Franck
I agree with all but the highlighted bit: I think that the motion should be shared - it is necessary at all times, it's just the distance you travel to your partner will vary with every partner.
The position on the floor is, as you describe 'body led', however the actual turn for the follower is (as you say) a natural result of the position of the arm connected to them (and if they were good at following, then their own 'natural' instinct of always turning to face the lead).That's entirely body led. This is such a basic principle of body leading that to skip it for one move creates an inconsistency in the dancing, which makes it more complicated.
Did you put that arm there by moving your entire body? More likely you used your body lead for positioning and an arm lead for rotation.
You can lead rotation without an arm lead, but it requires the follower to be paying attention and following your body - trying to maintain distance, keep orientation, match weight and be on the same timing. A travelling return can be led without contact, with the lead's hands behind their back. I've not tried a catapult, but I would imagine that the tricky bit would be the timing of getting the follower from behind your back (because you can't see them)
The frame is the conduit that conducts the lead: If there is no lead going through it, does it still exist?
At every change in connection from compression to tension, there is a 'dead' zone where the lead does not exist.
No, because the sleeves get in the way of the follower reading the body lead properly. Try it just clasping your hands behind your back. Then it is possible.
That's because of the feet rather than the body or arms: Watch what happens when the follower steps to the lead's side at the start of the move - most actually step past the line of the lead's hips. So the lead has to twist behind themselves and lean forward to compensate when the follower steps back.
What to do is make sure that your right hip is on the same line as the follower's and you mirror their step back. (Your weight should be on the outside foot when they begin their step in - just track their 'pivot' foot as they place it and position your inside foot in line with it so you can turn out in sync.)
Much more natural and comfortable.
I don't shout frame .
But seriosuly, I do find that when switching 'quickly', from jive staight into tango or ballroom hold, women don't engage all the points of contact of nessary for me to lead a columbian.
Then again the tango 'embrace' is different from the ballroom 'hold' so it's actually a fairly complicated subject.
The colombian is called a zig zag in quickstep or waltz (I think) and a grapevine in samba.
And seriosuly, I think what goes wrong with my lead on the colombian is the lack of 'mental prep', which makes women think ahh - colombian - I must really 'sit into the frame'.
After all, how are you going to lead a colombian if the lady does not sit into the frame properly?
Ask for more frame.
Say columbian.
let them go wrong.
Push her back by the hip.
Don't lead it.
Chosse the less of these evils.
Or alternativly my lead is poor on colombians, that's highly possible.
Last edited by jim; 9th-July-2010 at 06:55 PM.
No problem - come up here and I'll show you.
With a good follower, I can lead my partner to step forward or back on either foot while I move forward or back on either foot (any combination). I can lead them into turns and side-steps. All with my hands behind my back.
Of course it relies on a good follower, a good connection and me getting the timing right, but it's not impossible. I believe Franck teaches a workshop on a similar thing: leading by osmosis (or whatever he calls it )
Let me test my understanding: a "Columbian" is where both partners are stepping forward and back together while facing each other, yes?Originally Posted by jim
What happens when you take a step towards your partner? they step back. And if you step away? they step towards you.
A Columbian is one of the easiest moves to lead: it can be led simply without a frame and without any real connection. (doesn't mean that it should be).
I would suggest if someone is having difficulty with this move that it could be the lead is not waiting to follow the follower's following of the lead I think. The lead can only step into the space that the follower has vacated once they have moved out of it, rather than 'shoo'ing them out of the space.
My understanding of a colombian is that the lead does a grapevine at the same time as the lady.
To lead this you have to lead forwards with you body, causing her to step back, whilst your stepping back at the same time.
This is not just a 'body lead' is a 'countra-body' lead.
Which means you have to twist your body in the opposite direction to you legs. It's really difficult.
There are some easier versions where you step forward while she steps back, I think that's maybe what your talking about.
I call that the 'easy columbian' and the other one the 'hard columbian'.
Hope that clears it up Gaget.
The First move is taught with the men mirroring their partner on the twist out. The final position should be vertically connected (i.e. your left shoulder, hip and foot should be in alignment). Interestingly, and this is worth trying out, the twist out for the ladies is much improved by being 'body led'. Despite the fact the men are ultimately going in the opposite direction, briefly taking the left side of your body forward to lead the ladies out to the side really improves the feel of the move, compared to a pure hand lead. Once you have led the lady into the twist, and she has momentum, you can move your left shoulder (and hip and left foot) back to create the mirror effect.
Poor posture in the first move is more often due to grippy hand hold which effectively shortens arm length and forces either dancer to bend forward. A relaxed arm and hand hold will dramatically improve this posture issue.
Not sure if you're agreeing with me or saying that's a bad thing... As Straycat said, it would be helpful if you could clarify your thoughts on that.
I am not sure as I've never heard any WCS teacher mention tracking, so couldn't ask them to clarify. Having researched online, it seems to be related to a way of walking keeping both feet close (as in a narrow track) when travelling. Quite different to what I was describing but as I said, can't be totally certain.
Well, when using 'non contact connection' you have similar choices to regular connection: hand lead or body lead. It seems to me that Gadget, with his hands behind his back, would have to be using body leads...
Franck.
There's an A.P.P. for that!
Prompted by this comment I've done some research online for "vertical connection" in dance. The top dance related entry is Franck on here. There's a couple of references to the term made by a couple of Lindy Hop teachers but it doesn't seem to me to be a term that's in common usage. Most of the entries are related to a connection to the Gods.
I'm wondering where Franck heard this term and if there's another term that means the same thing Franck is describing? Currently I'm still calling it "posture" - what I call "posture" includes the dynamic posture that Franck is describing as "vertical connection".
I'm quite liking the term "vertical connection" to differentiate between the, fairly fixed, posture in the closed hold and the dynamic posture in the open hold. I might even us the term myself, but I'd like to know it isn't just Franck and a couple of mad-as-a-box-of-frogs Lindy Hoppers that use the term.
I think it's important that we all speak the same language as that's how we communicate - obviously.
I came up with vertical and horizontal connection in reference to 'inner connection' because I was frustrated with the existing terms like 'Frame' and 'posture' as shown in this thread they mean different things to different people and are too vague.
Most connection classes or workshops I teach distinguish between inner and outer connection as a path to better lead and follow. The terms work well and are easy to understand without relying on esoteric 'woo woo' concepts.
I am not trying to write standards but I needed precise words and none of the alternatives worked as they all had baggage from other dances.
Franck.
There's an A.P.P. for that!
I've been thinking about this a bit while I've been sat here picking tracks for tonight's dance.
Franck and I are talking about the same dance and the same movement within that dance. It's just the words we use that are different and I've been mentally reviewing the words I use.
The other term I use when I'm talking about and aspect of this dynamic frame Franck calls 'vertical connection' is 'isolation'. I might say something like "maintaining you posture, your top half is mostly an isolation, you pivot to the right at the waist & hips to lead the lady...". Of course I'd demonstrate what I mean.
I say 'mostly' because the isolation isn't like a robot swivelling in the middle. But there is 'tone' in the upper half which keeps the general shape the same in the top-line.
I've heard this vertical posture described as a "pile of boxes". Each box needs to be balanced on top of the other, but the boxes don't need to be placed square on top of each other. The boxes can be turned in an attractive and jaunty pattern that changes as the dance progresses - the head "box" can turn relative to the chest "box", etc. So long as the boxes remain balanced on top of each other - look down and your head "box" falls on the floor, stick your bottom out too far and it drops off
A recent example Paul Warden mentioned about tracking, when a follower is moving away from the lead, the lead can swap hands at any time, but, when the follower is moving TOWARDS the lead, the lead should only change hand hold to the hand of the side of the body/frame which is "tracking" forward at that particular moment in time.
Example on a push-break; on a leaders-left/followers-right hand-hold, the leader has the option of swapping hand-hold to leaders-right/followers-left hand-hold on "2", as, on count "2", the followers left side of her body/frame should be tracking her step forward on her left (which seems to be similar to what your "vertical inner connection" explanation seems to be describing).
By contrast, if the leader's initial handhold was the opposite, and he tried to swap hand hold to leaders-left/followers-right on "2", the followers hand wouldn't automatically fall into his hand as her shoulder is "tracking" away from him despite the fact that she's walking forward. It wouldnt be as smooth and the connection wouldnt feel the same.
Coupled with a subtle visual lead at the right moment, would also go some way indicate to the follower where you're leading her
Seems we're down to a clash of nomenclature again. I regard a completely 'non-contact' lead as an entirely different beast from body leading... a body lead (in the definition I work with) requires physical contact points between partners, basically to connect the leader's core to the follower's core. Remove that connection, and it becomes a visual lead. (Or a telepathic one, depending on the leader's and/or follower's level of psychic ability )
I think this visual lead could be described as "flashlighting". I'm not sure that Gadget, dancing his sailors hornpipe, could effectively lead a turn with his hands behind his back.
You can lead the lady with your hands with a visual lead when there's no contact. She just watches your hands and morrors what you're doing with your hands as if there was contact. I often use this lead to demonstrate how little tension there needs to be between lead and follow - just enough so she knows where your hand is going, not so much it becomes judo.
Visual / contactless lead is indeed different but not completely different. I would probably agree with you that a large part of a good body lead is based on the feel of it but visual cues and body positioning are also integral to successful body leading.
The question is therefore:
If I create a body lead, but noone is following, is it still a body lead?
Put another way, does leading require a physical matching body follow to be called a body lead?
Franck.
There's an A.P.P. for that!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks