Traffic declining?

[sixela]

No. Some things can be so surprising to someone that he/she will consider it "bad grammar" and "correct" it. So you can't dance absolutely everything with everyone.

I've got a perfect example in mind, but it's a bit long to explain. Let's just say that it's something led without any turn at all, but half the followers will go from V-embrace into a completely parallel embrace without any lead to turn it into something they're familiar with.

Of course, you could say that it's still "the same thing" but it will feel completely different.

Another simple example is an ocho cortado resolution. You can give a follower a lot of freedom to move and only rotate in a snap just before she crosses, which has a very nice feel to it. But some followers will still dance as if you hadn't given them the freedom and pushed their left side inside, to rotate early to "play safe".

Have you then "succeeded" in leading what you wanted?

That's a question of semantics. A good follower will always find something to do that is compatible with what you led, but not always exactly what you wanted to lead.

 

[pygmalion]

but....... NO-ONE EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION SCHOOL OF TANGO. Our chief Rule of Tango is Improvisation.

( sorry couldn't resist )

Oh my gosh! I didn't get the import of this until about 3:00 this morning. (I know. It's possible to be intelligent and stupid at the same time. :lol: )

The problem with the tango forum is that EVERYBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition of Tango. That is the problem.

 

[DL]

(I know. It's possible to be intelligent and stupid at the same time.)

What do you think this sub-discussion looks like from my perspective?

ETA: I'm not suggesting either that I think it's intelligent or that I think it's stupid.

 

[Peaches]

So what are you suggesting with that comment?

 

[DL]

So what are you suggesting with that comment?

I'm actually just asking the question.

 

[pygmalion]

What do you think this sub-discussion looks like from my perspective?

ETA: I'm not suggesting either that I think it's intelligent or that I think it's stupid.

No idea, DL. What I was saying is that I didn't catch btm's multi-layered humor until hours and hours (if not days) later. Not sure what that looks like to you. *shrug*

 

[pygmalion]

A good follower will always find something to do that is compatible with what you led, but not always exactly what you wanted to lead.

This is very profound and cool, and not just applicable to tango, IMHO.

 

[dchester]

This is very profound and cool, and not just applicable to tango, IMHO.

I think it's applicable to leading in tango. Basically, if the lead is done in a way that the follower could interpret in more than one way, she's likely to do something that isn't exactly what the leader wanted.

 

[pygmalion]

I can easily see it applying to West Coast Swing, for example, as well.

 

[AndaBien]

This is very profound and cool, and not just applicable to tango, IMHO.

As in tango, as in life.

 

[sixela]

I think it's applicable to leading in tango. Basically, if the lead is done in a way that the follower could interpret in more than one way, she's likely to do something that isn't exactly what the leader wanted.

But where does "interpretation" stop and "not following" start? The more a certain follower is familiar with all the different things that are possible, the closer she'll listen to subtle hints in the leading.

Even instinct (and, in the case of lack of trust, preservation instinct) can lead [pun intended] the follower to interpret a given lead differently, even if you change absolutely nothing to the lead. Some things that feel just right are on the edge of the abyss, and you need a lot of trust from the follower if you want to lead her to the edge of the abyss and back .

So I still think you simply cannot lead absolutely everything and get one given result. A dance is written by two people, and if only one is familiar with poetry and the other is only familiar with prose, it isn't going to produce a poem (not that there's anything wrong with prose, mind you).

That's actually part of the attraction of the dance: you write a different dance with each follower. It would be a bit dull if every follower interpreted your lead in exactly the same way.

 

[AndaBien]

...So I still think you simply cannot lead absolutely everything and get one given result. A dance is written by two people, and if only one is familiar with poetry and the other is only familiar with prose, it isn't going to produce a poem (not that there's anything wrong with prose, mind you).

That's actually part of the attraction of the dance: you write a different dance with each follower. It would be a bit dull if every follower interpreted your lead in exactly the same way.

Looking at the title of this thread, I don't recall how we got of in this direction, but so what?

I never want to lead so meticulously that my partner can't possibly ever do something different from my expectation. (And I don't consider that to be a mistake). Sometimes I barely have an expectation. I may just initiate a movement and find out where it goes. I think leaders should guide a dance, not dictate it. Once they have led a step they should become followers.

I like occasionally to dance with enough abandonment that we, my partner and I, risk letting the oneness fall apart. That's okay, we just get it back. If you don't go over the edge sometimes, how will you know where the edge is?

 

[mjnemeth]

While the thread got off topic,The two post inparticular. are very good! sixela's is almost a truism for ANY dance. Just today I realized, thanks to the last two post , I'm starting to recover easily with no stress from leads that don't go as I planned Its certain make makes dancing more enjoyable.

 

[dchester]

But where does "interpretation" stop and "not following" start? The more a certain follower is familiar with all the different things that are possible, the closer she'll listen to subtle hints in the leading.

Even instinct (and, in the case of lack of trust, preservation instinct) can lead [pun intended] the follower to interpret a given lead differently, even if you change absolutely nothing to the lead. Some things that feel just right are on the edge of the abyss, and you need a lot of trust from the follower if you want to lead her to the edge of the abyss and back .

So I still think you simply cannot lead absolutely everything and get one given result. A dance is written by two people, and if only one is familiar with poetry and the other is only familiar with prose, it isn't going to produce a poem (not that there's anything wrong with prose, mind you).

That's actually part of the attraction of the dance: you write a different dance with each follower. It would be a bit dull if every follower interpreted your lead in exactly the same way.

My prior post (I think it's applicable to leading) was talking about the leader, not the follower. From my way of thinking, if the follower doesn't do what I was trying to lead, then the lead wasn't clear enough, (or possibly the follower simply didn't care about what I led (but I wasn't talking about that)).

What's clear for one follower may not be clear for a different follower, so it's my job to figure out how to adapt my leading to each follower, to try and make it clear for her. Certainly, I'm not good enough yet to always be successful, but I don't accept that it can't be done. I (simply stated) need to improve.

I've had more than one good leader (in classes) say to lead in such a way that the follower has no choice but to do what you are expecting. If the lead allows for more than one possibility, then you can get more than one possible response, and of course the leader will need to be prepared to deal with all of the possibilities.

 

[Zoopsia59]

, if the lead is done in a way that the follower could interpret in more than one way, she's likely to do something that isn't exactly what the leader wanted.

That would be the Murphy's Law of tango, right?

Dchester's law of tango:

"If a lead is done so that it may be interpreted in more than one way, the follower will always interpret it in the way NOT meant by the leader"