Distinguishing between types of hyper-active following

[chanchan]

I wonder whether there is already an established vocabulary/typology out there to distinguish among different types of hyper-active following. I add "hyper" because following is not a passive activity by default (I have experiences of dancing with totally passive followers who seem to expect me to even move their legs instead of them), but there are certain ways of interacting with the lead which noticeably deviate from the common thumb-rule of lead-follow separation in tango.

Accepted that the energy comes from both partners, 50% and 50%, to lead is not necessary being the one with the left arm open or the one who does "the leader's steps".
Leading, for me, basically means taking the initative and affecting in some way the movement, the position, and sometimes the balance of the other. Meanwhile, mantaining anyway a good connection and adapting to any reaction, even if it is different from what you expected.

From this point of view, the "lead backleading" is just a perfect case of leading, done by the one who is supposed to primarily follow, while the "step backleading" is a case of poor leading, almost dancing alone.

Moreover, the difference with "overtaking the lead" can be relevant only if we think in terms of "leader's steps" and "follower's steps", but is it really necessary?

 

[gyb]

Leading, for me, basically means taking the initative and affecting in some way the movement, the position, and sometimes the balance of the other. Meanwhile, mantaining anyway a good connection and adapting to any reaction, even if it is different from what you expected.

From this point of view, the "lead backleading" is just a perfect case of leading, done by the one who is supposed to primarily follow, while the "step backleading" is a case of poor leading, almost dancing alone.

Moreover, the difference with "overtaking the lead" can be relevant only if we think in terms of "leader's steps" and "follower's steps", but is it really necessary?

From your point of view "step backleading" also seems to be a perfect example of leading since in that case the follower also "takes the initiative and affects the movement" of the leader. As for "overtaking the lead", the one who takes the initiative changes throughout the dance, doesn't this have significance for you?

If it doesn't have significance I need to say that our understanding of the lead-follow separation in tango differs. In my view the common wisdom is that there are, by default, designated roles in tango, typically along gender-lines but in general marked with the dance frame/hand position, which don't change throughout the dance. The main role of the "leader" is to select certain (predominantly rhythmic) elements of the music, to interpret this selection by translation to signals of body movement (taking into account a host of factors about the environment, the partner's state etc.), and to keep track of how the signals get interpreted by the follower and then adapt to the new conditions. The main role of the "follower" is to interpret the signals coming from the leader and to actively translate them to body movements. Both of them listen to the music, but by default only one member of the couple translates this listening experience to signals towards the other, the follower's own bodily interpretation of the music makes its way into embellishments, i.e. everything which can make use of the open degrees of freedom unaffected by the lead. Hyper-active following gets defined in contrast with the background of this "common wisdom" of separation between roles.

BTW both "covert lead backleading" and "overtaking the lead" are *extremely* rare in my experience, I only know maybe a handful of followers who does the first and only one who does the second. All of them have 10+ years of tango experience including at least 5+ years of regular leading. When followers try backleading, it usually becomes "step backleading" (which is what i.e. teachers do sometimes to show students how to lead a step), which is very rarely pleasant. Lead backleading is also impossible without having a sensitive leader who pays lots of attention to leading steps which are "best" in some sense for the follower in given circumstances. This is what the follower makes use of to influence the lead, by unobtrusively changing the conditions (i.e. by taking slightly shorter or longer steps in reaction to a previous signal or by slight alteration of balance, but strictly in a way that is consistent with following the lead) in order to create a situation in which what is going to be "best" for her (in her understanding of the leaders understanding of "best"), and therefore what is going to be lead by the leader, is more likely to be something else than what it would be without this "lead backlead". Complicated sentence, but I hope the idea is clear.

 

[Zoopsia59]

OK, I'm going to have to plan a road trip out to your way. IMO, this is right on the money.

I'm trying to find a weekend to get closer to your area,

 

[Peaches]

I always tell my follower students not to guess. If they aren't sure what to do, then they should wait until they are.

Good idea in theory, not always so practical in reality. With some guys, if I waited until I was sure what they wanted me to do I'd spend the entire tanda standing in one place.

 

[Peaches]

OK, I'm going to have to plan a road trip out to your way. IMO, this is right on the money.

Keep on going, and then make it down to my area! Swing by to pick up Zoo and bring her down while you're at it!

 

[dchester]

Keep on going, and then make it down to my area! Swing by to pick up Zoo and bring her down while you're at it!

We should try to meet up at a Tango Festival.

 

[Zoopsia59]

Keep on going, and then make it down to my area! Swing by to pick up Zoo and bring her down while you're at it!

Wouldn't that be fun? You know, there's tango festivals all over the place on a regular basis, but they're held in expensive places and charge a lot for the workshops. We should have a Dance Forums Tango Festival. How about someplace relatively inexpensive that's centrally located... um... Lincoln, Nebraska?

 

[chanchan]

From your point of view "step backleading" also seems to be a perfect example of leading since in that case the follower also "takes the initiative and affects the movement" of the leader.

Not "perfect", because it misses some fundamental aspects of tango. It is bad leading, and like any bad leading it is very rarely pleasant.

As for "overtaking the lead", the one who takes the initiative changes throughout the dance, doesn't this have significance for you?

This happens in all kinds of hyper-active following.
In fact I consider someway "overtaking the lead" all the situations that you described.

In my view the common wisdom is that there are, by default, designated roles in tango, typically along gender-lines but in general marked with the dance frame/hand position, which don't change throughout the dance.

The dance frame/hand position usually doesn't change during the dance because it would be unconfortable, but the "follower" can occasionally "overtake the lead" or "hyper-actively follow" in some way: it is nothing new, and nothing bad (if she can do it properly and following the music).
It happened to me also with an old women from buenos aires, and she was definitely not a fan of nuevo.

The main role of the "leader" is to select certain (predominantly rhythmic) elements of the music, to interpret this selection by translation to signals of body movement (taking into account a host of factors about the environment, the partner's state etc.), and to keep track of how the signals get interpreted by the follower and then adapt to the new conditions. The main role of the "follower" is to interpret the signals coming from the leader and to actively translate them to body movements. Both of them listen to the music, but by default only one member of the couple translates this listening experience to signals towards the other, the follower's own bodily interpretation of the music makes its way into embellishments, i.e. everything which can make use of the open degrees of freedom unaffected by the lead.

I agree with this definition.

This is what the follower makes use of to influence the lead, by unobtrusively changing the conditions (i.e. by taking slightly shorter or longer steps in reaction to a previous signal or by slight alteration of balance, but strictly in a way that is consistent with following the lead) in order to create a situation in which what is going to be "best" for her (in her understanding of the leaders understanding of "best"), and therefore what is going to be lead by the leader, is more likely to be something else than what it would be without this "lead backlead". Complicated sentence, but I hope the idea is clear.

You seem to agree that leading doesn't mean doing some specific steps.
So "consistent with following the lead" basically means: mantaining a good connection, frontality, posture, listening to the other etc. which are all required both to lead and to follow. If, in addition to that, she manage to make you do something else than what you would do without this "lead backlead", she is leading you.

 

[gyb]

Chanchan: I'm not sure what are we disagreeing about. If your point is that these types of "hyper-active followings" all can be labeled as forms of leading, under a broad understanding of what counts as "leading", then I don't think we disagree. But merely the question what kind of broadly understood labels can be applied to all of these activities does not interest me too much; they also fall under the label "dancing", the label "leisure activity" etc. etc.
[You say you agree with the definition of leading and following I gave, but I think mine is a more narrowly understood than the one you are operating with. My definition of leading involves the Leader giving/creating a signal for body movement to the Follower. But what is the signal for body movement coming from the Follower when she is "lead backleading" which would make her activity bona fide "leading" under this definition? She is not giving any (explicit) signal, only reacts to a previous signal of the Leader in a way to create a situation in which the new lead of the Leader is going to be different than it would be otherwise. When I say that she does that "in a way which is consistent with following the lead" I mean exactly that: as no lead signal determines completely how a Follower who adequately interprets the signal reacts there is always some lee-way which the Follower can make use of to create situations which are conducive in changing the Leader's next lead.]

What I'm interested in is making somewhat operationalizable distinctions between various forms of hyper-active followings and labeling those so that in future debates one can understand which type one is talking about. Maybe it is not fortunate to label the last category "overtaking the lead" because it contains the word "lead" and that can give the impression that the other categories do not interfere with the Leaders' lead in some way. Then call it something else. I don't really care how we call them, what I care about is that what has been called above "overtaking the lead" is a quite different activity of someone who by default would take the Follower role than, say, what has been called "lead backlead". If inclusion of the word "lead" in these labels is misleading in this way, then let's change it to something else.

[I use the capitalized letters to denote the persons who are supposed to assume the traditional/common wisdom roles.]

 

[chanchan]

[You say you agree with the definition of leading and following I gave, but I think mine is a more narrowly understood than the one you are operating with. My definition of leading involves the Leader giving/creating a signal for body movement to the Follower.

You are right: my definition is a little different, the lead doesn't necessarily require the creation of an explicit signal that has to be consciously interpreted, decoded and executed: it can also work in a more covert way. That's way I told that it was the same as "lead backleading".

 

[gyb]

You are right: my definition is a little different, the lead doesn't necessarily require the creation of an explicit signal that has to be consciously interpreted, decoded and executed: it can also work in a more covert way. That's way I told that it was the same as "lead backleading".

Thanks, but note that consciousness was not part of my definition; with practice leading and following becomes tacit knowledge (a la Polanyi). Execution is also not my terminology, I used interpretation; that a more or less explicit signal is created does not mean that an order is given. But the creation of some sort of more or less explicit signal was indeed part of the definition. Not everything that happens in tango is lead by one of the parties under this understanding of leading. This is an advantage of the definition, not a disadvantage, in my view.

 

[chanchan]

But the creation of some sort of more or less explicit signal was indeed part of the definition.

It would mean that, for example, a sacada is not strictly lead?
But also a gancho or a boleo come basically form the interruption of a step or a change of rotation more than a explicit signals to be interpreted.
Actually most, if not all, tango steps are mechanical consequences of the interaction between two moving bodies, with the possible addition of some embellishments.
The "signals" make me think something like "a double tip on your shoulder means you have to do a boleo".

 

[Danish Guy]

My philosophy as a follower is that I should go with my initial response to his lead even if the lead is confusing and then commit to whatever I do. Even if it's wrong, at least he'll be clear on where I am. If the lead is so confusing that I can't choose at all, then I'll stay still.

At a milonga, if I know what he's trying to lead but his lead isn't quite right, it depends on a number of factors whether I'll do it anyway in order to "fix it", or whether I won't. The biggest factor is often how crowded it is and how much the leader seems to be struggling overall.

At a practica, generally I won't make any attempt to compensate for problems in the lead because, as was posted, the leader won't learn that his lead is incorrect if I compensate.

Very nicely put into words.....

I would like to be dancing with you!

 

[Danish Guy]

The leaders are also followers

I lead the dance by starting a movement or direction of energy in my body.
Then the lady interprets my lead and executes my lead into dance and movement.
Then I follow the lady’s movement.

So if I don’t lead something clear enough, or lead something I didn’t knew existed,
then I still try to follow. The same goes whenever the executing is more or less hijacked,
misunderstood or due to unclear lead from my side.

It’s about dancing and partner work, not about losing face.

 

[newbie]

No. You do not follow the follower, you follow your lead with a delay. If the follower keeps doing whatever she pleases then you're useless.