if he cannot adapt his leading style to accomodate those with more/less ability/experience.
I think the general rule of thumb is that if the partners are moving/leaning/pressing/whatever towards each other then it's considered compression, and if they're moving/leaning/pressing/whatever away from each other then it's considered leverage.
What does my head in is when "compression" is only intended to be the maximum point of a compression, and you're only in "connection" or something similar while building up to that maximum point
I have only been dancing for 4 months. I find it much easier to dance with someone that is experienced because they can give you tips to help you inprove and they make you feel more confident because they know what they are doing.
At the beginning for the first few weeks though all i wanted to do was dance with the other beginners incase someone more advanced asked me and i didn't know what to do, in the end it paid off dancing with the experienced dancers.
No - connection is connection. It's neither tension nor compression. Tension (pulling away) and compression (drawing in) are opposite forces, so you can have one or the other. You have to have connection to have tension/compression, but you can also have neither (without getting into the minutia of the physics of the connection. For example, in a standard return, when the follow is turning, you should maintain connection, but neither tension nor compression, by maintaining that connection directly over the follow's core. However, the follow may use your hand to assist the turn. Or the lead may pulse the turn to indicate a second turn. Or with a beginner, I find you need to actually lead the turn, which generates compression. These are all real life variations that take you away from the theoretical ideal).
You don't exert force on your partner's body the whole time your dancing. Any time you are not exerting force, then the follow's job is to complete the move that was led - but how they do that is up to them. You call it hijacking. I call it dancing.
Connection does not force movement. It may indicate movement - generally by indicating direction. Generally, it's the lead's job to maintain the connection - which is fine. The lead can chose to break all connection - any free spin is an example of this. But it's also the lead's job to reconnect as soon as possible. The follow shouldn't break the connection, but there's plenty of variation that can happen without breaking connection. I don't see how this is stealing the lead as there's no direct lead. Once again, it's just dancing.
Part of the problem is the first move as taught, which I rarely see any good dancers doing. If you stop the follow as they step in next to you, you break the move's flow and it becomes quite ugly. If you don't break that move, then the natural flow of follow's movement creates the tension as she passes you (it's tension: the follow's passed you and is moving away). The step back comes simple from continuing the movement and letting the follow reach the end of the lead's arm. Personally, I very rarely step back; I more often step forward. If I do step back, it has to be a small step and I have to close in my frame a little, so the follow can extend and create the tension.
I'm (honestly) on the fence with that one. If I've danced on autopilot, then I get very little pleasure from it, regardless of their reaction. It's nicer than no reaction, but that's about it. Similarly, if I dance really well and she doesn't enjoy it, then it's not particularly exciting, even if I'm happy with my dancing. But, luckily, that rarely happens. If I dance well, then in most cases, she dances well. If she's not getting my dancing, then it's very unlikely I'll think I've danced well.
straycat: there's always an exception. However, that is hardly a typical dance. And certainly not hijacking in it's common parlance.
Most of what I'm talking about are techniques that are reasonably common in all other partner dances. MJ just isn't that 'special' (Nina seems to have been mentioned a lot in this thread: one of her lines is, "it's all dancing."). I've been taught these things by teachers in MJ, which, to me, is where it should be going as a dance (I completely reject the idea that MJ is about the beginners. That may be true of ceroc, but if it is, then I definitely do MJ and not ceroc).
Mostly by drawing on coaches and other more experienced dancers. Being a world champion makes you the best dancer in the world. It doesn't make you the most experienced. There will also be a huge element of self-reflection and practice, practice practice. Finally, it doesn't mean you learn nothing from less experienced dancers; it just means you learn more from more experienced dancers.
Ditto. For me, it's usually that some people just get the basic ideas (or have done other forms of dancing) and on their first night are an absolute joy to dance with. Others, they're just fun.
Should I enter?
That's pretty much what I'm talking about. When the lead leads well and the follow follows well, then it produces dancing together. Simple ideas of hijacking become redundant, because the dance flows so nicely and you communicate through the lead and follow.
Me neither. And these are, without question, the follows I learn the most from. Hence the idea that you learn more from a beginner just doesn't make sense.
It is certainly not true for all beginners in all fields, but there are a few that come into new situations with knowledge from a different field or with a fresh eye that can make very significant contributions. I have seen this many times in my career.
I have never been taught to stick out my tongue at Ceroc, but a relative beginner made my night by doing that at just the right moment a week ago, and a few of her mistakes have become variations.
I can't really agree with this, the purpose and the outcome are not the same, if I had a pound for every "that was a wonder dance", when for me it was the torture of draging a woman around the dancefloor to whom the beat is an alien concept, I'd be a rich man. That connection between two dancers, I believe comes from the desire by both to being as one with each other as well as a mutual appreciation of the music. A good lead can lead anyone just as well, but if the follow cant or worse, can't be bothered then the dance wont be as good. Dancing with an inexperienced dancer can have its own plesure, its that daft smile they make and the apologies if they make a mistake, like anybody died.
So dance with everyone and enjoy it, and if you can't enjoy it, fake it
Nick
I don't call that hijacking - I call it self-leading. Hijacking is something else.
See the video I linked to a couple of posts above. That's what I call hijacking in action. I agree it's not at typical dance - in so far as it's two connection masters demonstrating principles, which you don't get to see all that often... but it's a beautiful example.
I think dancing with beginners means you learn more about dancing with beginners.
Dancing with experienced dancers means you learn more about dancing with experienced dancers.
Obviously, some of what you learn from dancing with one group will help you with the other. But after a certain point, less and less. If you only dance with one group you won't be as good as you would be dancing with the other.
I think that when dancing with someone, I learn how to dance better with them. Some of what I learn could be applied to other people I dance with. The only thing that the experience of the follower changes is what sort of things I learn from them.
In terms of leading, I lead a beginner in the same way as I lead a highly experienced & expressive follower: I know the path I want my lead to take through space and the speed I want that lead to travel. The further the follower is from this 'ideal' path, then the greater resistance they will encounter trying to get them back on it. (Until it 'snaps' and the connection is released)
If an experienced follower deviates from the lead I have laid, then they will feel it (the resistance in the lead changes) and either it's a signal to me that they are doing something different, or they haven't a clue what I'm trying to lead - I can learn from both. I can learn from the novice follower how to steer them back towards this 'ideal' path.
I learn most from myself and the mistakes I make. I don't think the experience of my partner has much bearing on that - I can screw up a dance with anyone.
[rather off-topic - sorry]
What really does make me wonder, is how many women see no apparent contradiction when (as 4 women on different occasions mentioned to me at Camber) they say something like:
"I can't get to dance with the really good men, as they're always dancing with the same women / in their clique, etc.
"The only way I'm going to improve is dancing with them. I'm not going to dance with beginners, as I won't learn anything from them."
So they expect the very good dancers to dance with them, to help them improve, but won't do the same thing in turn for beginner men.
Where do ladies expect all these great men to come from? Surely the point is to dance with the beginners, too, and help to get them good as quickly as possible? Then we get a bigger pool of wonderful men to dance with and we're all happy … no?
I also wonder if, maybe, just maybe, these good men often dance with the same women as they could have been the ones who took time out to help them learn when they were just beginning. Some people remember those things.
I'm personally so grateful to people like David Bailey & Ant who have always been more than happy to help me with my tango; and ladies like Lory who helped Marc. I'll always remember people like Latin Ian who was one of the great dancers when I was a beginner at Ceroc, and who was always happy to dance with me. I also remember the men who wouldn't come near me when I was a new dancer ...
Nowadays, if the great dancers are busy, I'm not going to sit around and queue for them, bemoaning the fact I can't get a look in. I'll ask a man who's not dancing - and so what if he's a beginner? He may be, he may not be - you may even be surprised and have a wonderful dance. You may, as Lory, Lynn and others mention, just get a lot of joy from seeing their pleasure at being asked to dance. And, also agreeing with Lory & Ant, I do think there's a lot you can learn during a dance with a beginner - it's not purely altruistic.
Rachel
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks