I think that the opportunities to 'play' with the music are more predictable within WCS; in MJ they are more varied.
In WCS the follower expects to be led within a specific timing framework and within a specific spatial direction - this level of predictability allows both partners to take advantage of 'gaps' where they know what (should be) happening, and to signal that the 'gaps' are changing.
In MJ the lead is constant and the follower expects only to be transferring weight from one foot to the other. With no real framework to predict what's happening, if the follower wants to take advantage of the music, they have to either wait for the lead to give them a 'gap' or take the initiative themselves (and hope that the lead can compensate.)
I think that crossing between the two dances the followers will find themselves on the 'wrong foot' half the time: MJ is based on marching (R-L-R-L) weight changes and WCS puts in triple steps now & again (R-L-RLR). Only the best followers can compensate for being led off the wrong foot or change during the lead.
(Personally this is my main dislike of trying to take WCS into MJ - all these skippity steps that the follower does outwith my lead which means that their weight is not where I led it.)
Hmmm.... is WCS footwork the opposite of Tango footwork? From watching youtube clips, WCS dancers take lots of little steps, never fully committing their weight to either foot. AT dancers in contrast seem to place each foot and commit everything. Are they the 'yin and yang' of MJ? ()
Bookmarks