Sorry - another spiel...
dave the scaffolder wrote:One must follow the rules until they are 2nd nature,
~
Then one fine day you have the rules and you want to experiment and step outside of the rules. However you are unable to do this at the start of dancing. When you reach this, rule breaking stage, then you develop your style and flair and individuality in your dance style. This stage is different for everybody~
Then there are us, the people who adapt, improvise and add flair, camp it up, we just immerse ourselves in the pursuit of non conformity in the dance world. Are we better than anybody else? I think not, we just see things a little different and find new and exciting variations to established moves, we change partners and generally have fun with the subtle changes in our style and dancing.
I understand where you are coming from: I used to dance this way my self (and have loads of fun in the process).
... BUT ...
What is happening is that you've learned enough to dance and to convey your intent to your partner. You're the matador; swirling the follower like a cape with flair and drama while the music pounds around you, trampling dust into the air at your feet. Impressive and fun. But ultimatly centred about you. When the follower plays, it's an extension of you and you adapt to it - but the focus switches to them. It's a solo dance with your partner as a flashy animated prop.
When the follower takes control, then they become the centre of the dance; most often because they are fed-up being a prop. (from my understanding anyway)
There is nothing wrong with dancing like this. It is fun and flamboyant. I still dance like this on occasion.
However, it is not the pinnacle of styling and dancing. If your partner is not of the same ilk, then it can be very intimidating and domineering. You end up a clown to the bull; waving to attract it's attention, then hiding behind some stock moves. I think that the dance can look and feel better if the focus is on you both as a couple rather than one. Especially for the less flamboyant and playful dancers.
David Bailey wrote:But frankly, most of the followers who try this are rubbish at it - they do their thing, when and where they want, then they leave the leader to pick up the pieces. Which is disruptive and annoying to any leader, at any level. More experienced leaders can recover from it better, of course, as they'll usually have any number of get-out-of-jail movements they can use at any given time.
Both sabotage and hijack are wresting the lead away from the leader. So at the very least, if you sabotage / hijack, you need to clearly transfer the lead back.
The skill of a proper sabotage (where the follower 'breaks' a move and does their own variation) lies with the timeing: the follower has to [1st] recognise the movement and the move coming up, then [2nd] time the interuption to let the lead know and safely slip into their own pattern.
From a personal point of view, I find very (very) few followers can do this to be because I'm not very predictable in my dancing
Newly advancing dancers are prime targets for followers because they do the same thing again and again, the followers can get frustrated with the leads ignoring breaks and accents in the music and it's relativly easy to take things into their own hands.
Unfortunaly, these are the leads that are likley to panic and get all confused with the follower not doing as they are leading.
If followers manage a sabotage and then want to hi-jack, there are a couple of problems:
- they now assume the dominant role within the dance. If there was a good connection between dancers with light, responsive leads & follows, then the follower should now be able to assume the lead with a fairly subtle dominance: they need to initialy apply the same level of dominance over the lead as the lead is showing to them. This becomes a problem when the lead is very dominant - the follow has to not only neutralise the lead with the sabotage, they now have to over-power it with the hi-jack. Very few followers can do this to a 'strong' lead. Those that can are normally not that good at leading and will be overbearing, "rough" and not to subtle about the lead.
- the second problem is that they are trying to lead a lead. ie not a follower. ie someone who has an idea of how to follow from the wrong end. The lead may be able to spin, turn & lead well, but following is a completley different mind-set. You've just de-railed their lead and now you expect them to follow.
As a result, good strong leads (like david) wil seldom experiance a follower who can sabotage them and turn it into a hijack with any sucess. Those that could would have to be good leads in their own right. (as well as good followers)
Learning? I have seen a few workshops and classes in it. I think that every dip and drop should be taught with a sabotage option so that followers can take it uppon themselves to abort.
I can think on half a dozen followers who are experianced and good enough to do this with confidence: the ones who have "sucessfully" managed this with me are Caro, Freya, Lisa and Lorna. (Lorna is one of the teachers who I've seen teaching hi-jack classes) Drathzel and Emma are also rather good at it (since we seem to be name dropping
)
dave the scaffolder wrote:One small point that seem's to have been missed here pips.
We are only SOCIAL DANCERS, we are not professional dancers. We do this for fun and enjoyment, start over thinking things and the enjoyment will fade.
~
This is only my humble opinion but I have allways split dancing into 2 camps.
1 The technically expert dancers who learn the moves superbly and dance correctly, every dance is perfect technique and marvellous.
2 The natural or instinctive dancers, these know the moves but interprate them with their own style, flair and campness, these dancers make sh1t up as they go along, they love the connection and feel of the dance. They feel the music in the very marrow of their soul, unconventional and a little bit scary.
:slap:
I have always split dancing into 2 camps: Those that dance, and those that don't.
To draw a line between technically good and instinctively good / flamboyant is naive I think. I used to flail and throw my self & partner about the floor with no regard for technique, 'proper' style, or any of that other "technical stuff that just gets in the way of dancing."
Here's a little glimpse into my progress:
Improving my dancing
I don't think you can have elements of technical without styling and I don't think that you can have elements of styling without technique.
Except for in my case i would skip the bathroom bit not a pretty site 
i tried it and DTS please be careful when making suggestions like that you need to put a warning with them 
)
)
. Come to the dark side oh Masterfull one 
.
