Who's to Blame?
- Thread starter pygmalion
- Start date
Generally you don't want to think that way, you just accept whatever she does and keep going. Now sometimes she'll say "Let's try that one again," in which case you might revisit the move, but otherwise just put the move away and go on from there. At least that's the way you'd think in social situations. Competition or show moves are a different story, since so much precision is required to really look good.
Danish Guy
New Member
I agree with msc, but have some additional words. 
:shock: :wink:
If something goes wrong it’s the leaders fault.
(My teacher’s definition, and I agree).
He can blame his teacher, but I don’t like the word blame.
(There seem to be a lot of words I don’t like)
Dancing is fun, and the leader has to tune in on his partner.
Things go wrong on the dancefloor all the time.
The major concern is nobody gets hurt.
When something goes wrong, or goes in another way then the leader expected, its time for some cover up. Often the follower won’t even know something went wrong. Or if she did notice, nobody else will.
If your dancing with people there’s not been in your class from day 1, the chance is you know some moves she doesn’t. The leaders will either have to stay with the basic, or risk something goes different then expected. Hmm that sounds so pattern planned. What can I say? I lead something that feels right, and she does something I didn’t’ expect. Then it’s time for the aborting / adjusting / alternating or emergency plan B, and the big smile if everything fails. But that is part of the fun, and how I find out about what I can lead, and what I have to work with.
If it is some competition, and the dancers know each other (not Jack & Jill stuff), then no pair is better than the show they give together. Who, why and what to do is solved later back on the practice floor.
:shock: :wink: If something goes wrong it’s the leaders fault.
(My teacher’s definition, and I agree).
He can blame his teacher, but I don’t like the word blame.
(There seem to be a lot of words I don’t like)
Dancing is fun, and the leader has to tune in on his partner.
Things go wrong on the dancefloor all the time.
The major concern is nobody gets hurt.
When something goes wrong, or goes in another way then the leader expected, its time for some cover up. Often the follower won’t even know something went wrong. Or if she did notice, nobody else will.
If your dancing with people there’s not been in your class from day 1, the chance is you know some moves she doesn’t. The leaders will either have to stay with the basic, or risk something goes different then expected. Hmm that sounds so pattern planned. What can I say? I lead something that feels right, and she does something I didn’t’ expect. Then it’s time for the aborting / adjusting / alternating or emergency plan B, and the big smile if everything fails. But that is part of the fun, and how I find out about what I can lead, and what I have to work with.
If it is some competition, and the dancers know each other (not Jack & Jill stuff), then no pair is better than the show they give together. Who, why and what to do is solved later back on the practice floor.
golddancer
New Member
MSC Wrote: "Generally you don't want to think that way, you just accept whatever she does and keep going. Now sometimes she'll say "Let's try that one again," in which case you might revisit the move, but otherwise just put the move away and go on from there. At least that's the way you'd think in social situations. Competition or show moves are a different story, since so much precision is required to really look good."
It is no one's fault
I agree with that 110%. Different partners have such different leads. The lady might be used to a hard--- pull through lead when the gentlemen is used to using a light touch.
Usually if she has been in the same class with the leader she'll go the let's try it again route.
It is no one's fault
I agree with that 110%. Different partners have such different leads. The lady might be used to a hard--- pull through lead when the gentlemen is used to using a light touch.
Usually if she has been in the same class with the leader she'll go the let's try it again route.
Danish Guy
New Member
Sagitta said:
Yeah
golddancer
New Member
Dancing is a partnership and signals can be misinterpreted on both parts. But utimately it is the gentleman who is in charge and the ultimate responsiblity rests with him. The only movement that is generally not his fault according to a past teacher and I agree is getting his hand over my hairdo I should help him with that ':wink:
SDsalsaguy
Administrator
OK, in general I agree with most of what’s been said here… no one is to *blame*, more responsibility lies with the lead, and improvisation is key.
Beyond these considerations, however, I think that there is a case-by-case and partner-by-partner variation at play. If the lead “says” “would you like to step to the left” and the follower goes “OK, I’ll go to the right,” I’m not so sure that the responsibility lies with the lead. Now of course this assumes that what the lead really communicated was “would you like to step to the left”…which may or may not have been the case. Wanting your follow to step to the left does not mean that this is the message that was actually transmitted… so, rather than saying that ultimate responsibility resides with the lead, I’d say that initial responsibility does. The lead must transmit a clear and (please excuse the mixed metaphor) “readable” signal. It is at this point that the follower too has responsibility…responsibility to respond to the message as communicated.
How often have any of us been on the phone and responded to where we though someone was going with his or her comments, only to find out we’d jumped the gun? That, in fact, they weren’t going where we’d guessed they were? This is where the follow has responsibility as well, responsibility not to “jump the gun,” as it were but, rather, to “hear out” the leader and listen to what is actually being “said.”
These dynamics are part of what under gird problems often encountered when we try to translate class patterns out onto the floor or with new partners… in class and/or with regular partners, there’s a systematic tendency to get sloppy, both as leads and as follows. As a leader in such circumstances, we learn to assume that the follow will know what we mean, rather than actually being sure to communicate it as cleanly and as clearly as we can and as we should. As a follower in such circumstances, we learn to assume what we think the leader means, rather than actually being sure to “listen” for what is actually being communicated.
Beyond these considerations, however, I think that there is a case-by-case and partner-by-partner variation at play. If the lead “says” “would you like to step to the left” and the follower goes “OK, I’ll go to the right,” I’m not so sure that the responsibility lies with the lead. Now of course this assumes that what the lead really communicated was “would you like to step to the left”…which may or may not have been the case. Wanting your follow to step to the left does not mean that this is the message that was actually transmitted… so, rather than saying that ultimate responsibility resides with the lead, I’d say that initial responsibility does. The lead must transmit a clear and (please excuse the mixed metaphor) “readable” signal. It is at this point that the follower too has responsibility…responsibility to respond to the message as communicated.
How often have any of us been on the phone and responded to where we though someone was going with his or her comments, only to find out we’d jumped the gun? That, in fact, they weren’t going where we’d guessed they were? This is where the follow has responsibility as well, responsibility not to “jump the gun,” as it were but, rather, to “hear out” the leader and listen to what is actually being “said.”
These dynamics are part of what under gird problems often encountered when we try to translate class patterns out onto the floor or with new partners… in class and/or with regular partners, there’s a systematic tendency to get sloppy, both as leads and as follows. As a leader in such circumstances, we learn to assume that the follow will know what we mean, rather than actually being sure to communicate it as cleanly and as clearly as we can and as we should. As a follower in such circumstances, we learn to assume what we think the leader means, rather than actually being sure to “listen” for what is actually being communicated.