Top 10 smokescreens

[David Bailey]

Decoding the double negative, that means that your arm IS moving in relation to your body?
That matches what I've been shown more recently. Previously I'd been told that in a body lead the arm stays static relative to the body (though naturally moves relative to the dance floor).

Assuming we're not talking about the strict frames of ballroom dancing, then I think, in a body lead, the main point with the arms is that they shouldn't be used to lead. (duh)

There's nothing to say that you can't move the arms - for example, for dramatic effect (most obviously in lunges, where you lift the left arm high) - as long as you're not moving the arms to actually provide a lead.

Of course, how this works in MJ is left as an exercise for the readers...

[jivecat]

Good grief, that's pretty patronising, isn't it? Not to mention demoralising.

What sort of taxi thinks they're a better teacher than, err, the teacher? And if so, why aren't they teaching?

Yes, I understand the distinction between teaching form and teaching technique - but to say something like that is just weird...

Well, it's not completely unknown for the taxi dancers to be as good as or a better dancer than the teacher, surely?

And indeed a better teacher - they would be giving a completely different type of teaching in the refresher class, anyway.

And the forum is generally agreed that lessons from the stage, whilst great for getting people on the floor, sometimes have certain woeful inadequacies regarding techniques, floorcraft, lead/follow etc, is it not?

And the taxi might not wish to become a fully fledged teacher, or be too old and ugly to become one.

I've attended some excellent refresher sessions which I thought were extremely well taught.

But yes, I have to agree that week on week, that line would become increasingly squirmworthy.

[David Bailey]

Well, it's not completely unknown for the taxi dancers to be as good as or a better dancer than the teacher, surely?

Absolutely - but we're talking about teaching, not dancing. And the implication ("Look kids, I'm a better teacher than the teacher") is not what you want to tell people.

And indeed a better teacher - they would be giving a completely different type of teaching in the refresher class, anyway.

Taxi dancers aren't trained (AFAIK) to teach, certainly not as much as teachers are. And even if they were trained to teach, I'd be amazed if they were trained to teach technique.

And the forum is generally agreed that lessons from the stage, whilst great for getting people on the floor, sometimes have certain woeful inadequacies regarding techniques, floorcraft, lead/follow etc, is it not?

Absolutely - but you're supposing the average taxi dancer will know this stuff, will be able to teach it, and also to clearly differentiate between form and technique. All big assumptions.

Teaching technique is difficult - apart from the skill levels required, you have to spend time with each person, and I don't believe you'll get that time in most review classes.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not slagging off taxi dancers, and I'm not saying basic technique ("take small steps", "don't yank", etc.) can't be taught in review classes. But saying "We'll now teach you to dance" is just wrong.

[straycat]

Decoding the double negative, that means that your arm IS moving in relation to your body?
That matches what I've been shown more recently. Previously I'd been told that in a body lead the arm stays static relative to the body (though naturally moves relative to the dance floor).

Well - unless you manage to lock your joints, and dance like a half-broken robot, your arms always have to move to some extent

And given that it's quite possible (and often necessary) to use a body-lead to move lead your partner in a direction directly opposed to your own direction of travel (leading backstep from open, for example) - where clearly your arms have to move in opposition to (but not disconnected from) the body - this is where we get into the whole rubber-band / spring analogy.

I can understand why teachers will over-simplify it to begin with though, and teach that the arms stays static - the whole area of body-leads is so difficult to learn and to teach that simplifying it is necessary at the early stages (I tend to make the same simplification myself, to start with - otherwise you just end up confusing people.)

[MartinHarper]

Assuming we're not talking about the strict frames of ballroom dancing, then I think, in a body lead, the main point with the arms is that they shouldn't be used to lead. (duh)

There's nothing to say that you can't move the arms - for example, for dramatic effect (most obviously in lunges, where you lift the left arm high) - as long as you're not moving the arms to actually provide a lead.

That's what I was initially told about body leads, and what I now consider a simplification.

Now my feeling is that, when doing a body lead, the leader's arms should move relative to the leader's body, in a way that contributes to the overall lead. Pre-amplification, if you will. It was demonstrated to me in a very convincing way.

Given that it's quite possible (and often necessary) to use a body-lead to move lead your partner in a direction directly opposed to your own direction of travel (leading backstep from open, for example) - where clearly your arms have to move in opposition to (but not disconnected from) the body - this is where we get into the whole rubber-band / spring analogy.

Yeah, I'd been shown such things before. It was really the use of the arms even when leading my partner in the same direction that I was moving that took me by surprise.

I was working so hard on honing my half-broken robot dance style, too.

[straycat]

I was working so hard on honing my half-broken robot dance style, too.

Well - that in itself is extremely hard to achieve - tbh, if you can do that, and get your arms fully 'connected' with your core in that way, it could be that all you need to do is 'soften' that connection slightly, and you're there...

I should stress that with body leads, I absolutely do not consciously use my arms to amplify the body motion as you describe - if / when that happens, it (ideally) flows naturally from the movement of your body. I think. Half the problem is that this stuff is extremely hard to analyse, and it's easy to think you're doing one thing, when actually you're doing something completely different