Moving on up

[Chef]

Originally Posted by Gadget

One of the key things I learned fairly recently was how to lead the lady to stay in the same place while you moved round her. I don't remember if it was from a workshop or observation, but it was certainly Marc that I gleamed it from.
It adds a huge element of controll to your lead as well as opening up a whole new sub-section of moves that can now be done.

Most interesting. Nigel and Davidb have alway tought me the opposite. ie stand still and make the woman dance around you. I am ont saying one is right or wrong just that I have learnt one way and you have learnt something else. I like watching Marc dance but have never looked at it in this light.

Originally Posted by Gadget

"Semi-circle and both step back" Isn't that how most Ceroc classes begin? I know that very few men actually lead this bit (and even fewer get a chance to ), but that's all it is.

all this "...tilt your hand very slighlty to one side to get the woman to place her weight mostly on one foot..." is (IMHO) over-thinking it and relying too much on your partner understanding that the signal of a slight tilt should relate to her footwork.

I can only tell people what works for me. I didn't think I said "semi circle and step back". I thought I said "pull back, tilt to the right, push back". The people I dance with do generally get the idea within about 30 seconds and as I say - it works for me. For a reply to Clive I had to think about what I actually do in detail so that I could explain it for him in words. If he was here I would just show him.

Originally Posted by Gadget

"The connection and tension being 3cm, 5cm, or .7843 of an inch is irrelevant as well: the amount of tension required is enough that you can feel the lady and they can feel you.

Well how far are you going to pull her hand? 1 foot, 2 feet, or just out to the car park? There comes a point when you are getting a complete lack of response from leading the womans hand and just have to accept that you are with a floppy armed woman that might not even notice if you cut her arm off. Nigel and DavidB does an excellent job with just as small a lead.

Originally Posted by Gadget

"Changing from compression to tension is rare since it's normally used for a preperation to a spin; most leads are through 'pulling' the lady in the direction you want her to move - 'pushing' is harder to convey the lead and harder for the lady to follow. The change is through a light shove in the direction the lady should continue to move, then in the space between leads, you must catch up, over-take, collect and gently regain tension (or swap hands). Perhaps this is another reason it's seldom done.

Changing from tension to compression is not rare for me. I wouldn't be able to lead manhattans without it or lead my woman to take multiple steps backwards.

Originally Posted by Gadget

The lead is constant, there is no 'waiting' unless you lead the lady to remain in the same place or remove the lead to let her do her own thing. The connection is constant, the response from the follower is constant.

How do you lead a free spin? I start the spin and then let go of my partners hand. While she is spinning I have no point of contact and am therefore not leading. I am just waiting for her to complete the task that I have asked of her. Once she has completed the task that I have lead I reconnect my lead and then invite her perform the next task.

Originally Posted by Gadget

My arm is generally too high on close or 'suprise' wraps so that I trap the lady's spare arm. I have yet to master distinguishing from a wrap and a lady's half nelson lead. I am too strong on some turns, especially doubles. I am very 'vocal' with using my body to lead (big shrugs and twists to release/remove hands). I can't figure out how to lead a half-turn properly. I don't use my 'supporting arm' (or hand) when leading from a framed 'ballroom' hold. I have only just started on being able to lead from a waist/shoulder connection...By the time I master all of these, then I will probably have discovered another batch of things that need work on.

The wonderful thing ,Dear Gadget, is that dancing is a wonderful journey with things to learn on every step. By the way. You are lucky. The Scottish women dancers are among the very best in the country (at least the ones that have travelled down to events in the south are). They are a great privledge to dance with and I always learn heaps when I dance with them. It really makes you want to be that much better for your next encounter.

[Gadget]

Originally Posted by Chef

Most interesting. Nigel and Davidb have alway tought me the opposite. ie stand still and make the woman dance around you. I am ont saying one is right or wrong just that I have learnt one way and you have learnt something else. I like watching Marc dance but have never looked at it in this light.

Yes, but DavidB is the master of "doing everything while doing nothing" school of dance.
I have always been taught not to just lead the lady round you, but to actually move and meet her half way.
If you do it this way, you have just multiplied the number of moves you know/can do by three: meet half way, stay in the same spot and lead her in or lead her stationary and move in to her. Different 'feels' to each method, the outer two perhaps being extended to save rushing anything.
If you meet them in the middle, then the lead is less, the movement is less and you should be able to 'tidy' your dancing. (although moving in to the wrong place without shortening the lead has the opposite effect.)

I can only tell people what works for me. ~snip~ For a reply to Clive I had to think about what I actually do in detail so that I could explain it for him in words. If he was here I would just show him.

naaa: it's much more fun miss-interperating the written words
I'm confused about this first 'pull forward' - I thought a rocking step was a backward motion, then together again?

Well how far are you going to pull her hand? ~ There comes a point when you are getting a complete lack of response ~ and just have to accept that you are with a floppy armed woman ~. Nigel and DavidB does an excellent job with just as small a lead.

But they still follow the lead - I suppose I would just change the moves I dance to ones that she could handle: turns, wraps, octopus style moves where the lead is round rather than linear. (I don't think I have ever had a spagetti-armed woman: the majority are towards the other end of the scale in my experiance.)
Nigel and DavidB are perfectly aware of exactly how much they need to move to lead the ladies, and can remove any excess and un-necissary leading. They could also add it in or use 'bigger' leads for drama and dynamics within the dance - they have such a controlled 'core' that building anything from that results in controlled elegance to which we all aspire.
I think that one secret is that they no longer lead from the hand, but from the fingers and finger tips; movment and motion that 'feels' a larger scale than it looks... but this is pure speculation.

Changing from tension to compression is not rare for me. I wouldn't be able to lead manhattans without it or lead my woman to take multiple steps backwards.

That's two moves fom a cast of thousands; not exactly 'common' (although I conseed that it may be in your repertoir. )
Assides from that, you should be able to lead manhattans and backwards steps from a purley tension hold: If the lady is giing you feedback and you are both maintaining equilibrium, simply relaxing the tension (without releasing it) should be enough for the lady to move backwards. This was an excercise that DavidB gave in a 'lead and follow' workshop a couple of years back (that I am still digesting).

How do you lead a free spin?

Ah, but we were talking about a simple 'rocking step' - and even in a free-spin, you give the lady instructions on where to go, how fast and expect them to be followed so that you can catch again. You maintain the physical 'connection' of a lead untill the instructions are given, then pick it up again once they have been executed. You are not dictating the lead, you are suggesting it; this "free-spin" is just as valid a suggestion as a walk forward in a basket. The lady is free to decline the suggestion and go on a tangent at any point.

The wonderful thing ,Dear Gadget, is that dancing is a wonderful journey with things to learn on every step.

and this is my point, and the main response to the initial question: what to do when you become 'bored' with your moves, your dancing,... there are so many different aspects to learn from and so many "right" ways to do things. Vast. Just change your focus every now & again.

[Lory]

Originally Posted by Gadget

Yes, but DavidB is the master of "doing everything while doing nothing" school of dance.
I have always been taught not to just lead the lady round you, but to actually move and meet her half way.
If you do it this way, you have just multiplied the number of moves you know/can do by three: meet half way, stay in the same spot and lead her in or lead her stationary and move in to her. Different 'feels' to each method, the outer two perhaps being extended to save rushing anything.
If you meet them in the middle, then the lead is less, the movement is less and you should be able to 'tidy' your dancing. (although moving in to the wrong place without shortening the lead has the opposite effect.)

If it's done right, I simply love the feeling of exhilaration I get, when the man's standing still and leads me whooshing past him.

If he met me half way, I'd only get half the whoosh!

[MartinHarper]

Originally Posted by Gadget

all this "...tilt your hand very slightly to one side to get the woman to place her weight mostly on one foot..." is (IMHO) over-thinking it and relying too much on your partner understanding that the signal of a slight tilt should relate to her footwork.

The slight tilt thing (and similar) is done in Lindy, where it's considered a lead rather than a signal - it's part of leading footwork in open position. As I understand it, the woman is trying to keep a fixed distance between her hand and her torso, so as her hand is moved she automatically shifts her weight onto the appropriate foot, without having to consciously understand what is being asked of her.

I'm not sure to what extent this concept is also part of standard MJ - interesting to hear that Chef makes use of it.

[Daisy Chain]

Originally Posted by Clive Long

Any lady want to lead? Take me, take me, I am your slave.

Clive

Oh boy! A man who will not be cross at me for leading.....................I'm on my way.

Daisy Chain

(A SlaveDriving Little flower)

[Gadget]

Originally Posted by MartinHarper

The slight tilt thing (and similar) is done in Lindy, where it's considered a lead rather than a signal - it's part of leading footwork in open position.

I still don't get it. That and the lead forward before you start. And if the 'open position' is what I am thiking on, then I'm even more confused. {First-move open position: right hip to lady's left hip, right hand on lady's far (right) hip, both facing 'front'?}

I may tilt my hand, but it's more like... you know those toy snakes you get; segmented where you hold the tale and tilt it to wiggle?... well it's like that - a change of balance in the connection that my partner responds to in order to maintain the equilibrium. Not simply a tilt, but it's part of the whole movement and direction of the lead.
For example, in a basket or octopus lead (or left handed turn), my hand is rotated from normal 'start' clockwise 90º and has raised to sternum height by the time it's between us; this gives the lady a clear start of the lead into her rotation.
In the step back or leading the lady backwards, the lady will tend to move to maintain equilibrium; if I tilt my hand slightly, it is only to give a better connection for the gentle pressure slightly to the side as I lead her away from me - the lady should step back that way (I find that the foot stepped back on is more about the timing of the lead rather than the actual signal.)

I think that a tilt will generally move the lady's elbow and therefore shoulder - which would indicate a turn or rotation of the whole body.{... hmmm, this may be another key to leading small for big results... I may have just discovered how to lead half turns...need to experiment }

[Chef]

Originally Posted by MartinHarper

The slight tilt thing (and similar) is done in Lindy, where it's considered a lead rather than a signal - it's part of leading footwork in open position. As I understand it, the woman is trying to keep a fixed distance between her hand and her torso, so as her hand is moved she automatically shifts her weight onto the appropriate foot, without having to consciously understand what is being asked of her.

I'm not sure to what extent this concept is also part of standard MJ - interesting to hear that Chef makes use of it.

This thing about the hand tilt was first taught to me in Lindy. I have also been taught in in latin american dance classes. The point where I realised the full power of its sublety was when my partner and I had a private lesson with Amir. We were taught how to hold hands, close eyes (to aviod giving away visual clues to our intentions) and to use the hand tilt, tension and compression to be able have an effective lead and follow. It allows me to guide my partner to moving the foot that I want her to move on and can easily switch from tension to compression and back again. If these things are practices by leaders and follower then they become part of your "autopilot" programme. In short it has allowed complete freedom and has opened up a huge range of possibilities. Of course, it works best with the partner that you have trained with. You can't expect to get a follower on their first night and all this leading ability to work like a charm (it does make life easier for both of you though).

We were told that we should do this excercise (lead and follow) for at least two tracks each dance evening. We only do it about once a fortnight I am ashamed to say but I do understand the importance of dancers drills (regular standard excercises).

Always remember that Amir or DavidB tells you something - listen up. If you think what they say is simple then you probably haven't fully understood.

Martin. I understand that you don't think it is part of standard MJ (leading by compression is unheard of in Ceroc) but there comes a time when you run into the limitations of what is standard. You then reach a plateu and there you will stay unless you try to extend the model that you have been given.

Happy Dancing

[Chef]

Originally Posted by Gadget

I still don't get it. That and the lead forward before you start.

-SNIP-

In the step back or leading the lady backwards, the lady will tend to move to maintain equilibrium; if I tilt my hand slightly, it is only to give a better connection for the gentle pressure slightly to the side as I lead her away from me - the lady should step back that way (I find that the foot stepped back on is more about the timing of the lead rather than the actual signal.)

I think that a tilt will generally move the lady's elbow and therefore shoulder - which would indicate a turn or rotation of the whole body.{... hmmm, this may be another key to leading small for big results... I may have just discovered how to lead half turns...need to experiment }

I have got to make this quick becuase I am sort of working today

The slight pull forward on the womans hand before you start leading her anywhere is merely to provoke a response in her arm and make the connection between you change from its relaxed state to an "active" state where there is muscle tone in her arm. Unless of course your woman likes having solidly rigid arms all night.

Which foot the woman steps back on is nothing to do with the timing of the lead (unless your follower is naturally rocking from side to side and you can't stop her). The leader indicates to the follower which foot he wants the womans weight on which means that the unweighted foot is the one that she MUST step backwards (or forwards on). The leader knows when he wants the follower to step back and arranges that the foot he wants to move is unweighted at the time when he wants it moved. I hope that makes sense because I don't have time today for lots of typing.

Your last paragraph shows the benefit of thinking about something (excuse me if I am wrong but I think you had a little dig at me yesterday suggesting that I was over thinking about this lead and follow stuff). Deep thought about what you are doing and how it affects your partner can lead you to try new things and sometimes it all works.

In all these cases I can only tell you what works for me in the best words that I can find. There may be any number of equally valid solutions to problems.

[MartinHarper]

Originally Posted by Gadget

I still don't get it. If the 'open position' is what I am thiking on, then I'm even more confused. {First-move open position: right hip to lady's left hip, right hand on lady's far (right) hip, both facing 'front'?}

By "open position", I meant face to face, only contact via hand. I guess I'm misusing the lingo.

[Yogi_Bear]

Originally Posted by MartinHarper

By "open position", I meant face to face, only contact via hand. I guess I'm misusing the lingo.

As in Lindy terminology, for the open basic, whereas the closed basic is in close hold. I suppose in MJ there is no simpleequivalent to the open basic, though the closed basic has I think been 'poached' by MJ and adapted to a move called the First move basic.

A high quality thread, by the way, wish I had the timeright nowto make a longer contribution.
yb

[Gadget]

{condensed}The slight pull forward is merely to make the connection between you change to an "active" state

Indeed, but my point was that the lead is never out of an "active" state - even in Ceroc, the first thing done is initiate the lead with the 'semi-circle and step back' script:
The lady is always in motion, responding to your lead. This pull forward is only of any use in a practice drill to start.

Which foot the woman steps back on is nothing to do with the timing of the lead. The leader knows when he wants the follower to step back and arranges that the foot he wants to move is unweighted at the time when he wants it moved.

? This sounds like a contridiction to me: nothing to do with the timing, but arranged so that the foot is unweighted at the time

I still contend that leading a specific foot has everything to do with timing and very little to do with signals or tilts - I would wager that I could lead a blindfolded lady to step back on the correct foot with the only connection being one of her hands on one of my shoulders.

No 'slight tilt', no hand signals. The lady is reacting to your movements and trying to maintain the symmetry the lead. She is also trying not to fall over. We both are. That's why we have feet. The trick is to 'force' (lead) her off-balance at the right time so that the desired foot is used to prevent her from falling.

In all of this, why do we actually want the lady to step back on a specific foot anyway?

I hope that makes sense because I don't have time today for lots of typing.

I won't tell if you won't. Please don't feel obliged to reply immediatly to any posts - in fact it's probably better to let them sit for a few hours untill other people have a chance to respond. If I want to reply immediatly, I normally write a it in a blank e-mail and save it to post later.

(excuse me if I am wrong but I think you had a little dig at me yesterday suggesting that I was over thinking about this lead and follow stuff)

Not really - it would be highly contemptuous for me to slag someone else off for nitt-picking. I was writing to deminish your side of the argument and provide more amunition for mine. It's war out there {}

I can only tell you what works for me in the best words that I can find.

That's the position we all talk from, no matter how authoriative or cleverly worded the posts are. And I remind myself of this whenever someone's post wrile's me.

Martin: it makes a bit more sense now... not much, but a bit.

[Chef]

Originally Posted by Gadget

Indeed, but my point was that the lead is never out of an "active" state - even in Ceroc, the first thing done is initiate the lead with the 'semi-circle and step back' script:
The lady is always in motion, responding to your lead. This pull forward is only of any use in a practice drill to start.

I find that there are many times when my connection with my partner is out of an active state. During free spins, during breaks when either I or my partner can take the opportunity of freespins or all those lovely lady wiggles that I am definately not leading, or when the woman has been given an inactive arm to signal her "window of opportunity" for her improvisations.

Originally Posted by Gadget

? This sounds like a contridiction to me: nothing to do with the timing, but arranged so that the foot is unweighted at the time .

So what happens if the woman is tick tocking from side to side and her weight is on the wrong foot on beat 1 of the music? Do you just wait until beat 2 and then signal the start of her rockstep? My point is that YOU lead which foot she has her weight and at the TIME you want her to be on. It is not a matter of waiting for her to rock onto the correct foot. Which foot she has her weight on at any particular time should not be a matter of accident.

Originally Posted by Gadget

I still contend that leading a specific foot has everything to do with timing and very little to do with signals or tilts - I would wager that I could lead a blindfolded lady to step back on the correct foot with the only connection being one of her hands on one of my shoulders..

So if the ladies weight is equally distributed between both of her feet which one does she step backwards on?

Originally Posted by Gadget

No 'slight tilt', no hand signals. The lady is reacting to your movements and trying to maintain the symmetry the lead. She is also trying not to fall over. We both are. That's why we have feet. The trick is to 'force' (lead) her off-balance at the right time so that the desired foot is used to prevent her from falling..

I think you have just proved my point. You just said "the trick is to lead her off balance at the right time so that the desired foot is used to prevent her from falling". So you have really been agreeing with me all this time. What you are trying to do is to get her to use the FOOT that you desire at the TIME that you desire and you do this by getting her to place more weight on one foot so that the other foot is unweighted at the TIME when YOU want her to step back on it.

Originally Posted by Gadget

In all of this, why do we actually want the lady to step back on a specific foot anyway?.

Well if you were going to step forward on your left foot it would be really good for her toes if she was stepping back on her right foot. If you want to lead something that I know as a "latin dip" then you must get the woman to take a step back on her right foot so that when she is lead into the return she spins on her left foot and will take a step forward on her right foot as you lunge backwards on your left foot with her in close hold. The "latin dip" just will not work unless the woman starts the rockstep on her right foot. I could come up with a few other examples if I had the time or energy. Ceroc is a wonderful starting point for dancing but it is just the beginning of the road. The simple idea that it doesn't matter which foot you step back on or the womans arm doesn't need to be able to go from tension to compression will not hold true as dancers "move on up".

[MartinHarper]

Originally Posted by Gadget

I would wager that I could lead a blindfolded lady to step back on the correct foot with the only connection being one of her hands on one of my shoulders.

Done it, don't need to wager. One of the exercises by Johnny & Becky in a beginner Lindy workshop. The method I was taught was roughly this:

Man places his weight over his left foot (eg). This causes his body to lean to his left. This causes the woman's hand to tilt slightly to her right. This causes her body to lean to her right. This causes her to place her weight over her right foot. This leaves only her left foot free to move.

The exact same method was taught for leading the same thing via a hand-to-hand connection. The only difference is that the chain is one link longer: the lean of the man's body must cause his hand to tilt slightly to his left. Perhaps because of this, I found the hand-on-shoulder version slightly easier.

Perhaps what all this should tell our opening poster is that when stealing from other dances, such as Lindy, you don't necessarilly have to steal the bits you dislike, such as the "Crouching Tiger, Hidden flat cap" stance. (heh, nice line).

[Commis Chef]

Originally Posted by Clive Long

Hi,


I feel my range of moves is too limited and "simplistic" and I envy (I admit it) those dancers who dance with real "style". I'm happy to dance with beginners but those intermediate women I dance with ALWAYS give the feeling of not being involved in the dance and just can't wait to get back to a technically and stylistically better male partner.

The number or complexity of moves is not essential. It is the personality, personal connection and even fun which your partner gets from the dance which will make the difference. I know I will get bored and go through the motions if I dance with someone who shows no recognition that they are dancing with another human being. I know you are thinking hard (I also dance in the male role) but we are doing this to enjoy ourselves not just as a technical exercise.

A dance becomes interesting if it is challenging; eg following a light lead, reacting to a different slant on musical interpretation or making a dance glide and flow. If a whole sequence of even difficult technical moves are offered without soul it will still be boring.

Some of the most stylish and enjoyable dances may be quite simple. One of the problems the method of teaching, particularly in Ceroc, is that there is an accentuation on a number of new moves to be learnt each week rather than musicality, responsiveness to the current partner and putting your own personality into the dance.

As soon as I walk onto the floor with a new partner or watch from the side to choose who I will approach for a dance, I know by their touch and personal response how enjoyable the dance will be. There will have been no way to know at that stage how complex the 'moves' will be.

I would like to get away from the expectation of a series of singly identified moves and get people to think of the dance as a stream of movement instead.

[Will]

Can I just ask what a "Commis Chef" is? Is it someone who only cooks Goullash?

[Gadget]

Originally Posted by Chef

I find that there are many times when my connection with my partner is out of an active state. During free spins, during breaks when either I or my partner can take the opportunity of freespins or all those lovely lady wiggles that I am definately not leading, or when the woman has been given an inactive arm to signal her "window of opportunity" for her improvisations.

A follower is reacting to your lead. In this reaction is the connection - how well they 'listen' to what you are 'saying': how well they react to your actions. A physical touch is not required, in fact I could (and have) danced leading the lady with no contact. In free-spins, they are accepting and reacting to your lead; in 'windows of opportunity' they are reacting to the space created within your lead.
There is always a connection between a couple, and it is always active. As I've said before, you 'guide' the lady and 'invite' her; not pull her and command her.

So what happens if the woman is tick tocking from side to side and her weight is on the wrong foot on beat 1 of the music?

If she has picked up on a rhythm and beat within the music and is marking it out of time with you, then I would not force a double count on the one beat; it looks and feels awful.