I can't see how that's going to work. If the leader is going to 'stop' and move again based on the follower's suggestion, then he is leading from a standing start, not from a cross, and the follower is already on one foot or the other, depending on how the man 'stopped'. It assumes the very thing you are trying to practise.
Possible "moves" after the Follower's Cross
- Thread starter tangomonkey
- Start date
I can't see how that's going to work. If the leader is going to 'stop' and move again based on the follower's suggestion, then he is leading from a standing start, not from a cross, and the follower is already on one foot or the other, depending on how the man 'stopped'. It assumes the very thing you are trying to practise.
I believe it's based upon believe that he does by heart.
If follower suggest possibilities that he will think more about it.
I think that Bastet meant generally - not just from the cross.
Similar useful exercises are, 'At some point I will lead a... - and it will not be the 8CB/pattern way, so watch out for the lead', and asking followers to randomly refuse to follow something if led the 8CB/pattern way (but accepting some other option).
Taught not-horribly-erroneously, you shouldn't need such exercises, of course; but you make the best of what's available....
My partner throws Viennese waltz into our vals frequently. And yes, it makes sense to start the usual VW sequence when the follower is already in the cross herself, instead of trying to get someone unfamiliar with VW to execute the cross from the VW entry right off the bat.
I don't know how well it would work to use that sequence in tango rhythm music, but I can't see any reason why not. You just wouldn't do it all on "quicks". I also don't know if it works with followers not familiar with VW. I learned VW before tango, so it fit right in for me.
I have never danced with a leader who could lead a cross without a weight change as a walking move. Actually, I've danced with a few leaders who I'm sure, if anyone could, they could, but they didn't. Except as a volcada where the leg sweeps in then out again. I've never had anyone WALK me to cross and STAY THERE without weighting the crossed foot.
In fact, the feeling of movement towards her right that creates the follower's need to cross seems to also result in a need to place weight on the front crossed foot, except in off-axis moves like volcadas
I won't say anything is impossible, but my hunch is that leading in a way that would indicate to cross WITHOUT also resulting in weight going to that crossed front would be a fairly tricky and advanced skill. Attempts to lead it without the follower putting weight on the front crossed foot typically result in the follower not feeling any indication to even cross in the first place.
So without actually having ever felt it, and certainly without being able to lead it, I'd guess that the lead would require some sort of reversal of intention AFTER the follower's leg crosses, but before she weights it. And it seems that might easily result in her coming out of the cross and trying to step forward, or at least come to "collected neutral" with the left foot free beside the right. Getting the follower to cross and then pause in the cross without changing weight would be VERY difficult. Getting her to go in and out of the cross without changing weight would be easier with proper timing.
However, there are instructors that teach that the follower should have her weight on BOTH feet equally following the cross and only do a complete weight transfer if it is led as a separate indication after the cross.
Personally, I have not met leaders who expect the follower to do that and they would be surprised if the follower picked up her left foot after the cross. Also, when teaching beginners, I notice that it is far more common for the follower to err by placing NO weight on the crossed foot and attempt to step again with it for the next step resulting in the leader tripping over her because her right leg is in his way or her attempt to unwrap the left one interferes with his movement. The other thing that happens is that the follower puts weight on the front foot as well as the back (as some teachers instruct) but then doesn't remember (or isn't led) which one she was supposed to be "on" for the next move, while the leader fully expects her to be on her left.
Sooo.... what does all that mean? That clearly leading a cross, while clearly NOT leading a weight change, isn't for beginners? Especially as a part of walking.
You can step outside partner without leading a cross. In fact, it's good practice for both you and your partner to walk extra steps outside partner without ever going to the cross. It gives both of you a better understanding of the mechanics that actually make the cross happen rather than just figuring that it occurs after she takes a certain number of backsteps in outside partner mode.
Peaches
Well-Known Member
I was taught to change weight in the cross in two ways, depending on the intention of the leader. I was told to cross and change weight immediately if I felt the man's intention was to keep moving. Not too difficult to grasp, given that if you don't do this you get run over and/or fall. But I was also taught that if I don't feel the man's intention moving (forward, or sometims more rotational), then not to change weight in the cross until either it was explicitly led or I had to to avoid falling over. The result is that if there is stopping at that point in the 8CB, or at that point in the cross...I stand there with one foot crossed over the other with no weight on it until told to do otherwise. The possibilities from that point are plentiful.
I will also add, however, that in a one-off group lesson (before a milonga) by a set of visiting teachers I was "yelled at" for not crossing fully all the way. Shrug. I did it their way for the class, and then went back to doing it my way. And when I took a private lesson with them I used my way, and wasn't nailed for it then.
tangomonkey
Active Member
So when you have felt this "cross with no weight", what exactly is happening in the lead to tell you to cross at all?
For me, once I feel that movement to my right which compels me to cross, there isn't much I can do except transfer weight (unless I am then taken back OUT of the cross in a continuous movement).
If I don't feel a weight shift to my right, then I'm probably also not feeling a need to cross at all. At that point I might stay on my right foot, but it would be with my left in neutral, not crossed.
Does your method derive from the teaching that the follower crosses automatically if the leader walks outside partner?
Peaches
Well-Known Member
Er... Well, it's been over a year since I've had any lessons, and my teacher was the only one I really ever ran across that did this (who comes to mind), so this is all from very rusty memory. With that caveat...
IIRC, there was a very definite "cross being led" kind of feeling going on. It isn't based on the automatic cross if the leader walks outside partner...I was never taught with that (with very limited exceptions--like sometimes you just have to make a guess and go with it kind of exceptions). OP walking was one thing, crossing was definitely something different. But to cross without weight... I think there was that first step back with the right leg, and then a slowing of momentum and energy, and a very clear lack of intention of continued movement. And then instead of just collecting, there was that whatever that goes into the lead which "causes" one foot to cross in front of the other. Pressure on my left side perhaps? (Sorry, I don't lead, so i don't really know what the guys are doing.) So, the upshot is that I knew I wasn't continuing to move anywhere, but that one foot was definitely being brought in front of the other. Without a definite lead to change weight onto that crossed foot...I didn't.
I'm sorry, I don't really know how to explain it better than that.
tangomonkey
Active Member
You don't feel the cross as collecting but rather a fully-weighted step? From my very limited perspective trying the step I feel it as a collecting movement and remain fully weighted on the back foot. But what do I know? I've only done a back-stepping cross about 30 times and without a leader...
tangomonkey
Active Member
Peaches and Zoopsia59 (or anyone else): does this make sense?
I step forward with my left foot and begin rotating my torso left, undoing my dissociation by the time I am fully weighted on the left foot. My torso rotation indicates a cross, yes? As the follower crosses I am collecting my right foot. If I then transfer weight to it the follower has an indication to shift weight forward to the crossed foot, yes? If I do not transfer weight to my right her weight should remain on the back foot, yes?
I step forward with my left foot and begin rotating my torso left, undoing my dissociation by the time I am fully weighted on the left foot. My torso rotation indicates a cross, yes? As the follower crosses I am collecting my right foot. If I then transfer weight to it the follower has an indication to shift weight forward to the crossed foot, yes? If I do not transfer weight to my right her weight should remain on the back foot, yes?
I think this makes sense, but i would personally look at it differently - your toso rotation does not indicate anything - your toros rotation rotates your followers torso, and consequently her hips. Because her hips are now no longer at a right angle to the direction she is moving in her feet no longer have the space to pass each other. The angle of her hips in relation to the direction she is moving in first (for the "orthodox" cross) makes her right foot land "behind" or even slighly to the left of her right foot if we look at it based on the direction of her movement, and then when her left foot continues moving again following the line of her movement it would have to pass through her right foot. It obviously can't, and she ends up crossed. The undoing of the leaders dissociation and the leaders weighshift then both contribute to the followers weightshift by changing the both the direction of her hips, her balance, and the vector on which she is moving. I personally think that to keep her on her back foot maintaining the dissociation is probably more important than not shifting the weight. At this point most followers will feel quite uncomfortable because they know that if you continue to move she will fall because she is trapped. Unless she trusts you very much she will either uncross and collect (getting out of the trap by having her left foot pass her right foot behind) or shift weight (getting out of the trap the standard cross way). To avoid this it helps to "hang" her in a tiny volcada, i.e. do not move far enough to let her regain her balance, but a little bit less. She will be off balance, but she will not feel that you are going to "run through" her. One of the things i realized playing with crosses (especially when following) is that being crossed, before the weightshift, is a really, really scary place to be in, because if the leader continues straight without allowing the weightshift the follower is going to fall down.
YMMV and all that - i think in the end talking about technique is always more a metaphor than anything else, and highly dependent on how one has organized dance in ones head.
Gssh
Did you mean "I step forward with my left foot and begin rotating my torso right"? If so, then the rest sounds all good.
It's similar to what Gssh wrote in terms of it not being an indication (as in the signal for a turn direction in Salsa, say) but is TA-'natural movement': her left foot being to the right of her right foot (slightly) is a natural consequence of the rotation (imagine you quickly rotated her by the shoulders (to the right) to make her feet swing round, in terms of body-mechanics).
As you then collect your right foot, you rotate back to the left (to be not dissociated at all), which forces her to pull her left foot back out of the way, into the cross. The solidity with which you make that step (and sureness with which you indicate that you've transferred weight) tells her whether to weight her left foot, as she moves it (along with her perception of your motion/slowing down etc, as Peaches mentioned).
That's how we do it, and I make sense of it... if you did mean 'rotate left' then... I'm confused....
tangomonkey
Active Member
And:
I should have said: "While walking outside my partner's right, my torso being dissociated to my right (left shoulder forward, right one back), I step forward with my left foot and begin rotating my torso left, bringing my shoulders into alignment with my hips (almost but not entirely) by the time my weight has been fully transferred. In order to maintain our torso alignment as I rotated my torso leftwards, she crossed left foot over right, with her weight on the back foot. I collect with my right and if I transfer my weight she transfers hers to her crossed left foot."
Only one possibility...
It is near impossible to put into words any sort of subtlety or nuance that would occur during an actual dance or even a demo. This is the best I can up with at this time.