Distinguishing between types of hyper-active following

[bordertangoman]

... because the music forced me to do it.

oh poor excuse.... but I agree with your principle in keeping the dance clean and simple -most of the time..never liked paradas as I felt they interrupted the flow of the dance......
but now and again there will be a delight ful dancer who i will gave space for becuase she is musical and dances deliciously....

 

[Danish Guy]

This idea of initiating, then delaying, then following the follower gets taken WAY too far by some leaders. Maybe dancing with you doing this method would be a sheer joy because you've got it right. But often, leaders hear this concept and start putting in a lag that is quite awkward for followers.

She gets a firm lead to do a certain thing and the lead is not only clear but assertive and immediate. She take some of her cues about timing and speed of steps from the way that first movement feels. Then despite feeling as though she got a lead to move "briskly", the leader stalls and feels to her as though he's left her stuck without any energy to continue the move she's already weight shifting. She's not midstep where stopping is easy because her weight is distributed on both feet; she's partly through a weight transfer just starting to pick up the trailing foot, but not completely over the new supporting leg. Then she feels like in order to finish her weight shift, she'll be pulling him along. (or alternatively, she has to RE-place weight onto the trailing foot to feel stable)

It's a totally different feeling from being stopped deliberately or from moving slowly. It's more like he gives a push to say "move!", then waits for her to finish moving before he moves any more himself. I've felt this in open embrace occasionally too... it just isn't as awkward to keep going in open embrace. The lead is brisk, then it just... dies. And the follower is left wondering "Where'd you go?"

I've decided, from lack of any other explanation, that this is a result of leaders getting introduced to the concept of "following the follower" without any really good instruction on what that means or how subtle it really is. The follower can't weight shift completely independently of the leader. (not talking about him leading a shift that he doesn't execute himself in his feet) He can't give only the initial indication that "Your weight shift is to go THERE. I'll finish the lead (and catch up to you) after you're there and give an initial lead for the next thing."

Thank you for this very precise description from the follower’s point of view.
Yes it’s very delicate and subtle, and the timing is essential. I think I’m on the right track, but will keep this in mind over the next classes and milongas

 

[newbie]

Unless this is a practica, you follow the follower.

No. Leaders are named that way for a reason. Or do you need a pointer to a dictionary?

 

[UKDancer]

No. Leaders are named that way for a reason. Or do you need a pointer to a dictionary?

No, thanks, but I stand by what I wrote.

If the leader invites a movement or action from the follower, and she mistakes that lead and does something else, then the leader should follow her anyway. In an extreme case, we might otherwise take steps in completely different directions, and end standing several feet apart. That could never be acceptable, while dancing. The leader invites a movement, the follower dances that movement, accompanied by the leader.

If a mistake occurs at a practica, then stopping to try again, or to discuss the issue, is perfectly OK, but otherwise if the follower has done something unled, and unexpected, then it the leader's responsibility to cover the error, and to continue the dance.

Earlier, someone wrote of concern that the leader 'following' the follower would require that at just the time the leader should make his physical lead clear, by movement, he is hesitant, and that the lead then becomes unclear. I do not believe this to be so. I lead through intention: but I move with purpose. If I have not felt the follower's response to my lead, the moment to move is not now, and if I have left the indication of my lead so late that my follower cannot respond with the movement I invited, then I have not led that movement properly.

 

[dchester]

No, thanks, but I stand by what I wrote.

If the leader invites a movement or action from the follower, and she mistakes that lead and does something else, then the leader should follower her anyway. In an extreme case, we might otherwise take steps in completely different directions, and end standing several feet apart. That could never be acceptable, while dancing. The leader invites a movement, the follower dances that movement, accompanied by the leader.

If a mistake occurs at a practica, then stopping to try again, or to discuss the issue, is perfectly OK, but if the follower has done something unled, and unexpected, then it the leader's responsibility to cover the error, and to continue the dance.

Earlier, someone wrote of concern that the leader 'following' the follower would require that at just the time the leader should make his physical lead clear, by movement, he is hesitant, and that the lead then becomes unclear. I do not believe this to be so. I lead through intention: but I move with purpose. If I have not felt the follower's response to my lead, the moment to move is not now, and if I have left the indication of my lead so late that my follower cannot respond with the movement I invited, then I have not led that movement properly.

There's little to argue with what you have said, but I might describe it a bit differently (I suppose it's just semantics). The main reason I don't use the term invite (which a lot of people do use) like that, is because when I lead a move, I do expect it to be followed. To me (and maybe it's just my problem), invite implies that it's up to the women to decide if she's going to accept the lead or not, and generally speaking, I'm of the opinion that the leads should be followed, other than for safety, or some other extenuating circumstances.

I do sometimes say that the lead should be done, "as if" it were an invitation (basically referring to the quality of the lead).

A lot of what you describe, I put under the category of, "it's the leaders job to resolve/fix any errors, if the lead is not followed". Maybe the lead wasn't clear enough, etc. In any case, if things didn't go as expected, the leader must deal with it, but I'm not planning every step with the expectation that she may decide to do something different from what I'm leading.

BTW, I've heard (many times) that in Argentina, they don't use the terms leader and follower, but rather, the man's role and the woman's role.

 

[Zoopsia59]

The leader invites a movement, the follower dances that movement, accompanied by the leader.

I like this explaination. I might change "invites" to "initiates" since in many circumstances, the follower would have to put up an intrusively firm resistance to avoid accepting the invite. Having resisted leads that might result in something happening on the leader's blind side because of some other whack-job dancing inapropriately, I can say that with certainty. Actually refusing the "invite" in any step other than a pasada is usually physically awkward so it's more like initiating a move than inviting one.

Earlier, someone wrote of concern that the leader 'following' the follower would require that at just the time the leader should make his physical lead clear, by movement, he is hesitant, and that the lead then becomes unclear. I do not believe this to be so.

I assure you that this result IS so with certain leaders.

I didn't say that's how it's SUPPOSED to be or that if someone uses the "follow the follower" concept that it would automatically always result in this. I certainly didn't say that this hesitation would be required for this philosophy of dancing.

I said (I thought rather clearly, but I guess not ) that some leaders don't understand what this concept really means and they take it too far by hesitating. They are not doing the "accompanied by the leader" portion of your explanation.

 

[Zoopsia59]

BTW, I've heard (many times) that in Argentina, they don't use the terms leader and follower, but rather, the man's role and the woman's role.

I imagine that this is because women don't lead in Argentina. Men used to learn the follower's role (I don't know if they still do) but it was in service of becoming a great leader, not so that they could dance the follower's role socially at a milonga. Gender roles are also more traditional in Argentina.

This language may start to change (Jan could tell us if she is seeing that happen) as LGBT milongas develop and more people switch roles in teh alternative/neotango milongas. The change in language might start to creep into the general vocabulary used in more traditional milongas as well.

I did have a teacher ask me one time why I was learning to lead. I said that it was so I could teach. She looked at me baffled and asked why I would be teaching without a partner. She is a great follower and a good teacher, but she and her partner always teach together. She doesn't know anything about the "man's role" and thinks learning it is actually detrimental to followers. (although she couldn't articulate exactly HOW it would be detrimental)

 

[ant]

I said (I thought rather clearly, but I guess not ) that some leaders don't understand what this concept really means and they take it too far by hesitating. They are not doing the "accompanied by the leader" portion of your explanation.

I wonder if this hestitation you have experienced is the result of the something other than noncompliance of the "accompanied by the leader" concept you have mentioned or are there are other problems in play? Some reasons I can think of are the leaders concerned generally lack confidence or cannot figure out what they do next or concerned about there own general ability to adjust things when they go wrong or indeed any other reason that may be applicable in the circumstances. I can't help feeling that there may be more likely reasons for this hesitation.

 

[UKDancer]

There's little to argue with what you have said, but I might describe it a bit differently (I suppose it's just semantics). The main reason I don't use the term invite (which a lot of people do use) like that, is because when I lead a move, I do expect it to be followed. To me (and maybe it's just my problem), invite implies that it's up to the women to decide if she's going to accept the lead or not, and generally speaking, I'm of the opinion that the leads should be followed, other than for safety, or some other extenuating circumstances.

Well, people do use the word 'invite', but I doubt the invitation is really meant to be optional. Perhaps the older expression, marking, would be better. But I'll still follow her, rather than embarrass either of us, whatever she does (if I can).

BTW, I've heard (many times) that in Argentina, they don't use the terms leader and follower, but rather, the man's role and the woman's role.

Well, except in the circumstances where the traditional roles are being performed by any other combination, I would prefer Man & Lady, but not, I think, woman.

 

[UKDancer]

I like this explaination. I might change "invites" to "initiates" since in many circumstances, the follower would have to put up an intrusively firm resistance to avoid accepting the invite. Having resisted leads that might result in something happening on the leader's blind side because of some other whack-job dancing inapropriately, I can say that with certainty. Actually refusing the "invite" in any step other than a pasada is usually physically awkward so it's more like initiating a move than inviting one.



I assure you that this result IS so with certain leaders.

I didn't say that's how it's SUPPOSED to be or that if someone uses the "follow the follower" concept that it would automatically always result in this. I certainly didn't say that this hesitation would be required for this philosophy of dancing.

I said (I thought rather clearly, but I guess not ) that some leaders don't understand what this concept really means and they take it too far by hesitating. They are not doing the "accompanied by the leader" portion of your explanation.

It has to be right to resist the lead, if a collision is thus avoided. Safety first.

And I'm sorry, if in haste, I got the wrong end of your stick: because I agree with you. Of course, it shouldn't be like that, but sometimes will be. I'd say, though, that that is just a poor lead. The leader should lead with the clear intention of dancing that movement or action, and should give off no contrary signal, of which hesitation is certainly one.

 

[dchester]

I wonder if this hestitation you have experienced is the result of the something other than noncompliance of the "accompanied by the leader" concept you have mentioned or are there are other problems in play? Some reasons I can think of are the leaders concerned generally lack confidence or cannot figure out what they do next or concerned about there own general ability to adjust things when they go wrong or indeed any other reason that may be applicable in the circumstances. I can't help feeling that there may be more likely reasons for this hesitation.

I think the term "invite" can introduce hesitation, especially in less experienced leaders (at least it did for me). It wasn't until another teacher (who was Argentine, BTW), basically told to me forget all that stuff and "Just Be The Man". It helped quite a bit in making my leads more decisive and clear.

YMMV

 

[Zoopsia59]

I wonder if this hestitation you have experienced is the result of the something other than noncompliance of the "accompanied by the leader" concept you have mentioned or are there are other problems in play? Some reasons I can think of are the leaders concerned generally lack confidence or cannot figure out what they do next or concerned about there own general ability to adjust things when they go wrong or indeed any other reason that may be applicable in the circumstances. I can't help feeling that there may be more likely reasons for this hesitation.

I don't think so. In the circumstances I'm remembering as the most dramatic, we were just walking. The next thing for him to do is to simply complete his forward step so that I can complete my weight transfer. The leaders who I've experienced this with are not beginners and have some fancy tricks up their sleeve. But even in walking, their lead dies partway through.

I have seen this hesitation in beginners who are afraid to step on the follower, but it's not quite like that. Usually with a beginner who is worried about stepping on the follower, the initial movement is tentative as well. What I'm describing is a definite change in the energy of the lead from the initial strong and assertive movement. Not a change of the direction of the energy that might occur if the leader has to alter the step midway for some reason, but a change in how "present" he is as a leader. Beginners and those who aren't sure what they are going to do next usually don't have that initial movement any more definite than the follow up.

Of course, there could be reasons other than the "follow the follower" idea. However, the saying: "follow the follower"could easily be taken to mean "don't move until after the follower moves". I just wonder how well the concept is getting explained by some teachers or in some busy workshops. In plain English, to follow (outside of a dance conversation) means to be "behind" or "after". So if a leader doesn't really understand what followers do, he might interpret the expression "follow the follower" wrongly.

 

[Zoopsia59]

The leader should lead with the clear intention of dancing that movement or action, and should give off no contrary signal, of which hesitation is certainly one.

Bravo.. another great way to express it!

I'm going to remember this phrase next time I'm working with a tentative beginner.

 

[Zoopsia59]

"Just Be The Man".

My first teacher would tell guys "Don't ever let a woman think you're afraid of her!"

 

[AndaBien]

I have often described the leading process as; the man leads, the woman follows, the man follows the woman. That's how I do most of my dancing. But, I'm the one who decides which movements we are going to do and I expect my partners to comply. Maybe another way to say it would be that the man then responds to his partners movement. If the movement has multiple steps (especially), I better be responding to what she actually does or we won't be as synchronized as we could be.

Added: I've know some guys who couldn't follow at all, and their dancing suffered for it.