What ismost important to you when youdecide whther youlike dancing with someone?
- Thread starter spectator
- Start date
Heather2007
New Member
External silence/Internal racket - and of course it helps if he's an absolute babe and smells like a perfume counter
Skippy Blair teaches West Coast Swing, not Argentine Tango, but my experience in the one lesson I took from her yesterday brought up this general topic.
Skippy talks about WCS a lot like my favorite AT teacher talked about AT:
weight on inside border of the foot / the three inner toes,
push back on the "goddess knob" (she had another word for it, too) which is located at the back of the base of your neck - this lenghtens your body = better posture,
etc.
So, we get this particluar pattern to work with, and I am not familiar with it and I tell my partners (we were rotating) that I was going to have to ignore them and concentrate on where I was stepping.
Every thing was fine, but as things went along I got a few comments that lead me to believe that, to some of these women, being let along to do their steps without a real definate lead was preferable to having a definate lead.
There for a while in AT, when a woman wouldn't give me any connection to work with, I would pretend they weren't there, and things would go fairly well.
But, what the ????. Ignore your partner to make the dance better? I don't want to go there.
Conversely, when I feel really connected to someone, that is when I feel like I am dancing with my partner, not dancing by myself with someone in front of me who is also doing steps in response to my lead, and that is what brings me back to certain partners.
"Connection" is such an overused term, though, and so ill defined.
In WCS for me it happens through the connecting arm(s). Open embrace in AT is more arms / shoulders. "My" close embrace - with weight sharing - is through the torso.
Without the real physical, "earthy" connection, I just don't feel it. How sad it is for me to realize that AT isn't the only dance where women want no such thing.
Oh, sorry, maybe I'm taking this too seriously. (Is that possible with Argentine Tango?)
Skippy talks about WCS a lot like my favorite AT teacher talked about AT:
weight on inside border of the foot / the three inner toes,
push back on the "goddess knob" (she had another word for it, too) which is located at the back of the base of your neck - this lenghtens your body = better posture,
etc.
So, we get this particluar pattern to work with, and I am not familiar with it and I tell my partners (we were rotating) that I was going to have to ignore them and concentrate on where I was stepping.
Every thing was fine, but as things went along I got a few comments that lead me to believe that, to some of these women, being let along to do their steps without a real definate lead was preferable to having a definate lead.
There for a while in AT, when a woman wouldn't give me any connection to work with, I would pretend they weren't there, and things would go fairly well.
But, what the ????. Ignore your partner to make the dance better? I don't want to go there.
Conversely, when I feel really connected to someone, that is when I feel like I am dancing with my partner, not dancing by myself with someone in front of me who is also doing steps in response to my lead, and that is what brings me back to certain partners.
"Connection" is such an overused term, though, and so ill defined.
In WCS for me it happens through the connecting arm(s). Open embrace in AT is more arms / shoulders. "My" close embrace - with weight sharing - is through the torso.
Without the real physical, "earthy" connection, I just don't feel it. How sad it is for me to realize that AT isn't the only dance where women want no such thing.
Oh, sorry, maybe I'm taking this too seriously. (Is that possible with Argentine Tango?)
Steve, I'm chiming in from a ballroom perspective, where we also have the exact same techniques--inside edge of foot, lengthening spine from just below C7 (never heard it called 'goddess knob--too corny even for ballroom 
!). IIWY, I wouldn't be so discouraged about the response you were getting from follows. In the class you mentioned, perhaps they were in the same boat you were in--needing to concentrate on their own footwork before they could coordinate that with a partner.
But as a follow, if someone described the situation of "ignoring" his partner and things working well, I would guess that he was in fact dancing himself solidly from his center and his partner was getting plenty of information from that alone. In fact, that's the kind of dancing I prefer (hate the feeling that my partner is "doing" things to me, especially with his arms). It may not feel like a connection to you if you are not tuned in to it, but it is and feels great.
!). IIWY, I wouldn't be so discouraged about the response you were getting from follows. In the class you mentioned, perhaps they were in the same boat you were in--needing to concentrate on their own footwork before they could coordinate that with a partner. But as a follow, if someone described the situation of "ignoring" his partner and things working well, I would guess that he was in fact dancing himself solidly from his center and his partner was getting plenty of information from that alone. In fact, that's the kind of dancing I prefer (hate the feeling that my partner is "doing" things to me, especially with his arms). It may not feel like a connection to you if you are not tuned in to it, but it is and feels great.
That's just what I was thinking when I read Steve's post. It drives me nuts to feel like the leader is truly controlling my movement - I prefer the attitude that one of my teachers has, which is that the leader does a move and simply invites the follower to join him.
And while having a good connection for me has a lot to do with having a more inviting than controlling lead, I also feel a stronger connection when there is good musicality as well. My best dances always have a combination of connection (being present in the moment, attentive, inviting as a lead & responsive as a follower) and musicality.
spectator
Member
Don't phone it's just for fun!
ok, not sure what inspired the rant, it's just a fun poll to see what people think, it isn't a competition between the various things or trying to make some kind of veiled point.
I just thought it would be interesting to see wjhat people are looking for. Not just for followers,but leaders too. I said I prefererred musicality because that is my preference i wasn'ttrying to say anythingabout any one else!
Unlesssomeone else posted somethingthat has since disappeared i can't help feelinf incredibly confused about the response.
ok, not sure what inspired the rant, it's just a fun poll to see what people think, it isn't a competition between the various things or trying to make some kind of veiled point.
I just thought it would be interesting to see wjhat people are looking for. Not just for followers,but leaders too. I said I prefererred musicality because that is my preference i wasn'ttrying to say anythingabout any one else!
Unlesssomeone else posted somethingthat has since disappeared i can't help feelinf incredibly confused about the response.
spectator
Member
I think JH andTwirly make good points here, connection does seem to mean hugely different things to different people,for example for me, I am not truly connected unless we are both also connected to the music, but for many people it has nothing at all to do with music or abstract feelings...
To what extent is connection on an emotional level or is it purely physical?
To what extent is connection on an emotional level or is it purely physical?
For me, that depends on what you mean by "good technique". My thought is that someone can be a technically good dancer but be more focused on the movements than being present with their partner. i.e. They are easy to follow/lead and can execute a number of technically challenging steps, but while they do it they are not focused on their partner (beyond the necessary focus in order to execute the steps). I don't know if that makes sense, but it seems like the same (or at least a similar) feeling that happens in concert dance as well - star ballerinas, modern dancers, etc all have a certain something on top of their technical skills that draws the audience into their performances.
"My thought is that someone can be a technically good dancer but be more focused on the movements than being present with their partner. i.e. They are easy to follow/lead and can execute a number of technically challenging steps, but while they do it they are not focused on their partner (beyond the necessary focus in order to execute the steps). "
BINGO!
Another way to express this could be "going through the motions".
Since I can line dance the night away. and line dancing is basically dancing solo, ie without a partner, I want my partner dances to include focus on my partner.
I have experienced that intense focus where you are literally experiencing every step your partner takes as if it were your own. It's not "knowing" where they are or where they are going. It's feeling it in the way that is close to the way you feel your own body (propriopereption is the fancy word).
Last week in AT, I danced with a woman who felt like she was barely there, but she ended up doing what I consider to showy moves that had nothing to do with me except that I happened to be in front of her at the time. It was amusing.
I also danced with two women who really "make themselves felt" when they dance with me. It was delicious.
Those of you who do WCS might want to check the Swing thread re Skippy. Let's discuss WCS there.
BINGO!
Another way to express this could be "going through the motions".
Since I can line dance the night away. and line dancing is basically dancing solo, ie without a partner, I want my partner dances to include focus on my partner.
I have experienced that intense focus where you are literally experiencing every step your partner takes as if it were your own. It's not "knowing" where they are or where they are going. It's feeling it in the way that is close to the way you feel your own body (propriopereption is the fancy word).
Last week in AT, I danced with a woman who felt like she was barely there, but she ended up doing what I consider to showy moves that had nothing to do with me except that I happened to be in front of her at the time. It was amusing.
I also danced with two women who really "make themselves felt" when they dance with me. It was delicious.
Those of you who do WCS might want to check the Swing thread re Skippy. Let's discuss WCS there.
"It may not feel like a connection to you if you are not tuned in to it, but it is and feels great."
Perhaps, but to me feeling truly connected to your partner feels greater.
One of the things that can happen in AT is a sort of push pull in place motion. I move away just a bit. She follows. I move forward. She moves back. This can happen in a very small space. Other movements are possible.
When there is enough energy in the embrace, it feels great.
Without a really good physical connection, though, I don't feel much of anything, although I can be doing the same back and forth motion. We aren't giving and receiving the same way.
Perhaps, but to me feeling truly connected to your partner feels greater.
One of the things that can happen in AT is a sort of push pull in place motion. I move away just a bit. She follows. I move forward. She moves back. This can happen in a very small space. Other movements are possible.
When there is enough energy in the embrace, it feels great.
Without a really good physical connection, though, I don't feel much of anything, although I can be doing the same back and forth motion. We aren't giving and receiving the same way.
"the leader does a move and simply invites the follower to join him."
"And while having a good connection for me has a lot to do with having a more inviting than controlling lead, "
This is what many people teach, and I know for a fact that it is what many people prefer, to my great regret. These same teachers will, however, start out telling the men that they need to step confidently and assertively, rather than tentatively (Is she accepting my lead to step backwards?).
"And while having a good connection for me has a lot to do with having a more inviting than controlling lead, "
This is what many people teach, and I know for a fact that it is what many people prefer, to my great regret. These same teachers will, however, start out telling the men that they need to step confidently and assertively, rather than tentatively (Is she accepting my lead to step backwards?).