Same for me.
The long-term solution is dual-role dancing?
- Thread starter itwillhappen
- Start date
opendoor
Forum Master
That's a truly awful suggestion!
Why?
I wasn't suggesting the follower takes over the lead just that with an active follower instead of a passive one then the overall musicality can take less of the leaders mental bandwidth if there are other demands on it. I'm not sure I'm explaining this well as to me this is a simple outcome that is self-explanatory. I genuinely cannot see a downside here. Ok if the follower has terrible musicality or cannot correctly actively follow then it will obviously be worse and take away from the Leaders ability to be able to dance. But I was trying to explain the advantages when it works - not when it fails. Hope that clarifies things a bit better
On the other hand in Poland I see huge amounts of evidence for this at milongas. I also see young women enjoying dancing together. The partyka movement seems to be making a large difference
JournalInTime
Forum Master
You are explaining it just fine, and I agree with you.
"Leads" and "decides how the music will be felt and interpreted" are not equivalent, though they are often mistaken for one another. Leading establishes the broadest framework of the dance, defining the waves of energy that represent musical phrases or paragraphs, allowing for traffic. However, each partner should be free to propose movement, and also free to accept, modify, or challenge the other's proposals. Assuming equal communications skills and musicality – and why in the world would followers be inferior to leaders at communicating or at interpreting music? – it's no more disruptive for a follower to communicate, very clearly, "Wait, I would like to do this to the music," than it is for a leader to communicate, just as clearly, "I would like to do this to the music." That takes a skilled leader who knows how to listen, but we've already assumed equally good communications skills.
Where people seem to disagree is on grounds that are innately biased.
Some leaders believe that leading is the art of deciding how the music will be felt and interpreted. They believe that the follower should receive the music strictly "through" the leader – not directly, by listening. However, asking followers to use one fewer senses than the leader – the single most important sense for dance at that – is ridiculous! It's requiring them to dance with a handicap.
Some leaders do not lead entire phrases or paragraphs in waves, but insist on micro-movements for each and every note. That's fun for short passages – in effect, it's a specific proposal – but it's tiring to do for an entire piece. Having the follower decide the micro a significant fraction of the time respects the leader's phrasing yet saves the leader a huge amount of mental fatigue by sharing the micro-demands.
Some leaders genuinely do believe that followers are inferior at communicating or at interpreting music. I think we can see why this is ridiculous. Those aren't "leader" or "follower" skills – they're general "partner dance" skills. After L hours of lessons, P hours of practice, and M hours at the milonga, those skills will be at identical levels, regardless of whether those hours were danced as a leader, a follower, or a switch.
Unfortunately, traditional tango is very much stuck in old-fashioned views of roles, where the leader (a.k.a. "man") is an artist with a vision of the dance and the follower (a.k.a. "woman") amounts to the paintbrush he uses to design that on the floor, or a musical instrument to be played. That can work if both partners agree to it, but assuming that's the agreement unless negotiated otherwise is pretty offensive. In 2026, the agreement is normally "equal partners in music, with the leader handling broad phrasing mostly because they walk forward more often and can see how much space there is for the envelope of expression." And even that's a bit old-timey, because teachers these days often encourage followers to dance eyes-open and help with floorcraft by observing the leader's blind spots.
Of course, leaders who think that other dancers are getting in the way of their art don't care about a lot of this . . . but that's a separate problem for another thread. (Briefly: They want control over not merely the paintbrush but also the canvas, and are probably too far into "control freak" territory to be good citizens of the milonga.)
You've been very clear. You are also correct. Assuming that followers somehow have terrible musicality, or do not know how to communicate a proposal without disrupting the dance, is patronizing. Leaders need to assume that followers are as good at everything in the dance as they are, and should never assume that they are doing a follower some sort of favor by replacing their brain in the role of operating their body. Most people prefer to have their brain and body respected.
Though I suppose a leader who is a control freak, macho man, or just from a background with unskilled followers could fall into the trap of believing they know better than the follower in every sense.
JournalInTime
Forum Master
We also see this in Montréal.
In the "age 40-49," "age 50-59," "age 60-69," and older cohorts, we see mostly men who lead dancing with women who follow.* However, in the "age 30-39" cohort, many people can dance both roles, while in the "age 20-29" cohort, most people do dance both roles. At any given evening where I most often go to dance – which advertises itself as a "100% authentic Argentine cultural event" and "traditional," not as "alternative," "queer," or whatever – there will be a few woman-woman couples and a few man-man couples on the floor, as well as woman-man couples who switch roles dynamically. Collectively, call it 1/4 to 1/3 of the population on the floor.
I'm almost 59 years old, and I own up to being a man who leads women who follow most of the time. I've led men, and I have been led by men and women, so I'm not closed off to the idea – as my coach has told me, if I ever plan to teach, I must earn to dance both roles with anybody! But I also don't hide the fact that I was raised in the late 1960s through the 1980s, in a smaller city, where partner dance had overtones of "men courting women," so I do have an essential bias. That bias is my problem, though, and I strive not to make it anybody else's problem . . . at the milonga, I can invite and lead women 99% of the time without getting in anybody's face about their choices.
—
* Interestingly, there's also a growing movement among older women who mostly dance as followers with men who dance as leaders, but who are not young enough to get invited by macho guys who insist on dancing with younger women, to solve their lack of invitations by learning to lead. So, while there are lots of 20- and 30-something women dancing together, they are being joined by a growing number of women over 60. The main difference is that the younger women treat the invitations of all leaders, male or female, equally, while the older women definitely favor the invitations of male leaders.
opendoor
Forum Master
I completely disagree with you, both neurophysiologically and philosophically.
Musicality doesn't require any additional processing power at all. It's either there or isn't. And honestly, I doubt it can be learned anyway.
Secondly, it sets the wrong tone if the leader is supposed to relinquish the interpretive authority over the music. For me, leading is synonymous with musical interpretation. Anyone who doesn't want to interpret can simply switch to the passive role of following. I refuse to even consider a blurring of the lines between these roles.
JournalInTime
Forum Master
Perhaps, but ideas like musicality either being there or not, and something that can or can't be learned, apply to everybody. "Leader or follower" is in no universe equivalent to "has or lacks musicality." The axes are orthogonal, with musicality largely neurological (so, here we most agree) and entirely internal, and role imposed largely by social constructs and conservative tradition (though those things are changing) and entirely external. Unless you subscribe to something scientifically unsupportable like "polarity theory," with its bizarre ideas of cosmic, universal masculinity and femininity, you'll have trouble drawing any connection between the two.
The very idea that there is "authority" in a dance couple sets the wrong tone for me!
I don't think "lead/follow = active/passive" is more defensible than "lead/follow = has/lacks musicality." It seems to me that's crossing the wires again, or even suggesting "people gravitate to the follower role due to laziness or lack of musicality," which is wildly offensive. Plenty of highly respected tango masters talk of active following, and there are some talking about passive leading (shaping the dance through reaction instead of action). I don't think that conversation has been had and resolved for all time, put it that way.
It's also interesting to note that the current language in some places – including where I live – is moving away from the term "follower." Here, "interpreter" is becoming normal, and means exactly what it sounds like: The leader takes the initiative in setting up the coarse structure, and the interpreter determines the fine structure to a large extent, through interpreting the music. Such terminology is sufficiently common here that lessons geneally talk in terms of « guide » and « interprète » . . . a significant change from the masculine « guideur » and feminine « guidée » used when I started tango.
I don't think that being passive and have no role in interpretation works well for most people today. That's because it's a social thing, not a fundamental neurological (or, if you like crackpot theories, polarity) thing, and societies evolve. I cannot help but notice that "both partners are active, and both interpret the music" thinking coincides with a drastic surge in newer, younger dancers in our community. Of course, correlation isn't causation, but this being a social matter, you can just ask people . . . I have, and yes, it is causative. Even one of our crusty old conservative teachers here recently talked about how the interpretative role of the follower was always there but ignored for years because leaders insisted on the credit for musicality. For me it was a bit like a hearing a capitalist talk about how communism has its merits (or vice versa).
opendoor
Forum Master
I never wrote "in a ..couple," but rather for a song or during a tanda. "Leader" isn't a fixed person, but a role that should be swapped frequently.
But shared or even democratic leading feels awful. Musical interpretation in social dance is, for me, a personal and highly individual form of expression —it's improv.
If a couple is developing a choreography, they discuss it together, there is no lead and follow. It is certainly possible to arrange to meet for cooperative leading, but then at the práctica, not at a milonga.
I reject negotiations a la parilla on the dance floor at a milonga while the music is playing. No one has to dance with me, but if they want to, then I either lead or I follow. Role clarity in advance.
Last edited:
itwillhappen
Forum Master
I don't even voice such considerations or allow myself to be committed to them. Either it was a pleasant tanda, in which case I'd gladly dance with her again at the next milonga, or it wasn't.
opendoor
Forum Master
I envy you !
Miradamiranda
Well-Known Member
Opendoor has been dancing in a context and time period that might be different than most of us, and he is entitled to his (provocative) opinions and preferences, but times change, and a leader being super controlling is in most scenes today considered either passé or a personality flaw.
Sorry I stirred up the pot again.
Now, that said, my personal experience dancing with Opendoor did not make me place him in that category. A bit of provocation in a discussion like this, if we take the bait, also forces those of us who disagree to formulate our arguments.
Sorry I stirred up the pot again.
Now, that said, my personal experience dancing with Opendoor did not make me place him in that category. A bit of provocation in a discussion like this, if we take the bait, also forces those of us who disagree to formulate our arguments.
Well said!
opendoor
Forum Master
And this is precisely what I deeply doubt!
I was the first on DF to clearly prefer the following role as a male. @itwillhappen , @JournalInTime , did you hear me? So, I suppose, you actually were not dancing back then! Your novelty basically is old news!
Hmm, questionable claim here.
If musicality cannot be learned, this entails one of two things:
- Most musicians are not musical
- OR - - All musicians possess unteachable natural talent
The issue there is, you can find lots of highly skilled musicians who openly avow that they are hard workers, not natural talents. Having witnessed a few such journeys, I'm inclined to believe that these claims are true at least some of the time.
In addition, if you break down the abstract idea of "musicality" into its component pieces (e.g., pitch, harmony theory, tempo sensitivity, polyrhythm sensitivity, dynamics, etc), it really does seem like all of them are learnable. Including one of the last bastions of alleged "unteachable musical talents," absolute pitch: https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/learning-perfect-pitch-is-possible-1.7494249
*********
Yes, it is true that good musicality is rare in the general public. But I would chalk that up to musicality being an esoteric skill unconnected to most daily activities, and one that requires unintuitive learning methods. Music is math, not magic.
Last edited:
opendoor
Forum Master
It must be noted that musicians have a much harder time learning to dance than other people. I know several, even some who play in internationally successful tango orchestras.
However, one of the most important elements is missing: the ability to improvise! This also includes matching the vocabulary (of the respective level) with the music. And I don't reduce music to just the beat, because many historical recordings we dance to have complex, not to say operatic arrangements.
Apart from the sense of rhythm, which definitely can't be learned at an advanced age, I agree with you.
But is "learning" then the right verb? Isn't it more about becoming more aware of something that already is pre-installed?
This of course shifts the focus: why do we see so little genuine musicality on the dance floor, even though it can be learned, or rather, even though it can be revealed? Perhaps tango dancers don't even want to dance musically. Is the beat enough for the majority? I'm repeating myself now, but the average tango dancer couldn't care less about the music. I spent many years as a DJ, studying the dance floor month after month. The tango dancer primarily seeks physical contact, and the sense of rhythm is the greatest common denominator.
Years ago, when you explained the advantages of American styles to me, you still spoke quite differently, fiesta !
For me, musicality is an expression of feelings. And for that, the dancer must become aware of their emotions and allow them to flow.
And that's precisely what's frowned upon in tango today. Breaking out of the ronda is punished. Framing against the strong beats is punished. Expressing one's personal, emotional inner life is punished. What's desired is the zombie trot, and for that, musicality is more of a hindrance.
Last edited: