choreography vs. lead/follow in comps?

[Mengu]

To be more fair, I think it would be best if it required at least 2 partner changes for the 1st round, in case you end up with a terribly incompatible partner. (We've all experienced that really bad dance that we wished had gone better.)

For preliminary rounds, dancing with at least 3 different partners is pretty much the norm in WCS J&J's. In bigger heats, it's sometimes even 4 partners. For finals, you get to keep your random partner for all songs.

Adjusting quickly to new partners is part of the skill progression. I'm at a place where partnering is still more comfortable with some follows than others, so I've got a ways to go improving that aspect, to make necessary adjustments to feel comfortable with more partners.

 

[opendoor]

You have provided so many good insights; I hope chachacha, who started this thread is reading along.

 

[ralf]

For preliminary rounds, dancing with at least 3 different partners is pretty much the norm in WCS J&J's. In bigger heats, it's sometimes even 4 partners. For finals, you get to keep your random partner for all songs.

The four songs is more about dealing with role imbalance, to ensure that the majority role gets at least three dances each.

BTW, to convince someone that you don't need prearranged routines, show them WCS Champions/Invitational Jack&Jills, especially ones where people throw their shoes onto the floor at the end (highest praise, means approximately "I'm hanging up my dancing shoes, as there's no point in me ever dancing again after that). Example: (which I saw live, sitting about four feet to the right of the camera that recorded the video). The competitors in that video don't know which two songs they'll get, but they're clearly quite familiar with both, since both get played reasonably often.

 

[Pryn]

I think there is enough precedent set by WCS and Jack and Jill dances that ballroom could try a modified version with just a single dance (or maybe two) that beginners start with - like rumba or cha-cha.

 

[Pryn]

Forgive the tangents... i get excited sometimes. We should return back to the original question of choreography vs lead/follow in ballroom comps.

My primary instructor tells me that at the lower levels, lead and follow is a great way for beginners to start, as it allows room for you to focus on the fundamental of dance and partnering, but as you approach the higher levels - you should know what you're doing, when to do it, how you should be moving through your body to do it, and be able to demonstrate those competencies alone and with your partner.

 

[Mengu]

(which I saw live, sitting about four feet to the right of the camera that recorded the video).

I was sitting a few people to your right.

 

[fiesta0618]

My primary instructor tells me that at the lower levels, lead and follow is a great way for beginners to start, as it allows room for you to focus on the fundamental of dance and partnering, but as you approach the higher levels - you should know what you're doing, when to do it, how you should be moving through your body to do it, and be able to demonstrate those competencies alone and with your partner.

I understand this philosophy, and wouldn't so far as to say that I disagree, but I see things a little differently and so prefer a slightly different order of priorities.

To me, the fundamentals of dance and fundamentals of partnering are two entirely separate things. The first is mostly individual, and having a partner present is overall a distraction. The second, of course, is only possible in a couple. And given the normal constraints of the learning brain, you have to pick priorities. All the time and attention you put into one of those things is time not spent on the other.

So in my view, focusing on lead-and-follow too early promotes a version of partnering skills that sacrifices individual accuracy in the name of survival. If your partner has enough individual discipline that they never stress you with their personal errors, such as a pro, the risk is low. For a Bronze Am couple, though, there is nothing *but* risk.

But even then, for my social students, survival is just fine! Doing whatever it takes for the dance to succeed and feel comfortable is the point. But for my performing students, the impact on their mechanics & look is unacceptable. Better to be uncomfortable but looking good. Comfort will build over time.

(Not to mention that executing even a choreographed routine requires lead and follow skills. The dancers still need to communicate when, which direction, and how far. The choreo simply takes what mostly off the table.)

ETA: The bottom line is that, in the end, every dancer needs to learn everything. Any set of initial priorities is therefore both defensible and arguable, because we spend a lot longer being "wrong" than "right," no matter the order in which we stack our foundational blocks!

 

[fish]

...To offer a different competition experience...

Isn't that why it would be such an interesting exercise? You would be able to tell who is actually leading and/or following, vs. just doing steps.

I agree that some kind of free style lead/follow/J&J events could be awesome. We (my competitive partner and I) have asked ourselves many times, how would it feel to dance with so and so? We dance against them, but how would it feel to dance with them?

...This is not what mainstream competitive ballroom is about, however, so my earlier comment reflects that lead/follow style is not particularly relevant for your typical ballroom competition, so I would advise against doing that. "Just doing steps" is already enough of a challenge for 99% of ballroom competitors (within current evaluation framework) so I would not be so dismissive about this particular aspect of partner dancing.

 

[Warren J. Dew]

To me, the fundamentals of dance and fundamentals of partnering are two entirely separate things. The first is mostly individual, and having a partner present is overall a distraction. The second, of course, is only possible in a couple. And given the normal constraints of the learning brain, you have to pick priorities. All the time and attention you put into one of those things is time not spent on the other.

I agree with this, but that leaves open the question of which to focus on first.

When I was the MIT rookie coach, Harvard had a coach, Julius Kaiser, who, according to the Harvard kids, focused very much on lead and follow first. They said that he basically limited them to social dance for their first year. Individual technique got more attention later.

MIT couples tended to beat Harvard couples during that first rookie year, as we focused on individual technique from the start. But in subsequent years, Harvard couples who stuck with it tended to catch up to and overtake the MIT couples in the same cohort.

So it’s possible that focusing on lead and follow first is the right way to go.

 

[fish]

- A modified definition of a "good dancer" vs "good dancing". Good dancer - How well can you adapt and successfully dance with multiple partners. Good dancing - doing the above across different dancers while still looking decently competent. (Perfection would no longer be the ultimate goal for this type of competition.)

Quite a variant on the current model of how close to perfection can you get on set choreography with some who you've danced with for close to a decade and and also knows your real weight, smell of your hungry breath, and clothing size.

- Tests your dance vocabulary and ability to put together a solid dance while working with new partners. You would need common ground basics, but also a wider range of training to be prepare for what might be thrown at you during the competition.

- It's basically competitive social dancing which, as we've discussed on numerous threads, some ballroomers do not care to do, while others really enjoy it - and yet another subgroup that prefers social dancing only with a set group of friends...

I think some swing or salsa J&J competitions, or collegiate ballroom at syllabus levels match this approach quite well. It is definitely viable, although it's not my cup of tea: I am way more on the side of "how close to perfection..."

 

[fiesta0618]

I agree with this, but that leaves open the question of which to focus on first.

[shrug] I don't think that either one is inherently better. It depends on how far out your horizons are, and what sort of resources are available to you in the moment.

If you consider yourself a ballroom lifer, I think it doesn't matter at all. You'll learn all the skills you need to eventually, one way or the other.

If locally maximizing results at every step of the way is appealing and you don't know how long you're going to stick with dance, then the MIT method looks pretty attractive. I think this fairly describes a good proportion of college dancers, even today.

But there is definitely one big advantage to the Harvard strategy even in that "slow" first year: lead-and-follow is a lot more fun, day in and day out. In fact, this is the first thing I thought of as a reason for those dancers' surging trajectory--that they consistently have more fun dancing, which increases their interest and time-spend. Those two factors are the greatest predictors of growth, in a field of averagely-talented learners.

The main limitation to pure lead-follow as a first priority, and the reason I don't use it everywhere, is that it only works to full effect if the student consistently gets to dance with a variety of partners. I find that when someone studies lead-follow intensely with only one person, they tend to overlearn a single dialect (even intermediate dancers with several years' experience). And if that student goes through a partner change later, individual skills seem to travel better than an overfitted lead-follow dialect. That, combined with the fact that lead-follow is easier to learn for dancers that have established stronger individual technique, informs my slight preference with competitors.

 

[opendoor]

[shrug] I don't think that either one is inherently better...

I've been reading along silently, and I think many valuable and helpful arguments have been made. I'd like to ask about one point: chachacha wrote "My instructor doesn't want to give us formalized choreography/routines at the bronze level as she wants us to..." It's been a long time since I danced at bronze, and I can hardly remember it anymore since I now dance elsewhere. But we never received a readymade choreography. Developing it always was part of the challenge. It requires the analysis and application of the vocabulary to music. Has that changed?

 

[fiesta0618]

But we never received a readymade choreography. Developing it always was part of the challenge. It requires the analysis and application of the vocabulary to music. Has that changed?

Yes, that is not how it is done.

Syllabus choreo is built generically, then applied to whatever music might play. The dancers might adjust timing or manner of execution to match the music, but Bronzies generally have a limited toolset in these areas.

In any case, students at this level essentially never have a role in the process of building choreography. Their instructor will assign it to them. The usual considerations for that are analysis of which movements look good on the student, or which movements are instructive for them to study deeply at this time.

 

[opendoor]

Thank you!

 

[ProgressNotPerfection]

I found another old post of mine (from April 2023) in the post comp disorder thread:

“…this is why my pro refuses to compete using choreographed routines in closed syllabus levels. He’s had too many bad experiences with students who (a) forgot their routine & didn’t know how to follow anything else; or (b) were too rigid in their memorization of the routine & couldn’t adjust on the fly when it was necessary. Under either scenario, the student freaks out & has a lousy comp experience.”​