The Follower's Point of View

[Misspendragon]

The only lady I competed with who did that was that instructor. I think we won, possibly placing ahead of other students who may have been better than I was. Also, being a kinesthetic learner, I also learned a lot from it, and for many of the things I learned kinesthetically, it took a long time for me to figure out consciously what I'd learned.


I may not be describing it effectively, though you might still object to what I was trying to describe. I'm not talking moving the arms to place the lady, which is why I emphasized using the frame, not the arms.

Rather, "man leads, then follows what the lady does" is not the only view of correct lead and follow, although it's the one that you and I subscribe to. There's another view that the man just dances his part, and the lady takes on full responsibility to fitting herself to the man's dancing and following it. The man can enforce this view by insisting on dancing his part of whatever figure he is doing, even if the lady mistakes what figure it is.

I asked my Pro about this today and his view was, the only time he muscles a Follow is when in a competition they are about to crash into someone, and the Follows ignores more subtle ways of communicating.

 

[Well Rounded]

My primary roll is Follow, but I lead regularly in group class. I often lead socially, but not as often as I do in group class. I am far more advanced as a follow than I am as a lead. I think of myself as a not quite intermediate lead.
I definitely get frustrated with follows that lead themselves. Not only do I not learn from it, but it sabotages my lead. This happens most often in group class. In social situations, the follow is less likely to assume she knows the next planned activity. I learn the most, the fastest when the lady attempts to do exactly what my body is telling her to do. If she disengages because I am leading in a way that might hurt her, I learn from that also, and I apologize.
As a follow, I have often encountered situations where the lead has no real awareness of what is happening with the follow and will attempt to bully me through it (this situation is the reason I quickly learned spiral turns). I have a highly developed skill of disengaging myself quickly to avoid harm.

 

[Joe]

Even by otherwise kind and reasonable Leads whom I made the mistake of engaging in social dancing, I have been told at various times (usually delivered with a smile to take off the edge) that I was too strong, stubborn, controlling, inflexible, or that I wasn't listening. Once a Lead told me that "he couldn't lead a feminist" and another that "you need to solve your control issues" and he walked away from me (literally, leaving me on the floor with the music still going). TWICE I've heard that "I thought Eastern European women were supposed to be better at letting men wear the pants" (that really pissed me off), and one Lead informed me that he didn't think I would ever be able to follow well because my "issues with men" (issues he knew nothing of. I met him only that night and the only serious subject we addressed was HIS marriage). I actually believed a lot of that, until I met my Pro who thinks I'm a very strong and infuriatingly willful person WHO IS ALSO A SENSITIVE FOLLOW. We rarely ever have issues with leading and following; he accepts that I don't follow perfectly, and I've heard him berate himself for not leading well just as many times as he GENTLY reminded me to give him my spine more or to relax my arm. He does that sometimes (blaming himself) EVEN when I know it was really me who messed up. And of course, even outside in the social arena, I met wonderful Leads who if anything, were too accommodating and nice and thought everything was their fault, so I'm NOT trying to vilify Leads here. My point is, it is VULNERABLE to be a follow because it is not merely our pride or ego that's on the line (that's true for Leads as well, perhaps even more so since they carry more responsibility), but we also have to open up, even surrender to some extent, while still maintaining control over our movement and dance with poise, with the attitude of the queen of queens, as Karina S put it. Not an easy task on the best of days, let alone on a bad one.

Wow, you have a lot of glass bowls in your dance community!

 

[Tangogal]

Wow, you have a lot of glass bowls in your dance community!

Nah this is pretty common in social dancing. I rarely do any partnered choreography and don’t enter competitions. I’ve lost count of the times I’ve been “in the wrong” and told I was doing X instead of Y. I’ve been told many times that I’m very strong - not intended as a compliment (also I am not strong by any means). Or my timing is “off”.

A social dance is no place for teaching so I mostly just do the “intended figure” now. I’m not there to be a practice dummy or give free mini-lessons. And I get far less “feedback”.

 

[j_alexandra]

Elsewhere, Mengu wrote:

So, I've seen this mentioned in these or similar words a few times... I might be reading too much into it, but it sounds like there is the perception "feeling the lead" and "going" are done in an alternating cycle. Is this really the case? Shouldn't followers be always going, and always following?

Is there a "can of worms" emoji?

There's a school of thought that says followers should always be going. And one that says we should always be waiting for your signal, then going. I belong to the second school. I cannot fathom how I can figure out what you want if I'm already moving.

It's not like on step one of a feather finish, I can communicate that we are dancing a feather finish. I can only communicate that I'm moving back commencing to turn, and that I would like my partner to come with me. Then for the next movement I might do a strong sway to redirect and go back the way we came, or I might scoop and go into a tumble turn, or I might check the movement into the feather finish and do a top spin, or some other option. And within those options, there are options, like I might do the tumble turn more linearly, or more rotary, or with a greater scoop, or I could hover longer in the middle...

This is my job as a follow: to discern what you want, and do it. Not to "do a feather finish," but to read your cues and figure out (not guess) whether you want a tumble turn, etc rather than a feather finish -- or even just a feather finish. LIke the discussion above about the closed or open telemark after a feather.

I think this is the single hardest thing about dancing as a follow... that you always have to go, and you always have to listen and feel for the changes in movement. And yeah, it takes a long time and lots of partner practice to develop that sensitivity (which goes for both sides of the partnership).

Preach!

 

[noobster]

Elsewhere, Mengu wrote:


Is there a "can of worms" emoji?

There's a school of thought that says followers should always be going. And one that says we should always be waiting for your signal, then going. I belong to the second school. I cannot fathom how I can figure out what you want if I'm already moving.

De-lurking briefly! to say that I think this must depend on the dance style.

I have extremely minimal ballroom experience but I'm guessing it's only the existence of codified steps/figures with beginnings and endings that would make the second strategy feasible.

For dance forms with highly developed extemporaneous lead/follow like salsa and tango, the second approach would never fly. The dance elements are tiny and can come in any order and change at any time, so it's important to listen to the lead continuously and be ready to change direction at any moment.

You could maybe get away with strategy #2 in West Coast Swing as the lead/follow occurs in elastic cycles where the follower has a lot of freedom on the release part of the cycle.

 

[Tangogal]

De-lurking briefly! to say that I think this must depend on the dance style.

I have extremely minimal ballroom experience but I'm guessing it's only the existence of codified steps/figures with beginnings and endings that would make the second strategy feasible.

For dance forms with highly developed extemporaneous lead/follow like salsa and tango, the second approach would never fly. The dance elements are tiny and can come in any order and change at any time, so it's important to listen to the lead continuously and be ready to change direction at any moment.

You could maybe get away with strategy #2 in West Coast Swing as the lead/follow occurs in elastic cycles where the follower has a lot of freedom on the release part of the cycle.

I dance tango and a little salsa. I’ve been told both to “always wait for the lead” and “keep the dance going”. With less experienced leaders there are always pauses and gaps in the lead. Like on count 4 of salsa an inexperienced lead will completely stop but a more experienced lead will already be leading the steps for count 5. Thus allowing for a continuous following that is both “going” and “waiting” at the same moment!

 

[Mengu]

There's a school of thought that says followers should always be going. And one that says we should always be waiting for your signal, then going. I belong to the second school. I cannot fathom how I can figure out what you want if I'm already moving.

I know I'm not supposed to post in this thread, but since I understand the first school better, I'll chime in on what that thought is, and then I'll butt out... Let me start by saying I don't subscribe to "one right way". Whatever school of thought works, works. And in this case, I don't think the two schools are going to be that different except for the words and emphasis they use.

If the follower is not always going, the first school of leaders might feel that their options are limited. When the follower is always going, the leader feels empowered, like they can do anything.

Let's say the leader places their hand on the follower's shoulder for a shoulder check. If the follower stops (they are being checked after all), and starts waiting and listening for what's next, the (first school) leader may feel a little bit dead in the water because now they have to figure out how to initiate movement, and they don't have the continuous movement to work with. But if the follower is continuing to move their shoulder into that hand (always going), then the leader has options. They can use that as a wind up to redirect with a free spin, or they could continue in the same direction treating the check like a slow down, and do a duck turn, or experiment with anything else the movement allows.

The second school that is telling the follower to wait, might use different words, to describe basically the same thing, like waiting actively, or finishing the movement, or using the connection... I'm not sure how they'll describe it, but I bet it will amount to the same dynamic and elastic end result that we're all looking for.

 

[Misspendragon]

I know I'm not supposed to post in this thread, but since I understand the first school better, I'll chime in on what that thought is, and then I'll butt out... Let me start by saying I don't subscribe to "one right way". Whatever school of thought works, works. And in this case, I don't think the two schools are going to be that different except for the words and emphasis they use.

If the follower is not always going, the first school of leaders might feel that their options are limited. When the follower is always going, the leader feels empowered, like they can do anything.

Let's say the leader places their hand on the follower's shoulder for a shoulder check. If the follower stops (they are being checked after all), and starts waiting and listening for what's next, the (first school) leader may feel a little bit dead in the water because now they have to figure out how to initiate movement, and they don't have the continuous movement to work with. But if the follower is continuing to move their shoulder into that hand (always going), then the leader has options. They can use that as a wind up to redirect with a free spin, or they could continue in the same direction treating the check like a slow down, and do a duck turn, or experiment with anything else the movement allows.

The second school that is telling the follower to wait, might use different words, to describe basically the same thing, like waiting actively, or finishing the movement, or using the connection... I'm not sure how they'll describe it, but I bet it will amount to the same dynamic and elastic end result that we're all looking for.

My Pro always tells me to be in motion at all times. In some ways he means it like, "your body is never dead weight, so even when you are still, it stretches and breathes and expresses life." But, he also applies the "always be in motion" rule to following/leading. In our Rumba routine, I have Fan twice. Once, I come out of it and go into Hockey Stick. The other time, I end up in an Alemana/Spiral combo. Now, for whatever reason, he often makes a mistake with this and leads me into the 'wrong' move during a comp heat. So, I told him, "why don't we just forget about the set routine and agree that I will go into whatever you are leading, so no one feels bad about this, and I don't freeze, and you don't get stressed? But in order to do that, I need to know what you want me to do with my body and what I have to watch out for from you as I come out of Fan, so I recognize the difference." And as a response, he showed me how I would have to hold my arm in each position and what HE will do with his arm in each position, and that was helpful. However, he also added," but beyond that, just keep your body relaxed and don't stop moving. Keep pressure in your hand enough and keep on dancing, and then I can lead you. If you let your hand die or stop moving, I cannot do anything other than shove you and I don't want to do that."

He would definitely agree with your philosophy, Mengu .

 

[Greybeard]

I have extremely minimal ballroom experience but I'm guessing it's only the existence of codified steps/figures with beginnings and endings that would make the second strategy feasible.

For dance forms with highly developed extemporaneous lead/follow like salsa and tango, the second approach would never fly. The dance elements are tiny and can come in any order and change at any time, so it's important to listen to the lead continuously and be ready to change direction at any moment.

You could maybe get away with strategy #2 in West Coast Swing as the lead/follow occurs in elastic cycles where the follower has a lot of freedom on the release part of the cycle.

(to bring context from previous posts
(First strategy - Follower always going
(Second strategy - Follower waits for lead, then goes).

Codified figures in ballroom also require continuous following. Some of the examples above start with the same three steps and then the next three go a different direction. The leader has to be clear and timely about what he is doing or the follow will probably continue doing what is most common.

Listening "to the lead and being ready to change direction at any time" is the basis of the second strategy.

The first strategy might work in WCS because hijacking is part of the dance: If he doesn't give her a lead, she should give him one. (Might not work if a pro is too deep into ballroom.)

 

[joy]

You could maybe get away with strategy #2 in West Coast Swing as the lead/follow occurs in elastic cycles where the follower has a lot of freedom on the release part of the cycle.

We have freedom but it’s just the suggestion of freedom. The lead can stop it at anytime or refuse your suggestion.

In WCS you always go where the lead says to go, you only stop or direction change as the lead change.

Both WCS and Argentine tango are very lead/follow sensitive, much more then ballroom because it is pretty much all improv.

 

[j_alexandra]

I know I'm not supposed to post in this thread, but since I understand the first school better, I'll chime in on what that thought is, and then I'll butt out...

Your input is so valuable, please don’t butt out; your first appearance in this thread was post #8, I think— I quoted you

waiting actively, or finishing the movement, or using the connection... I'm not sure how they'll describe it, but I bet it will amount to the same dynamic and elastic end result that we're all looking for.

Bingo!

 

[j_alexandra]

The Syllabus/Open thread has lots of commentary about lead and follow on it, and I said something about moving that discussion here -- and WJD commented that

Generally men have been made to feel unwelcome in that thread, so I try not to post there if there's an alternative.

David D supported that idea. What, just b/c I said that

I am not looking for comments from leaders of what they want/don't want; there are threads on that already, and leaders get lots and lots and lots of screen time on DF. I want to know what fellow followers think, sense, feel, do.

OK, ok, I can see how that might be construed as being No Boyz Aloud. On the other hand, if men have interest in learning what follows do, where better to ask than here?

It’s a pity that, by simply asking for a thread to focus on what followers think, sense, feel, do, I created what apparently felt to men like a hostile environment. I‘m going to read this thread over and mull on it.

 

[Greybeard]

It’s a pity that, by simply asking for a thread to focus on what followers think, sense, feel, do, I created what apparently felt to men like a hostile environment.

While I tried to respect that this was a place for the followers to discuss without leaders putting words in their mouths, I didn´t sense any hostility towards the leaders that did reply.

 

[DoWrongRight]

It’s a pity that, by simply asking for a thread to focus on what followers think, sense, feel, do, I created what apparently felt to men like a hostile environment. I‘m going to read this thread over and mull on it.

I have enjoyed reading the thread. I like being able to read the thoughts of follows. There could also be, or maybe already is a thread that is lead driven on our thoughts and perspective. I hope the thread gets to continue.