MJ lead/follow conventions

[Gadget]

But I would say that strictly speaking since she is a follower and I am the lead, she should follow my rhythm and not vice versa.

Would you? I would say that strictly speaking, since you are dancing with her, and she has consented to dance with you, you should follow her rhythm.

Have you ever danced solo - the night-club two-step? In order to dance with someone in the muggle world you have to dance to their rhythm. If you get the timing right, matching your foot falls with hers, your body movement and timing with hers; then it's soooo much easier to dance with them, to communicate your intention and lead them properly. You know what people talk about when speaking about "connection" within a lead? this is connection outwith the lead.

And I don’t just think that because I am obsessed by rules and conventions. I personally find it very difficult to lead in some else rhythm.

Never said it was easy But the reward is that everything else gets a fraction easier.

I have a feeling that following in someone else’s rhythm is easier than leading in someone else’s rhythm.

Why? How do you pick up on the rhythm within a song? Is it just there? If a follower feels her rhythm, how do you think it would be easier for her to change rather than you? Personally I think that it's a bit selfish expecting your follower to do something you're not prepared to do.

{BTW I can lead a damn sight better than I can follow. :phhht:}

[robd]

Would you? I would say that strictly speaking, since you are dancing with her, and she has consented to dance with you, you should follow her rhythm.

Unless she was the one who requested the dance in which case the leader is the one consenting to dance.

[Easily Led]

Does this mean you prefer to do the asking rather than be asked?

[Gav]

I would say that strictly speaking since she is a follower and I am the lead, she should follow my rhythm and not vice versa.

Would you? I would say that strictly speaking, since you are dancing with her, and she has consented to dance with you, you should follow her rhythm.

Unless she was the one who requested the dance in which case the leader is the one consenting to dance.

It may just be semantics, but I'd say that any reference to "consenting" to dance with someone is just utter bullsh1t.
That antiquated way of looking at it makes it sound like they're doing you a favour by agreeing to dance with you and you should make every concession to repay them for it.
AFAIC, whoever asks, once the offer has been accepted, no-one has the upper hand or the right to expect the other to follow a rhythm. Once you hit the dancefloor it becomes a partnership where you work together. Either that, or one person enforces their will and the dance is much less enjoyable.

[Dreadful Scathe]

Would you? I would say that strictly speaking, since you are dancing with her, and she has consented to dance with you, you should follow her rhythm.

Surely you should follow the rhythm of the music and then the rhythm of the person you are dancing with in that order - who asked who doesn't enter into it, because if you are not connected rhythmically you may as well not bother

[Agente Secreto]

It may just be semantics, but I'd say that any reference to "consenting" to dance with someone is just utter bullsh1t.
That antiquated way of looking at it makes it sound like they're doing you a favour by agreeing to dance with you and you should make every concession to repay them for it.
AFAIC, whoever asks, once the offer has been accepted, no-one has the upper hand or the right to expect the other to follow a rhythm. Once you hit the dancefloor it becomes a partnership where you work together. Either that, or one person enforces their will and the dance is much less enjoyable.

And all this talk about leading rhythms makes it sound as if on any given track there is only one possible option for extracting a rhythm. Can't speak for anyone else, you may all be a lot more consistent than I am, but depending on how I feel and how the follow is interacting with me I can find different rhythms in the same track quite easily depending on what instrument I'm picking up on. And if I can do that then it is highly likely that whatever rhythm I am thinking of the follow might have something entirely different buzzing in her head and, perish the thought, might want to dance to it in which case it is only polite of me to respond with enthusiasm

Surely dance is about coming to a level of connection and partnership as Gav says, where you achieve a sort of Holy Trinity of dance (idea plaguerised shamelessy from CJ:flower of you, your partner, and of course the music. All this talk of control and leading rhythms upon each other sounds like there is some fight for dominance over the dance which can't be the objective, or am I missing something fundamental?

Agent 000
Licensed to Dance

[Easily Led]

Does this mean you prefer to do the asking rather than be asked?

Sorry was not awake this morning . What I meant was - if that is what you think, do you prefer to be asked so that you feel you can be in charge ?

[bigdjiver]

Surely you should follow the rhythm of the music and then the rhythm of the person you are dancing with in that order ...

It is possible to dance without any audible music. It is possible to follow in such a dance. It is possible to have an amazing feeling of connection in such a dance.

... who asked who doesn't enter into it,...

I think I have a different view of what "leader" means.

... because if you are not connected rhythmically you may as well not bother

If a partnership is not connected rhythmically it may be worth bothering trying to learn how to fix it.

Its a journey.

[jim]

Surely dance is about coming to a level of connection and partnership as Gav says, where you achieve a sort of Holy Trinity of dance (idea plaguerised shamelessy from CJ:flower of you, your partner, and of course the music.

Agent 000
Licensed to Dance

Exactly because you could go;

1) the music 2) you partner 3) you.

Or

1) the music 2) you 3) your parnter.

Or even


-----The music-------


You --------- your partner

A sort of interlated triangle of connection.

They can all work. There just different ways of approching the same problem.

[MartinHarper]

Have you ever danced solo - the night-club two-step?

Nightclub two step is a partner dance.

I would say that strictly speaking since she is a follower and I am the lead, she should follow my rhythm and not vice versa.

First off, thanks for explaining what you meant by rhythm. I'd characterise one aspect of that as "smooth vs staccato", and I see that you're talking about other aspects too.

I think that the answer to your question depends on the level of the dancers. If two beginners dance together, then they will each have their rhythm, and they are unlikely to be well enough connected to have much of a problem with that. If a beginner dances with an intermediate (or an advanced dancer), the connection will be better, and the intermediate will be able to dance in many rhythms and thus can adapt to the rhythm of the beginner. This is a good adaptation to make, for both leaders and followers. When two intermediates dance together, or an intermediate dancer dances with an advanced dancer, they can both dance in a variety of rhythms. Here, I think the dance works best if the leaders leads the rhythm of choice and the follower follows. This allows for swift changes of rhythm to match the music. When advanced folks dance together, you sometimes start to see more bidirectional communication of rhythm, just as you see more bidirectional communication in other aspects of lead-and-follow.

I have a feeling that following in someone else’s rhythm is easier than leading in someone else’s rhythm.

Better dancers should ideally be able to dance smooth, or staccato, early or late, syncopated or simple, without feeling that they are dancing in "someone else’s rhythm". Until then, I agree that it's easier for a follower to adjust. When I'm following, all my attention should be on my partner, so his rhythm should be relatively obvious. Leaders need to pay attention to more things, and may not be able to pinpoint the differences that are causing problems.

[Gadget]

Nightclub two step is a partner dance.

is it? I was referring to "handbag" dancing - what people do in a night-club on the dance floor when the music is playing. {A standard nightclub: none of those kinky specialist clubs that I've heard about }

[straycat]

is it? I was referring to "handbag" dancing - what people do in a night-club on the dance floor when the music is playing.

It surely is.

[Agente Secreto]

It surely is.

Stray, don't think Gadget is disagreeing with you. He's probably meaning the old side-to-side shuffle that you see the muggles doing in noisy clubs and not NC2S which as you say is definitely a partner dance.

[Agente Secreto]

When advanced folks dance together, you sometimes start to see more bidirectional communication of rhythm, just as you see more bidirectional communication in other aspects of lead-and-follow.

I love this description, but it can't be right since I can manage this with several of the follows I dance with and we're not advanced.

I think that lots of people could reach this kind of bi-directional dancing if they were taught differently. Back to the debate about teaching people to dance rather than simply teaching them to do moves to a rigid timing and a thumping track............

Agent 000
Licensed to Dance

[straycat]

Stray, don't think Gadget is disagreeing with you.

I don't think that . I think he asked Martin a question, and I think I gave an answer. I think there's an even chance that the answer might have been informative (unlike this one, which is just self-indulgent of me :rolleyes . Or at least - I think I think that. There's always the chance that I'm spectacularly wrong, and have brought about the premature end of the world. Which wasn't really supposed to happen until next week.

[jim]

Martin, I think you understand exactly what I'm talking about. Thank you for you reply.

[jivecat]

It's already been discussed here and on other threads (I claim a robd on this one - too lazy to find the actual posts to quote) that teaching follows to become more involved with the dance isn't taught.

I am never more involved with a dance than when I am concentrating completely on picking up the signals the leader is giving me, both consciously and unconsciously, so that the dance is as smooth and seamless and "at one" with each other - and the music - as possible. To give the leader full attention in this way seems to me to be the utmost compliment a follower can pay which is apparently unappreciated by some leaders. To say that followers can be more involved with the dance by pursuing their own agenda is quite contrary, IMO. The pressure to "play", whether it's an appropriate moment for me or not, can take away that element of concentration from a good dance rather than enhance it.

no i am just a gentleman and not a bully so i dont intend to dominate the whole dance by insisting my partner does as i command
i allow them the space to play if they want to

If the leader suddenly stops leading with the follower kept waiting out on the end of his arm until she "does something playful", she has very little choice in the matter even if no domination is intended. That is not the same as allowing them space, that is forcing them to take the space whether it fits with her mood or the music or not.

It remains my belief that leaders should maintain a smooth, continuous and musical lead (ideally) and that followers should fit their interpretative elements into that framework. Anything else just results in dance floor anarchy.

[timbp]

My leads are purely invitations

So are mine.

Of course, the tone of the invitation may vary from "His Supreme Ultimateness invites you to grovel at His Feet" to "I'm goin' down the street. Y'wanna come too?".

[timbp]

I understand the 'picture/frame' analogy you refer to as meaning this: the picture is the focus and the frame is there to show off the picture to the maximum.

I spent many years as a copyeditor. A copyeditor corrects spelling, grammar, punctuation and other errors so that the author's message can get through to the reader with as few misunderstandings as possible.
At an editors' christmas party there was a competition to give one sentence to sum up "editing".
I won with "Editing is an art only apparent in its absence".
How often have you read a book and commented at the end that the spelling and grammar was perfect and the copyeditor must have done a good job?
And how often have you commented that the book would have been better with a decent copyeditor? (Maybe I'm the only person who notices these things.)

In a dance performance, if people watch the follower and everything is perfect, then the leader must have been perfect. If they watch the follower and she makes a mistake, then may the mistake was the leader's.
I think that is where the picture/frame analogy comes from. people look at the picture, but whether the picture looks good can depend a lot on the frame.
I don't really like the picture/frame analogy. Why are people watching the follower not the leader or the couple? Because she has a great body and a skimpy costume.

[timbp]

The pressure to "play", whether it's an appropriate moment for me or not, can take away that element of concentration from a good dance rather than enhance it.

If the leader suddenly stops leading with the follower kept waiting out on the end of his arm until she "does something playful", she has very little choice in the matter even if no domination is intended. That is not the same as allowing them space, that is forcing them to take the space whether it fits with her mood or the music or not.

It remains my belief that leaders should maintain a smooth, continuous and musical lead (ideally) and that followers should fit their interpretative elements into that framework. Anything else just results in dance floor anarchy.

Absolutely.
Definitely.
Beyond doubt.

I'm not sure what the current laws are in the UK (nor in Australia, for that matter). But I'm sure sabotage and hijacking are classified as terrorist acts, and I'm sure it is illegal to teach them. It may also be illegal to associate with anyone who is involved in teaching or carrying out sabotage or hijacking.

So leaders should lead, and followers should follow. Followers can add to the dance by recognising places where they have time to add something without affecting the leader.
And leader can give followers opportunities to play for a while without forcing them.

When I started dancing, we were often taught moves in which the leader brought the hand down sharply between the leader and the follower. Then the followers were expected to "play".
I hated this, and quickly found that most of the women I danced with hated it even more.

More recently I have learned ways to give followers a chance to take time to play, but where the dance continues unchanged if they don't.
One option is the touch turn (taken from WCS). Lead the follower straight towards you, then block her with a flat palm. Even a first time follower will interpret that as a turn (although she might try to turn the wrong way) and when she finishes the turn, you continue with the next move. She doesn't even have to know you hoped she would play.
A more advanced follower will take her time with the turn, putting on a show, and when she finishes the turn, you continue with the next move.
And at times a more advanced follower will just do the turn, and when she finishes the turn, you continue with the next move -- and think about what was in the music that you expected the follower to play with (you didn't really expect her to play just because you said "play", did you?).