Leadable and unleadable moves (split from New Year, New Dance)

[Andy McGregor]

I can't think of any way to get a follower to lift her free arm up using a body lead.

This requires a chocolate lead. Simply hold a bar of chocolate in your left hand a raise the hand ...

[NZ Monkey]

I'm curious - what is this Sway Signal then?

Geoff beat me the punch here, but he's exactly right. The Aussie version of the sway is significantly different from the UK one and requires a signal. It's a good example of a move with an unleable component, but I didn't want to use a country-specific example in my earlier post.

Really, as funny as Trampy's story sounds until you have this information, his response to the guy in that class was out of line. You wouldn't say something similar to someone because of a misunderstanding between English and American English speakers would you? Particularly if you were being paid to teach a class in America.

[NZ Monkey]

It sounds like poor practice to me, for three obvious reasons:

• You're training your students to think about signal recognition rather than lead-and-follow; so much so that they ignore the lead and look for the signal.
• If you start depending on signals rather than leads, it comes crashing down when you encounter anyone who doesn't know the Secret Squirrel code.
• It's not a "natural" movement, so therefore will always look a little artificial.

In this particular I don't think signal recognition-over-lead is a problem. The turn is so tight that the girls have little chance to miss the lead. In fact I think the opposite becomes a problem, in that they often throw their arm out even when there's no signal for it....

This kind of signal is really only a slight extension of the "offering your hand" rule, and nobody complains about that. If somebody doesn't know the code then it is a problem, but that only happens when you travel to the other side of the world.... So doesn't cause too many issues in practice.

Finally, it's a really nice looking move and not artificial looking at all, which is probably why it's used as a beginners move.

[David Franklin]

Really, as funny as Trampy's story sounds until you have this information, his response to the guy in that class was out of line. You wouldn't say something similar to someone because of a misunderstanding between English and American English speakers would you? Particularly if you were being paid to teach a class in America.

I'd somewhat disagree - although really this is mostly misunderstanding, compounded by both sides considering the concept so basic that they don't realise the other side sees it differently.

But as you and geoff are describing it, it's a different move. So if Steve teaches a UK sway, and describes it as a sway, then saying something like "That's not what we call a swap over here" would be perfectly fine and reasonable.

But to say "there's a signal for a sway" when the move being taught isn't the move for which there's a signal seems more than a little strange.

In any event, to follow the lead for a sway, suddenly stop and complain "you didn't do the signal for a sway" (as followers did with me) certainly does seem to be a case of prioritising signal-recognition-over-lead.

[David Bailey]

In fact I think the opposite becomes a problem, in that they often throw their arm out even when there's no signal for it....

So, they're not following the lead, they're following the signal and anticipating? That's a good thing?

This kind of signal is really only a slight extension of the "offering your hand" rule, and nobody complains about that. If somebody doesn't know the code then it is a problem, but that only happens when you travel to the other side of the world...

Well, just because a code is well-spread-out, doesn't make it good practice. It simply means that a lot of people are doing it wrong.

Finally, it's a really nice looking move and not artificial looking at all, which is probably why it's used as a beginners move.

To be honest, I'd have to see it done.

But I don't believe anything that requires a signal to work is good practice - it can't be. At best, it's move that would look good choreographically.

[geoff332]

I should probably add a few points:

1. The signal is little different from offering a hand in all modern jive. The entire move isn't 'lead' by the signal; it's only real purpose is to get the follow's arm out.
2. In general, the way I was taught ceroc in NZ is far, far less reliant on signals than ceroc as I've been taught in the UK (although some of the teachers called genuine leads signals). Signals were mostly used in NZ in cases like this where the movement was unleadable.
3. Aesthetically, this move looks very nice. Most dancing isn't that natural (I rarely see people spinning in circles when walking down the street - at least not when they're sober/sane). Dancing is always contrived and stylised. Sticking your arm out when spinning isn't the most unnatural movement.
4. I can't remember if it's a beginners or (easy) intermediate move, but it's a bit harder than the sway taught in the UK - mostly because it's taught with a much sharper spot turn, rather than the more gentle travelling turn/step used in the UK variation.
5. This is a good example of why signals in general are a bad idea: they simply are not universal.

[Amir]

First of all let me say I'm not an 'anti signal' fanatic; if there is a movement that you like doing, that you can't lead, but you and your partner know a signal for, then why not? This was common in Lindy Hop, for example, where people would know short set sequences in which you break away and come back together.

But, in regards to the NZ sway, I don't think you need a signal; I think followers should always turn with their arms at a height and availability to be caught by the leader. 90% of the time followers do this, and have their arms in a place easily accesible to lead a NZ/Aus style sway.
I often taught people not to do the signal for the sway in NZ, not because signals are evil, but because in this case a) you don't need it b) the men look silly when they do it. This is true also for a breakthru (called man spin in the UK) which in NZ at least is a stupid looking and totally redundent signal, and the neckbreak.

There are no universal signals that I know of in modern jive, so if you travel for dancing they are not useful. But your local venue might have signals that people there know and love, and if there is no way to lead the move without a signal and you are aware of the difference, then go for it. Its less common but still around in Lindyhop and people don't lead/follow any worse or have less fun because of it.

[Amir]

As for people coming late to class, normally it is their regular teacher's fault.

If you think its ok to join a class late that's probably because where you normally learn it is. But there are many movements that are 100% leadable but only if the follower has learnt the technique for executing the movement. I hate it when people join late. If they have watched what has been taught so far, and only join in when they are 100% certain they already know that stuff, then fine. It would still be nice to check its ok with the teacher. But normally they don't, and just slow down the class and p*** off the people they dance with.

In Lindy hop especially, and Natalie and Yuval's classes specifically, it is common to learn syncopations that are not lead. Its also common to start the class with an excercise that will allow you to lead/follow material later. If you miss that you've missed the most important part.

Yes being strict about it might be bad for business. But not being strict about it can be bad for people's dancing, and N&Y probably want a reputation for teaching good dancing.

[Andy McGregor]

First of all let me say I'm not an 'anti signal' fanatic;

I'm not 'anti-signal' I'm more confused than that. I'm a 'why do a move that requires a signal?' kinda guy. There's plenty of moves that can be led using compression or tension or opposition or whatever you want to call it.

In my experience signals can be mis-read and cause problems when strangers meet. This is true off the dance floor as well as on the dance floor

[TA Guy]

I've not got a problem with signals. Half the ones complained about on this forum are really just exaggerated preps anyway.

Besides, I'm not sure lead and follow is anywhere near as pure as some make out.

The idea of a followers "learn't response" seems to be completely ignored. And followers have to adjust their follow all the time for different heights, length of arm, strength etc. If it really was just a case of following the lead, an 'in and out' would be about the sum total of moves available.

Lead and follow is not a simple dynamic. It's not a case of I'll yank you this way and you move, or I'll subtly weight-shift here and you move. Not only is "learn't responses" crucially underestimated IMO, but the visual aspect and the 'framework' (aka rules) of the dance both also contribute much to the lead and follow.

Signals on top?.. barely changes anything IMO. If you don't know the signal, then that's just a "learn't response" your missing. No big deal and signals are certainly not something I'd put anywhere near "wrong" or "bad dancing".

"Yanking", now that's bad dancing .

[Dancing-Thea]

in regards to the NZ sway, I don't think you need a signal; I think followers should always turn with their arms at a height and availability to be caught by the leader. 90% of the time followers do this, and have their arms in a place easily accesible to lead a NZ/Aus style sway.

From my experience, the NZ sway does not need a signal, provided that the Lead can lead the move and the Follow can follow. I'm almost certain that I have followed this move without signals being given - mostly because the guys that I regularly dance with don't use signals in general freestyle. But that may be faulty memory forgetting that I was given a signal in the first place......

I often taught people not to do the signal for the sway in NZ, not because signals are evil, but because in this case a) you don't need it b) the men look silly when they do it. This is true also for a breakthru (called man spin in the UK) which in NZ at least is a stupid looking and totally redundent signal, and the neckbreak.

I teach for Auckland Central and personally, rarely teach signals. But other teachers do use them. Generally if asked about the difference, I reply that it is a personal preference. Many people prefer using signals as they are learning. It seems to help solidify the move in the Lead's memory and can give the Follow an indiction of what they are being asked to do next. As a Lead progresses and is more confident doing the move they often leave off using the signal.

Sure, ideally it would be great if the Follow were following rather than responding to a visual lead. Generally when people start dancing though, it would be information overload to teach someone how to follow. Not to mention offputting and scary. Surely it is better to get them involved and having fun, introducing lead and follow concepts gradually? Yes, that is the ultimate aim (IMO) but you need them to come back first!

Can anyone remember back to when they started dancing? I realise that for some it was many years ago, but in your mind, was it more important to have great technique or not to feel like an awkward dunce doing 'easy' moves?

[NZ Monkey]

So, they're not following the lead, they're following the signal and anticipating? That's a good thing?

Actually, I meant that even in the absence of a signal being given, some ladies will still throw their arm up. That's not a good thing....... but it does indicate that they're not looking for the signal. If anything I think of it as anticipation* - which is a common problem everywhere, signals or not.

But, in regards to the NZ sway, I don't think you need a signal] Easily available is one thing and certainly doesn't require a signal, but in the "formal beginners" version the ladies arm is swung across straight at shoulder height, much like in a head chopper. That's a tad more extreme than simply "available". In fact, the ladies are taught to really go for it to add extra "flare", and the purpose of the signal for the guy (apart from signalling of course) is to place his hand in the right place early to catch it for his own protection.

Incidentially, the head chopper is another MJ move that isn't strictly leadable.....


As it happens, I'm one of those people Dancing-Thea dances with who doesn't use signals. I don't like them personally, and am something of a purest when it comes to lead and follow. I'm just adding whatever explainations I can to the debate.

*To be fair it's a conditioned response, which is much more forgivable to my mind that what we normally call anticipation.

[Amir]

Besides, I'm not sure lead and follow is anywhere near as pure as some make out.

The idea of a followers "learn't response" seems to be completely ignored. And followers have to adjust their follow all the time for different heights, length of arm, strength etc. If it really was just a case of following the lead, an 'in and out' would be about the sum total of moves available.

Just because something is a learnt response does not mean it is not pure following. If you jump in a cab and shout 'follow that car!' you hope that the driver is skilled, experienced and motivated. That's why you tip him extra. You say 'keep the change.'

If you decide to follow Forrest Gump on a cross country run you need to have certain training to keep up.

In partner dance instead of following by watching (as in the above two examples) we say, 'hold my hand, and follow based on what you feel more than what you see.' That doesn't mean you can do it without practising. You need to developing a certain sensitivity to subtle changes in pressure and intensity that lead various directions. A beginner cannot feel all these things; it takes training. It’s similar to how if I run my finger across some Braille I can’t tell what pattern the dots are making, although its easy if I look at it. I haven’t trained my fingers to have that sensitivity.

Of course this is coupled with many conventions that make up the dance style, and distinguish how a tango dancer moves as opposed to a lindy hop dancer. So of course partner dancing is not just pure lead and follow. It is also dancing. But the lead/follow aspect of partner dance can be pure, feels great when it is, and allows for unbounded creativity, improvisation and connection.

This is different from a signal, which is like a symbol. Regardless of how I do the signal it always signifies the same movement. A lead can be modified to create variations, and applied in new contexts.

The idea of a followers "learn't response" seems to be completely ignored.

Not by me, which is why I think followers should come on time to class, since they need to train and learn certain responses. In addition, followers need as much accuracy and far more versatility than leaders, since they are led through many more variations than any one leader could possibly hope to learn.

[jim]

What I thinks intersting with signals is that sometimes they can be 'counter-intuative'.

Take a first move. You lead the lady forward then you put your arm out where you want her essentially to end up. Now I don't use the hand as a signal, but I think some people do, and mine it's often hanging there anticipating the next part of the move anyway.

But what I found, when I did a little following, was that the hand infront of you makes you want to stop. You feel your path has been blocked or that your going to crash.

And I noticed in freestyle, sometimes with beginners. If I lead a lady forward then put my hand out to collect her, she'll abort the move.

That's because the hand infront of her doesn't say, 'turn around and step back', it says 'stop'.

I think the hand in the first move can be both a signal and a visual lead and that thoes messages contradict each other.