MJ lead/follow conventions

[jim]

Separate topic - David

I wasn't talking about sabatage when I started talking about 'rules'. I was talking about the lead and follow realtionships in general.

Sabatage is rare, but the divisions that appear on this thread are deep-seated and generalise across the entire dance.

I want to know why we can't agree about very basic stuff. - saying it's all about individuality is sweeping it under the carpet.

Dancing is about two individuals trying to get along. Not two individuals doing exactly what they want. This requires consensus.

[David Bailey]

I wasn't talking about sabatage when I started talking about 'rules'. I was talking about the lead and follow realtionships in general.

Sabatage is rare, but the divisions that appear on this thread are deep-seated and generalise across the entire dance.

I want to know why we can't agree about very basic stuff. - saying it's all about individuality is sweeping it under the carpet.

Dancing is about two individuals trying to get along. Not two individuals doing exactly what they want. This requires consensus.

Very good question.

One answer is "it's never that simple". So there are different answers to questions at different stages in the learning process. For example, beginners and even intermediates often incorrectly think that a finger-hold is a good lead, because it's a light lead and therefore can't involving yanking around your partner.

Another answer is "We're not all dance freaks, for some of us it's a casual hobby". So some people will simply not worry about this sort of stuff. But then, we are in Intermediates Corner - if we can't discuss MJ dance conventions in here, where can we?

A third answer is "MJ is not defined". So there less structures, less conventions - and frankly, less thought - about how the dance "should" work, than in other dance forms. In the UK, Franck is probably the closest thing the MJ world has to something like a Tango Investigation Group, but I'm sure he'd be the first to admit that in comparison, his efforts are several levels below that sort of work.

Hmmmm.... this discussion should probably be in a separate thread...

EDIT: and now, it is

[jim]

During the ‘correct response to a sabotage’ thread. We found massive fundamental disagreement on the nature of different lead follow arrangements.

I don’t actually care who’s right or wrong. What I care about is how to dance with Women who are operating on a different dancing system to me.

I believe I can dance in any system as long as it’s fair and I understand it.

Or alternatively I also believe all relationships are based on ‘negotiation’.


Based on this I could meet a women and have a ‘50 – 50 equal conversation’, which would be fair; but it would not ‘negotiate’ me on to the dance floor.


So in this thread we’re looking at lead follow conventions. The rules which make them work. How they are fair. And how we can renegotiate them to include more partners.

[Different music, by the way suits different conventions. So you try and work on the appropriate conventions for the music your dancing to at the time].


I’ll start by setting out a relationship convention I have been know to use which is based largely on the Marriage vows: The Lady promises to honor and obey and the Man promises to love and cherish.

This is very similar to the Spiderman philosophy of ‘with power comes responsibility’.

I have power over the woman, which means I’m responsibly for her welfare and well being, her wants and her needs.

Did any one see the SCD series when Matt was teaching Elica to Waltz and they referred to each other as Mr. Cutler and Miss Dixon for the entire week.

–‘Kind of like that’, you’re a Gentlemen, she is a Lady. It’s old fashioned, it’s romantic, it’s a fantasy.

So people; agree, disagree, renegotiate or just learn about how other people can see the dance.


Here’s one I’ve heard before that I don’t understand and don’t think is fair: ‘Men you’re the frame, she is the picture.’

You hear it all the time, but I don’t get it. I equate it will not dancing and not being involved.

I prefer to think I’m the painter she’s the picture, or I’m the composer she’s the music.

So agree with me, explain why I’m wrong or renegotiate.


I want to hear about your games, your rules, your relationships and your systems. And most importantly how you think they’re fair.

[StokeBloke]

Here’s one I’ve heard before that I don’t understand and don’t think is fair: ‘Men you’re the frame, she is the picture.’

You hear it all the time, but I don’t get it. I equate it will not dancing and not being involved.

I prefer to think I’m the painter she’s the picture, or I’m the composer she’s the music.

So agree with me, explain why I’m wrong or renegotiate.


I want to hear about your games, your rules, your relationships and your systems. And most importantly how you think they’re fair.

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. For a good visual example of this watch some WCS clips on YouTube. You will notice the lead has a tendency to remain fairly static in the middle of the slot, whilst the follow is moving up and down, turning at the end and generally looking fabulous.

The better you are at showing off the follow and their skills, the better the dance will feel.

Of course this isn't always the case with every dance style, and not every WCS dance you see will describe what I have mentioned. But as a general answer to the what does the frame/picture analogy mean...

Personally, I prefer the conversation analogy. Some follows are just a bit more chatty than others

[Agente Secreto]

I'm anticipating several very wordy responses on this thread and lots of different points of views.

I'm not sure I agree that there were massive fundamental disagreements on the basic techniques.

I have been taught a variety of techniques to lead my partner, based on a series of 'signals' for want of a better word. We are taught that these 'signals' or leads will elicit a known response (e.g. the follow will return if you step in and lift the hand above their head). With the exception of the people that truly worry about the circling of hands or stepping apart , I think that most of the basics are straight from the MJ beginner playbook and I reckon that I'd picked up these basics within 3 months of starting MJ. Why do you think otherwise Jim?

What is different between us can actually be explained using the frame and picture analogy. If I think of myself as the frame as a lead I set out a boundary inside which the follow can be the picture, however, I never build a frame exactly the same way in any dance so I am clearly very actively involved and the follow needs to pick up exactly what kind of a frame I am today. Now the picture is drawn by the follow, who just like any other kind of artist will show different artistic interpretation every time and they will paint a very different picture. As the frame I need to be able to support this picture and stretch it out so that it looks as good as it can. Therefore - the combination of the frame and picture (even if it is the same music, lead and follow) can be radically different every time. However in creating this masterpiece I won't forget how to cut the wood for the frame and the follow won't forget how to hold the brush - which takes us back to the discussion on basics once more.

Don't know about the rest of you but I dance to escape from the kinds of rules and constrictions that make work miserable - not sure that I see the need for endless navel gazing about rules and just what is proper as long as I can have fun while making each individual dance as enjoyable as I can for my partner.

Jim it sounds like you're looking for some exact formula that will get the same reaction every time and I doubt that this is possible, and even if it was it wouldn't be what I'd want when dancing.

Agent 000
Licensed to Dance

[Agente Secreto]

Personally, I prefer the conversation analogy. Some follows are just a bit more chatty than others

And occasionally pretty damn loud as well..........................

[David Bailey]

I’ll start by setting out a relationship convention I have been know to use which is based largely on the Marriage vows: The Lady promises to honor and obey and the Man promises to love and cherish.

This is very similar to the Spiderman philosophy of ‘with power comes responsibility’.

Pretty much - if you're the leader, you have a lot of power over the dance - but you also have a lot of responsibility.

To me, first and foremost. your responsibility is like the doctor's oath - "First, do no harm". Or putting it in Asimovian terms, the First Law of Leading is:

A leader may not injure his follower, through inaction, allow a follower to come to harm."

So that means:
- No yanking, no dodgy drops, no dangerous aerials, or other things which can cause harm
- Floorcraft, so that you don't throw your follower into another couple, or allow another couple to bump into your follower.

Here’s one I’ve heard before that I don’t understand and don’t think is fair: ‘Men you’re the frame, she is the picture.’

You hear it all the time, but I don’t get it. I equate it will not dancing and not being involved.

No, it seems to make sense to me - you provide the structure, she makes that structure look marvellous.

The same lead - for a travelling return, for example - can look pedestrian, or it can look marvellous, depending on the follower.

[bigdjiver]

Useful contributions.

... I don’t actually care who’s right or wrong. What I care about is how to dance with Women who are operating on a different dancing system to me...

I could not properly describe what I have learned at Ceroc classes. Whatever it is, it works. At the Corn Excgange freestyle I met two ladies who had never dance MJ before. They had attended a couple of Salsa classes. I am able to have enjoyable dances with ladies that had never danced MJ before around 90% of the time. This is an amazing dance form.

... So in this thread we’re looking at lead follow conventions. The rules which make them work. How they are fair. And how we can renegotiate them to include more partners...

I cannot see lead & follow as "fair". It can be that each partner is happy with thir role.

... Here’s one I’ve heard before that I don’t understand and don’t think is fair: ‘Men you’re the frame, she is the picture.’ ...

It is one way of describing one style of dancing. It is not the usual style we see at Ceroc, which is more like "I draw it, you colour it in."

... I prefer to think I’m the painter she’s the picture...

I do not recognise that. I see it as "I commission, you paint." e.g. paint me a Columbian / Ballroom drop / etc.

... or I’m the composer she’s the music...

I see that as "I am the composer, you are the instrumentalist."

... So agree with me, explain why I’m wrong or renegotiate...

I think I am renegotiating. Now I am asking myself if there is any practical difference between the various descriptions I have used, and whether it could be enlightening to interpret the same sequence of moves with those different descriptions in mind.

[Andy McGregor]

It is one way of describing one style of dancing. It is not the usual style we see at Ceroc, which is more like "I draw it, you colour it in."

Or "I am the fish, you are the bicycle"

The one I like and often use is "she is the flower, you are the stem". Your job is to support her in all her fragrant beauty

[geoff332]

No, it seems to make sense to me - you provide the structure, she makes that structure look marvellous.

I'm big on quotes today. Another favourite is William Blake: "Reason is the circumference of energy" (that's paraphrased a little). The idea is that energy is the source of creativity (and evil - although, for blake, evil isn't all bad); reason is the source of order (and goodness). Reason puts a frame around energy, to give it power and life. Reason without energy is lifeless; energy without reason is destructive. But together (the marriage of heaven and hell), they are a creative force for good.

This is a great analogy for dancing. The follow is the energy; the lead the reason. For Blake, reason gives shape and form to energy; in dancing, the lead gives shape and form to the follow. The positive force is energy/follow the passive force is reason/lead. The two only really make sense together.

All the poetics aside (although I was in the mood this afternoon), the particular analogy is pretty irrelevant: use whichever works for you. The point is that lead and follow are different roles in a partner dance. When done well, they come together and produce something special.

[jim]

I see that as "I am the composer, you are the instrumentalist."

I see all your points but this is the only explanation where both participants can be creative together.

The other responses seem to focus of the man as a creative thinking entity. And the Women as a creative emotional entity.

Only I see dancing as ‘all about emotion’.

So if I do all the thinking and she does the dancing and all the emotional expression, then I feel creatively left out and start thinking why don’t I just go and dance on my own? Then I can express my emotions instead of just creatively thinking for someone else.

Where as if I lead through her body, I’ll express emotion she’ll feel emotion. As apposed to when she expresses emotion I feel nothing.

Of course, sooner or later she will want to express her own emotions, but that’s where active following or shines come in and that’s a different thread.

When if first thought about this I look also looked on U-tube Stokie. I looked at male dancers I liked, to see if I thought they where providing ‘frame’. I looked at Ben schwimmer (wouldn’t stand still if you put a gun to his head). I looked and Darren and Lilla from SCD.


I looked at the this couple below.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=rxvQ6yNGIes

I don’t see the frame I hear that I’ve seen in wcs.

But one thing I have noticed is that the men normally where black, which tends to draw the focus of attentions to the women and make her appear like the ‘Picture’.

[jim]

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=rxvQ6yNGIes

I think it'll Link this time.

[Gadget]

During the ‘correct response to a sabotage’ thread. We found massive fundamental disagreement on the nature of different lead follow arrangements.

I don't think that there are any fundamental dissagreements...

Here's a few analogies I've used in the past:

The dance is a journey that the lead and follow take through a garden; the garden is defined by the music they are dancing to. But the follower is blind - the lead has to illuminate the path in front of the follower - take them and walk arm in arm rather than pull like an eager child. The lead can show the follower various sculptures the music creates and they can lead the follower to them and let them explore the sculptures themselves. Each person is drawn by different things in the flora of music; the follower may catch a scent in the music and draw the lead towards it. If the lead is walking with the follower rather than leading them around the various paths, then they can both enjoy the scent.
Common moves and common movements give the follower a wider path to stroll down. The less travelled the path, then the more unsure the follower will be and the more you have to provide trust and security for them - just shoving them down the path is not as nice a journey as walking down the path with them.


The dance is a complex tapestry that the lead weaves from the follower's movements. Her threads can be spun with colours and patterns that make the fabric take on a unique sheen. They can be woven with a texture to match the thread; denser, heavier cloth and ethereal silk from the lightest filament the follower dances with. The follower can make their own little patches of design that the lead then entwines into the cloth that the dance creates.


The dance is a painting of the music; the follower is a magic brush that the lead uses to create the swirls and lines of shape. The follower decides their colour and how the mark is put on the dance-floor canvas.


{I like the first one best }

Here’s one I’ve heard before that I don’t understand and don’t think is fair: ‘Men you’re the frame, she is the picture.’

It could also be said "she is the sculpture, you are the pedestal." The idea is that the leads primary function within the dance is to make the follower look good. It is one way of dancing and the sort of mental image you want to present for competition dancing. For social dancing, the lead wants to make the follower feel like they are the most wonderful image, the most beautiful sculpture, the most elegant dancer.

[bigdjiver]

...I prefer to think I’m the painter she’s the picture, or I’m the composer she’s the music...

... I see that as "I am the composer, you are the instrumentalist."...

I see all your points but this is the only explanation where both participants can be creative together.

The other responses seem to focus of the man as a creative thinking entity. And the Women as a creative emotional entity.

Only I see dancing as ‘all about emotion’.

So if I do all the thinking and she does the dancing and all the emotional expression, then I feel creatively left out and start thinking why don’t I just go and dance on my own? Then I can express my emotions instead of just creatively thinking for someone else...

... Where as if I lead through her body, I’ll express emotion she’ll feel emotion. As apposed to when she expresses emotion I feel nothing.

It seems to be a fact that men are generally better at spatial skills and women are generally better at emotional ones. There are some women that are the equals of the best men in the former and some men that are the equals of the best women at the latter. However, in general, the scheme where the man leads and to woman follows plays to the best strengths of both. It works.

There are some people that are blessed in both departments. They have some of the attributes to be a top dancer and can indeed "dance on their own".

Dance already has a composer and musicians providing the music. It is common for the man to match more drummer or backline and the woman to express more the emotions of the frontline and vocalist. All are involved in matching the emotion of the music, each in their own way. Usually each partner in some way limits the other, but at the same time adds something missing from the other or enables them to express their emotions better. For example the leader can remove some of the limitations of gravity from the follower, and the follower can emphasise the leaders emotion, which should be linked to the music, by embellishment or by contrast.

[jim]

The idea is that the leads primary function within the dance is to make the follower look good. It is one way of dancing and the sort of mental image you want to present for competition dancing. For social dancing, the lead wants to make the follower feel like they are the most wonderful image, the most beautiful sculpture, the most elegant dancer.

That was Beautiful Gadget; almost brought a tear to my eye.



- Good point here about it analogy being a competition dancing analogy as apposed to a social dancing analogy. This is probably why I don’t appreciate it.

[jim]

. All are involved in matching the emotion of the music, each in their own way. Usually each partner in some way limits the other, but at the same time adds something missing from the other or enables them to express their emotions better.

Very Good response.

But what happens when you get two good dancers or two very bad dancers.

Which is coming back to renegotiating to included more partners; the change of relationships and conventions to suit the different ways people think and the different things they need.

The trick of course is to know what your partners limits are, how you can make them better, and how that can work with what you need as well.

Or do you alternatively think that some people just can’t do anything for each other and are doomed to just not get on?

Like two extraverts both fighting for the lime-light

[ant]

Originally Posted by Jim
Which is coming back to renegotiating to included more partners; the change of relationships and conventions to suit the different ways people think and the different things they need.

I may be wrong here but I think you are asking what are the fundemental conventions in relation to lead/follow in MJ which are followed generally.

I don't think I have ever had a lesson formally stating what the accepted conventions are. FWIW these are some things I think are fundementals that I have sort of picked up on the way and use as my guide:

1 The leaders is responsible for the safetly of the follower and himself.
2 The follower moves in the direction led and comes back on the same line unless an interruption is led whilst travelling in that line (ie some sort of turn is led)
3 The speed at which the follower will move depends on the energy release from the lead
4 You should expect the right tension in the arms of the follower (maybe followers can help a bit here and maybe this a technique point)
5 The lead always starts any form of Mambo move with his left foot and the follow the right foot
6 The follower will ensure a hand is available to reconnect to the lead and no thumbs

Not particually comprehensive but the general thrust is to allow the lead to know the position of the follower and so be able to prepare for the next phase of leading in the dance, whilst keeping safe. Is this the type of thing you wanted?

But what happens when you get two good dancers or two very bad dancers.
Or do you alternatively think that some people just can’t do anything for each other and are doomed to just not get on?

I reckon if you can sort out the conventions then good dancers/bad dancers pairing up and what two individuals think when dancing unless specifically agreeing otherwise are irrelevant. IMO I don't think what was said in the sabotage thread is neccessarily representative of what conventions dancers follow generally.

The trick of course is to know what your partners limits are, how you can make them better, and how that can work with what you need as well

.
I think there are some good tips for being a good lead such as leading moves you consider within the ability of your follow but I am not sure these would be considered conventions as such. There are I suppose social conventions as well like walking off part way through a dance, giving uninvited criticism to your partner etc.
PS I think there is a book somewhere that lists the conventions but there is about 101 rules most of which are irrelevant.

[Twirlie Bird]

So if I do all the thinking and she does the dancing and all the emotional expression, then I feel creatively left out and start thinking why don’t I just go and dance on my own? Then I can express my emotions instead of just creatively thinking for someone else.

Where as if I lead through her body, I’ll express emotion she’ll feel emotion. As apposed to when she expresses emotion I feel nothing.

Of course you are very welcome to go and dance on your own. However it is incredibly hard to dance and look good on your own.

I don't think I understand what you are saying here at all. Both the lead and the follower add to the dance. If you are getting to the point that you are beginning to feel that dancing alone is an option then something is going very wrong.

Of course, sooner or later she will want to express her own emotions, but that’s where active following or shines come in and that’s a different thread.

Why is that a different thread? Isn't all following 'active following'?

[straycat]

Why is that a different thread? Isn't all following 'active following'?

In an ideal world...

[MartinHarper]

I want to know why we can't agree about very basic stuff.

Because people don't listen to me when I explain it to them.
http://www.mjda.org/forum/showthread.php?t=543

Firstly, include all the standard lead/follow stuff that applies to every partner dance under the sun. Then add:

1. Accordion Motion. Dancers move together and apart and together and apart and together.

2. Offset dancing. Particularly when dancing face-to-face in closed, the follower is offset slightly to the lead's right side. Some other dances are "heart to heart". This also applies to dancing face-to-face in open, though it is less noticeable.

3. Non-progressive. Couples typically stay in one place on the floor. When they move, there is no particular expected direction. Some other dances progress along the "line of dance".

4. Walking footwork. The standard follower footwork pattern is "quick quick quick quick", starting on the right. As with all dances, a few moves do not fall into that pattern. As with all dances, followers can do what they like, provided they end up on the same foot as a follower using the standard pattern when it matters.

5. Change of places in four beats. The standard time to change places is four beats, as in a travelling return. As with all dances, this can be extended or compressed. Some other dances have standard times of three beats (Hustle) or six beats (Lindy).

6. Easy ladycombs and caresses. Loose frame and follower expectations allow these moves to be easy in Modern Jive, where they are harder in other dances.

7. Little to no counter-balance. Applied force is a signal to decelerate or accelerate in response to that force, if possible, not to stay still and match the force.

Example: when following the ceroc spin, when I feel the force of the leader's left hand on my wrist, I start decelerating my turn to my left, and then start accelerating a turn to my right, because this is the movement that reduces the force.
The in-and-out is similar. Nobody stops an in-and-out on "out", with loads of counter-balance, and hangs out doing swivels or body rolls or whatever.

Note: in leans and drops, there's not much a follower can do to reduce pressure, short of growing wings.

8. A mix of open and closed dancing. Some other dances are entirely closed.

9. Movements take multiples of two beats and finish on the downbeat.

Some of those are conventions for the leader, some are conventions for the follower, some are conventions for both. Fairness is in the eye of the beholder. It isn't equal.