The Follower's Point of View

[j_alexandra]

Maybe this is semantics, then. Yes, outside of classes we generally only know what happened, not what was intended. But I would say that I don't necessarily know what was led, because I might not have kept my frame connected well enough, or be familiar enough with a shape to reproduce it.

I don't know if semantics is the right word... then again, maybe it is. Semantics is the study of meaning. Maybe I'm saying I don't know what you led, and you're saying you don't know what Lead *meant* to lead. In which case, we're saying the same thing.

Just, like, you know... for the record... I take group and private lessons as a follow, and have gone to workshop weekends for following and switching. Depending on the night, I might follow or switch for more dances than I lead.

That must be interesting. I started taking lessons and classes as a lead, it has been very interesting indeed.

 

[madmaximus]

During a recent demo, where I was wearing a tail suit, I involuntarily twitched my head ever so slightly to the left, a reaction to relieve the collar's jabbing pressure against my neck.

That teeny-tiny-baby-twitch made my delightfully lead-sensitive, stupendously awesome, and highly-trained dance partner to automatically turn her head to PP—despite the fact that we were dancing that part of our routine that does not go to PP, she was about to go off-schedule with me because that is what she felt.

Recognizing my mistake, she made a quick correction—the whole episode quickly passed, barely visible to very few—and we were back into our routine like nothing happened.


m

 

[David_In_CA]

I don't know if semantics is the right word... then again, maybe it is. Semantics is the study of meaning. Maybe I'm saying I don't know what you led, and you're saying you don't know what Lead *meant* to lead. In which case, we're saying the same thing.

I think the question is what does "this is what was led" mean? There's an argument that could be made that if a leader does movement X, and the follower does movement Y in reaction, that the leader led movement Y. If this is meaning of "led", then we always know what was led, because it happened to us. So if that's your definition, then we were just talking past each other. It might be a better definition for you because you're a better follower. My own definition of "led" is also what the leader should be able to expect me to do in reaction to movement X, regardless of whether I actually have some weird idiosyncratic response instead.

That must be interesting. I started taking lessons and classes as a lead, it has been very interesting indeed.

I love the difference in focus as a follow. I think there's much more physicality, centering, and being present in the moment that's required as a follow. And figuring out what part of a lead's movement is signal and what part is noise is a different challenge.

What's particularly fun is dancing with the same partner twice, switching who the leader is. I like the two different glances into someone's musicality.

Switching is a different fun experience, although tbh it sometimes feels like more of a game than a dance at times.

 

[Joe]

If I recognize what you led, and I willfully do something else, that's Bad Following; my bad. If I miss your signal altogether, my bad. No matter what the outcome, I don't know what you think you led. I only know what you led.

But again, the same lead could dance with someone else and the same lead you were provided could end with a different result. Did the other follow also know what was led?

 

[Warren J. Dew]

There's an argument that could be made that if a leader does movement X, and the follower does movement Y in reaction, that the leader led movement Y.

That's pretty much my definition. I find it the most useful definition if we're going to avoid lecturing on the dance floor.

My own definition of "led" is also what the leader should be able to expect me to do in reaction to movement X, regardless of whether I actually have some weird idiosyncratic response instead....

And figuring out what part of a lead's movement is signal and what part is noise is a different challenge.

What if you have a leader who expects you not to think or figure out anything on the dance floor, and "just follow"? That's what I'd expect from an advanced follower like j_alexandra. I don't lead by using coded "signal", and I try not to include any noise in my dancing, though I'm sure I'm not fully successful there.

That's also the way I try to follow when I follow. If I'm doing any conscious thought, it's about things the leader I'm dancing with doesn't lead, such maintaining my shape in a reverse roles competition with one of my regular partners.

 

[j_alexandra]

But again, the same lead could dance with someone else and the same lead you were provided could end with a different result. Did the other follow also know what was led?

You're talking about results. I'm talking about knowing what you led. So, yes, the other follow only knew what was led. It's not person-specific. It's All Follows.

I think the question is what does "this is what was led" mean?

It seems to me that the Leads commenting here are thinking they're leading a Figure. Dude, I have NO IDEA WHAT FIGURE YOU'RE LEADING. I only know that you're asking me to do something with particular timing, direction, step, power, and indicating that I should shift my body weight to follow your suggestion.

There's an argument that could be made that if a leader does movement X, and the follower does movement Y in reaction, that the leader led movement Y.

BINGO

If this is meaning of "led", then we always know what was led, because it happened to us.

BINGO

My own definition of "led" is also what the leader should be able to expect me to do in reaction to movement X, regardless of whether I actually have some weird idiosyncratic response instead.

Whether Leads actually do what they think they do is another issue. I can only respond to the lead. Whether Lead intended X or Y is irrelevant to Follow; if Lead actually led Y while thinking it was X, Follow received Y.

I love the difference in focus as a follow. I think there's much more physicality, centering, and being present in the moment that's required as a follow. And figuring out what part of a lead's movement is signal and what part is noise is a different challenge.

BINGO but also unfair of Leads to ask it of us; you want me to read your mind, as well as your lead? Well.

 

[lucia_l]

It seems to me that the Leads commenting here are thinking they're leading a Figure. Dude, I have NO IDEA WHAT FIGURE YOU'RE LEADING. I only know that you're asking me to do something with particular timing, direction, step, power, and indicating that I should shift my body weight to follow your suggestion.

I've sometimes tried to explain this to my husband. Of course... I sometimes do know what figure because I dance with him often. He often wants to practice his routine, so I do know. Some things I consistently miss. That's not necessarily him... but he does notice a correlation that somethings I miss other follows miss to.

Whether Leads actually do what they think they do is another issue. I can only respond to the lead. Whether Lead intended X or Y is irrelevant to Follow; if Lead actually led Y while thinking it was X, Follow received Y.

Yes. And sometimes, especially when they are leading a new figure, they only do a fraction of what is relevant. Tons of beginner guys think "raising the arm" is the complete and total lead for various turns.

David: "And figuring out what part of a lead's movement is signal and what part is noise is a different challenge."

Yep. Especially with beginners or people just learning to lead a move. Who hasn't dealt with a lead starting an inside turn and suddenly deciding it's an outside turn?

 

[Greybeard]

Whether Leads actually do what they think they do is another issue. I can only respond to the lead. Whether Lead intended X or Y is irrelevant to Follow; if Lead actually led Y while thinking it was X, Follow received Y.

Am I allowed to agree with a follower in "The Follower's Point of View" thread?

but he does notice a correlation that somethings I miss other follows miss to

Sounds like he's paying attention to the followers too.

 

[lucia_l]

Sounds like he's paying attention to the followers too.

Yes. He is very interested in improving. He practices constantly. (Which is a big contrast to me.) His outcomes are great. He came in first in two age brackets for Newcomer I in a recent country competition.

 

[bry_dancer]

I see my lead as sort of a machine learning algorithm that keeps collecting data and correcting. It looks something like this:

1. Learn new pattern and lead from Wcs pro leader
2. Try on my pro partner follow and have her give feedback
3. Try on my advanced follow friends and have them give feedback
4. Try in the wild with 20 or so follows at a social. If it's successful with something like 80% of people in the wild of all skill levels then I feel it's good and add it to my set of regular leads.

If it has a high failure rate at any step then I go back up the chain.

Note: this is more in prep for Jack and Jill comps and social dancing. Not for routines that we both know.

 

[bry_dancer]

Yes. He is very interested in improving. He practices constantly.

I do believe practice is the BIG differentiator between many pro/am students. Some people are very disciplined and do it on their own while others pay their pro for lots of lessons per week. Either way those are the people that tend to win. It's all just muscle memory really. Not that different from tennis or golf.

 

[Joe]

You're talking about results. I'm talking about knowing what you led. So, yes, the other follow only knew what was led. It's not person-specific. It's All Follows.

But the results are what comes out of what was led. From the same lead provided by the same person, Follow A may "hear" Figure A, but Follow B may "hear" Figure B. It's possible that Figure A was what was intended by the Lead, or Figure B, or neither. In each case, did the Follow know what was lead?

 

[lucia_l]

In each case, did the Follow know what was lead?

Usually.... neither actually knew what was lead at least not based on the lead. That's why the method Bry_dancer described above is a truer test.

 

[lucia_l]

Either way those are the people that tend to win. It's all just muscle memory really. Not that different from tennis or golf.

Yes. Practice is the biggest controllable factor. There are other factors, but appropriate practice is huge. (There are some activities that can amount to "unpracticing" though....)

 

[Warren J. Dew]

But the results are what comes out of what was led. From the same lead provided by the same person, Follow A may "hear" Figure A, but Follow B may "hear" Figure B.

As j_alexandra intimated, this seems to assume that the figure is the unit of lead, and implicitly of follow. I think that's what she's explicitly disclaiming.

I'll illustrate by breaking down the movements I think I'm leading when I'm hoping to get through a double reverse spin:

1. Lead the lady to start taking CBM.
2. Lead the lady to step back on her right foot.
3. Lead the lady to drag the left heel in to close the feet.
4. Lead the lady to turn on her right heel.
5. Lead the lady to rise and transfer her weight to her left toe.
6. Lead the lady to step to the side on her right foot.
7. Lead the lady to cross her left foot in front of her right foot.

These only become the lead for a figure when they are all complete. I could lead 1-5 identically and still change my mind and do a bombshell instead of a double reverse spin, for example.