Frustrated Female

[David Bailey]

So would you regard "demands" as "sabotage", and everything else as "improvisation and interpretation"?

Nope - none of them are sabotage to my mind, and none of them are Evil. It's a good set of definitions in fact.

The "demands" one is kind of like "hijacking", I'd say, although the word means different things to different people.

To your list, I'd add a fifth category:
* Sabotage: moves that force the transfer of lead without volition or consent, breaking that portion of the dance. E.g. forcing a man spin.

DavidJames in "not a control freak" shocker. You heard it here first.

It's not yet a crime to avoid too much improvisation, and I'm not the only one who doesn't like it:

I, for one, do not enjoy improvising and frequently get annoyed with guys who expect me to improvise at the drop of a hat, ie. without a proper lead or notice.

To me, improvisation is like drops or aerials - I'm not good at them, I'll probably never be good at them, so I don't do them. They're not mandatory, and neither are they an essential part of Good Dancing technique (compared to, say, connection or balance) - but too many people, especially new intermediates, think that they're the Bees Knees. They're not, they're an optional extra.

Technique is the Bees Knees.

[David Bailey]

Am still trying to get my head round this one? I can't understand how this is even possible? what do you verbally speak the moves to the person?

No!

Typically, whenever I do this - and yes, it's a great exercise to work on, I do it in AT a lot - I generally lead the moves that are most leadable that way - Manhattans, turns, manspins, walkarounds, that sort of thing.

I can't figure out how you can ask someone to step back without giving them the hand signal.

Step forward - they'll back off, believe me, especially from me

And some moves require blocking.. how can you block someone from spinning if you don't actually block them? sounds very odd to me.

Some things, like spins, are more tricky. But if you think about it. the amount of force you should be applying to the lady to spin her is miniscule (David Franklin calculated it somewhere I think) - 99% of the effort should always be done by the lady. So technically, all you're doing with a non-touching lead is removing that 1% of extra force.

Am obviously not at "that level" yet.

Me neither - but it's a very good exercise to try to get there.

[LMC]

Although my definitions differ from DJ's and MH's (hmmm... am I grown up enough to say "I was wrong"? Nah - different words, same principles) I don't consider myself advanced enough to sabotage appropriately or even to improvise very much. I might slow down a return occasionally - and would, actually, call that sabotage, because I'm 'stopping' the lead from continuing to lead while I wiggle. Hijacking the lead from a female lead or a male who you know likes following is a different matter - and very fun

[MartinHarper]

I can't figure out how you can ask someone to step back without giving them the hand signal.

Lead moves his hands pretty much as normal, but more expressively. Follow follows partly by watching the lead's hands, partly from regular visual cues.

When I do this I still allow myself to use a hand on my partner's back, where appropriate, as she doesn't have eyes in the back of her head.

If you think about it. the amount of force you should be applying to the lady to spin her is miniscule (David Franklin calculated it somewhere I think) - 99% of the effort should always be done by the lady.

As I recall, we established that the lady does 99% of the effort for linear motion, but it's closer to 50-50 for rotational motion.

[Beowulf]

Imagining there are invisible force fields around you...

"Captain.. Klingons off the starboard bow!"
"Scotty... more power to the feet.. we need to spin"
"Captain.. that move is illogical!"
"Dammit Pete, I'm a ceroc teacher not a doctor"
"Sulu.. lay in a course for right hand.. prepare for Yoyo... engage!"

Sorry.. it's the geek in me.

t's a very good exercise to try to get there.

Yes, I Think I understand now. Lory's magnets comment was very informative and you've explained it to me better too. I'll have to try it..

"Try not. Do, or do not. There is no try"

[David Bailey]

I might slow down a return occasionally - and would, actually, call that sabotage, because I'm 'stopping' the lead from continuing to lead while I wiggle.

Funny, I'd call that "interpretation", not "sabotage" - you're certainly not stopping the lead, you're just interpreting (hopefully to the music). It should add to the dance, not "sabotage" it.

Hmmm, is there maybe some external definition of dance terminology we could use here?

DavidB would call that "embellishment" I assume from this post:

Improvisation is the lady taking advantage of an invitational lead.
Embellishment is the lady adding something extra whilst still following the lead.
Sabotage is the lady deliberately not following an indication lead.

I like it when the lady improvises or embellishes a lead. Sabotage is a bit different.
1st time
2nd time
3rd time
4th time

I like when a lady slows a return down, I'm certainly not in a big rush to get anywhere.

Although I don't like it if I lead a slow return, and the lady ignores that invitational lead and does a Ceroc-speed return instead. But usually that's because she's not seen the "slow down" part of lead, rather than making a conscious decision to speed things up.

[David Bailey]

As I recall, we established that the lady does 99% of the effort for linear motion, but it's closer to 50-50 for rotational motion.

Really? Even leading turns? I find that difficult to believe... got a link?

[MartinHarper]

Really? Even leading turns? I find that difficult to believe... got a link?

http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/s...ead.php?t=8652
Last post (mine).
"we" may have been a stretch...

[David Bailey]

http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/s...ead.php?t=8652
Last post (mine).
"we" may have been a stretch...

I think you just killed the thread is all - death by mathematics

Anyway, there's no way I give half the energy of a spin to a lady when leading it - maybe that means I'm a lazy lead, of course...

I'm sure I can lead a spin without touching, I'll have to try it sometime, next time I go to a MJ venue.

[Genie]

I think you just killed the thread is all - death by mathematics

No kidding!

Anyway, there's no way I give half the energy of a spin to a lady when leading it - maybe that means I'm a lazy lead, of course...

I actually appreciate it when a lead gives me some energy as he spins me. Because a follow gets spun quite a lot during the average dance, it can get a little tiring to have to do all the work yourself. One or two leads give you that little bit of energy and it makes all the difference.

Sure, I could go through the dance doing all the moves and spins entirely on my own energy while he just stands there (and there are a few of those around, I'll tell you now ) but it's the ones who are putting as much energy and effort into the dance as I am that I really love to dance with.

[MartinHarper]

I'm sure I can lead a spin without touching, I'll have to try it sometime, next time I go to a MJ venue.

So have I. Just because something is possible, doesn't mean that it's mandatory.

[Gadget]

... but it's the ones who are putting as much energy and effort into the dance as I am that I really love to dance with.

damn... need to slow down then.

On topic.. {Selfless plug} have a look at some of the links on my syg - the "leading" one also has stuff about following.

The main objective of the follower is to maintain the same distance and orientation to the lead. In the magnet anology, the follower is providing the 'magnetic force' to do this. The lead uses this resistance to manipulate the follower; the lead shouldn't really have to move the follower - just put themselves in a position where the follower has to move to re-orientate.

{That's how I try to work it anyway... seems to work for me }

[Lory]

I actually appreciate it when a lead gives me some energy as he spins me. Because a follow gets spun quite a lot during the average dance, it can get a little tiring to have to do all the work yourself. One or two leads give you that little bit of energy and it makes all the difference.

I find a more effective way of helping ladies spin, is not to necessarily apply more force in the brut sense but instead, but to set the spin up beforehand, by leading us into a contra-body check position first.. then only a fraction of effort is needed the achieve the same results and we're far less likely to wobble.

[MartinHarper]

... contra-body check position ...

You're going to have to explain this one for me in simple words.

[David Bailey]

I actually appreciate it when a lead gives me some energy as he spins me. Because a follow gets spun quite a lot during the average dance, it can get a little tiring to have to do all the work yourself. One or two leads give you that little bit of energy and it makes all the difference.

I suspect (very strongly suspect) that any "energy" (force) the leader can provide with his arms will be trivial compared to the force provided by the follower's feet.

The main help that a leader provides is in setting up the position for a spin, and providing some balancing assistance where required.

The "setting up the position for a spin" bit is about technique and positioning.

And the better a follower gets, the less help they lead in balancing. I can lead ochos and giros without touching my partner - and I know for a fact that these require far more balance than a simple spin.

As a follower, if you can spin by yourself without a leader's assistance, imagine how good you can be with that assistance. Training and practice should be harder than social dancing - you're trying to stretch yourself after all.

I'm not saying non-touching leading is pleasant to look at - it looks a bit naff sometimes IMO, all that handwaving and stuff. But it's a very good exercise in leading technique.

Oh, and Real Dancers Don't Spin

[MartinHarper]

I suspect (very strongly suspect) that any "energy" (force) the leader can provide with his arms will be trivial compared to the force provided by the follower's feet.

Energy isn't the same as force. A leader can provide a significant proportion of the energy a follower needs to spin, if he chooses to. However, the force he uses to do so will always be much less than the ~600N exerted by the floor. This is because work = force x distance.

[Lory]

You're going to have to explain this one for me in simple words.

Well, I've probably used the wrong terminology but what i'm trying to say is, if the lead can manage to set the lady up, so that her body is slightly twisted to the opposite position, then on her next step, she'll start unwinding in the direction of the spin..

A little bit like winding an elastic band up and letting it go!

Its no good, I can't explain I'll have to show you at Southport

[Daisy Chain]

I find a more effective way of helping ladies spin, is not to necessarily apply more force in the brut sense but instead, but to set the spin up beforehand, by leading us into a contra-body check position first.. then only a fraction of effort is needed the achieve the same results and we're far less likely to wobble.

The degree of shove is inversely proportional to the number of spins possible by the follower.

ie there's no need to give me an almighty one if you want me to do a multiple

Daisy

(An Easily Spun Little Flower)

[Twirly]

ie there's no need to give me an almighty one if you want me to do a multiple

Sorry, tried to resist, but it must be the way my mind is working today....