![$vboptions[bbtitle]](images/master_col.bmp)
Reply With QuoteLeading - she executes the move
Executing the move - you both do?
While driving to class tonight I got to thinking about what aspects of my dancing I am trying to improve.
Can anyone tell me, am I being too pedantic, or is there a difference between the two near the top of my list ? :-
Leading
Execution of moves.
johntheslightlyconfusedguy
Leading - she executes the move
Executing the move - you both do?
Yes, you are being a bit pedantic, but join the clubOriginally Posted by johnthehappyguy
I think it depends on your interpritation of the terms: for me...
Leading is taking your partner through the move, adapting the signals to match what she is doing so that she can follow them to your timing. Giving her a clear path to follow and the option to embelish/deviate if she wishes.
Executing the moves is performing the actions of that move with no regard to your partner's feedback, style or timing. A clinical and 'robotic' approach that drags the lady where you want her rather than inviting her to move. If both partners are sticking to the same timing and know the move, then they can both execute it with a choriographed perfection.
Actually, that's just about spot on: for me "Execution of moves" is choriography, "Leading" is freestyle.
It is not true that there is no lead and follow in choreographed dancing.
You've suggested this kind of thing before, and it's simply wrong
Maybe.... Is executing a move to do with things like deciding what step to do next, where to move your feet, which direction to turn, deciding what movement and timing best fits with the music, etc.?
Then leading would simply be communicating these decisions to your partner.
True - there is a lead element, but it's more leading the timing of the move rather than the move it's self; In choriography, it's more a test of memory and making sure that both partners are synchronous than "true"* leading where the actual movements are led as well as the timing.It is not true that there is no lead and follow in choreographed dancing.
You've suggested this kind of thing before, and it's simply wrong
Less 'guesswork' involved in chor., so it should free up both partners brains processing power to add in style elements and concentrate more on getting things slick. To do this, both must 'listen' to each other through the connection - which I suppose is leading/following - just with a different focus from freestyle.
(*my definition)
{Chris - a red letter day: I've conseeded a point}
A real red-letter day would be when you decided to restrict yourself to words you could spell.
I would say that executing the move involves both moving yourself and (in the case of a leader) leading your partner. So for example in a first move, stepping back as you swing your partner out is part of executing the move, but is not part of the lead. It is of course possible to lead your partner without executing a move, as in improvisation, but normally I would say that leading is a subset of move execution.
{A real red-letter day would be when you decided to restrict yourself to words you could spell.}
I can say them - isn't that good enough?
Certainly is.{
I can say them - isn't that good enough?
Better still, in fact
Anyway, this thread seems to be heading off towards counting angels on pinheads.
Lead/follow is one component of the execution of a move, I'd suggest. There are lots of elements, such as the timing, the style, the space occupied, the degree of togetherness evidenced by the dancers, the energy with which it's carried out, the musicality of the move - the list could go on and on.
The execution, just as the execution of any operation, is the totality of what was done, and how.
It's certainly not either executed or led/followed. If a move was exceptionally well-led - and followed, it could be completely off the beat, with timing that bore no resemblance to the music, and would look dreadful
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks