what makes a leader/follower good
- Thread starter luh
- Start date
A good question.
A leader must be clear yet give a light light strong lead. Not easy when your a beginner but it is soon picked up. Also the lead must have confidence in what they are doing. In they seem unsure then the follower will not feel as comfortable as they should. A good sense of rythem is vital as well as focus and a smile for the follower to put them at ease (without creeping them out of course).
The follower should feel light on there toes and give the lead complete control over their arms. It so annoys me when the follower moves their arms without aid from the lead, thus leading themselves. It is extremely offputting. Also the follower should not predict what will be coming next. That is solely down to the lead. I sense of rythem would go amiss either.
A leader must be clear yet give a light light strong lead. Not easy when your a beginner but it is soon picked up. Also the lead must have confidence in what they are doing. In they seem unsure then the follower will not feel as comfortable as they should. A good sense of rythem is vital as well as focus and a smile for the follower to put them at ease (without creeping them out of course).
The follower should feel light on there toes and give the lead complete control over their arms. It so annoys me when the follower moves their arms without aid from the lead, thus leading themselves. It is extremely offputting. Also the follower should not predict what will be coming next. That is solely down to the lead. I sense of rythem would go amiss either.
Angel HI
Well-Known Member
IMHO, dance is not about lead/follow...it is about follow and follow.
I believe that what makes a good lead is when the leader realizes that he/she is not leading a step or partner, but a movement. The partner then follows that movement, and the 'lead' follows the follow to the end of the movement.
I believe that what makes a good follow is when he/she does not anticipate, but allows a movement to move him/her, and subsequently follows through to the end of that movement; then begins again to not anticipate the next....
In my experience, this model doesn't work. While it is true that two partnered dancers are both responding to the other, dismissing the communication of a change in the movement fails to provide the student leader with the habits they need to have consistently successful dances.
Thanks, Dancelf for your comment. (Angel had a rough weekend (see AT section) so I was giving him a pass on this one, for a while, but since you responded already...)
We hear this lead then follow the follow message in Argentine Tango a lot.
Frankly, the woman should have a goal of responding to the lead in time to the music and the basic step of the dance the couple is doing, not when she wakes up and decides to do what has been led. This is less true in AT where there is no basic step.
In swing there is usually a pattern of quicks and slow that is used as part of a "basic".
Although leaders should aware of any non response to a lead, and try to compensate for it, telling them that they have to wait for "the follow" to respond sends the wrong message to the women.
Even in AT, if a pattern of quicks or slows is being led in time to the music, I think it is unacceptable for the guy to be expeted to wait for the woman's next step at some random interval while after "following the follow".
P.S. Angel, would now be a good time to ask if you can help me get a particular still photo from the SYTYCD people?
P.P.S. Glad you're OK.
Steve - Master of good timing
We hear this lead then follow the follow message in Argentine Tango a lot.
Frankly, the woman should have a goal of responding to the lead in time to the music and the basic step of the dance the couple is doing, not when she wakes up and decides to do what has been led. This is less true in AT where there is no basic step.
In swing there is usually a pattern of quicks and slow that is used as part of a "basic".
Although leaders should aware of any non response to a lead, and try to compensate for it, telling them that they have to wait for "the follow" to respond sends the wrong message to the women.
Even in AT, if a pattern of quicks or slows is being led in time to the music, I think it is unacceptable for the guy to be expeted to wait for the woman's next step at some random interval while after "following the follow".
P.S. Angel, would now be a good time to ask if you can help me get a particular still photo from the SYTYCD people?
P.P.S. Glad you're OK.
Steve - Master of good timing
Angel HI
Well-Known Member
Forgive this long one.....
Not knocking your experience, but it not only works, but is the goal that every good lead/follow tries to acheive. Perhaps I said it badly. Indulge me a moment...I'll try to state it better.
As lead, I do not wish to dance for the lady; I wish to dance with her. I will not make her do anything. I impart a lead from my body/topline(BR)/embrace(AT), and she follows. I then follow her to the desired end of that movement. The process repeats.
Let's take, for example, a simple forward walk...silver Fox or AT. I impart a lead as described above; the lady responds by moving backward thus out of the space where I will follow to then occupy. This is dance 101, guys.
Thanks.
I'm sure that you will agree...there is a geat misconception by learning AT dancers as to what this really means.
Absolutely. Perhaps, my iteration for DE above, better explains what I evidentally said very poorly before.
Agreed, with minor exception. Dance is not steps. The larger, and more important, part is movement, interpretation, and expression. We allow for this within the dance, and for our partners...in all dances, but particularly in AT.
I don't have much contact with them anylonger, but we can try. PM me.
We are rather sore, but fine. Thanks for caring.
Not knocking your experience, but it not only works, but is the goal that every good lead/follow tries to acheive. Perhaps I said it badly. Indulge me a moment...I'll try to state it better.
As lead, I do not wish to dance for the lady; I wish to dance with her. I will not make her do anything. I impart a lead from my body/topline(BR)/embrace(AT), and she follows. I then follow her to the desired end of that movement. The process repeats.
Let's take, for example, a simple forward walk...silver Fox or AT. I impart a lead as described above; the lady responds by moving backward thus out of the space where I will follow to then occupy. This is dance 101, guys.
Thanks.I'm sure that you will agree...there is a geat misconception by learning AT dancers as to what this really means.
Absolutely. Perhaps, my iteration for DE above, better explains what I evidentally said very poorly before.
Agreed, with minor exception. Dance is not steps. The larger, and more important, part is movement, interpretation, and expression. We allow for this within the dance, and for our partners...in all dances, but particularly in AT.
I don't have much contact with them anylonger, but we can try. PM me.
We are rather sore, but fine. Thanks for caring.
So there are a couple different ideas here, and I don't disagree with all of them.
Forcing partner to do something is bad, we're in agreement there. However, you should be aware that in the swing world (well, in the WCS world), there are multiple schools of thought on the distribution of control in the partnership. At one end of the spectrum, while the movement isn't forced, the leader really is reducing the choices the follower has to a unit set.
Now, in the ballroom world, where your 101 movements are primarily in closed position, re-establishing relative body position is necessary to correctly produce the lead for the next movement. This isn't true in swing, where the 101 movements are primarily in open position. Regardless of where the leader is: if he has connection to his partner, he can lead.
One of the practical realities of the swing world is that from time to time, deliberately or not, the follower will respond to the lead for Y by doing almost-Y. A leader who leads from this moment as though she had actually done Y is a leader that needs to improve. You might consider this a reflection of follow-the-follow. In the swing world, it is more common to describe this as lead-follow-adjust. I don't particularly care for either description, because both descriptions imply that this is a secondary skill that you won't need when you and or partner are good enough, when in fact it's a permanent part of the process.
Another objection I have to "follow her to the desired end of the movement" is that it implies that the lead is an impulse, while the movement is an interval. I've never danced that way myself, but I recall avoiding a number of couples who may have been as they collided on the dance floor. Now, you can dismiss this as being a misunderstanding of "movement", though you are going to have a damn difficult time persuading me that you can successfully communicate a smaller unit than "weight change" in a dance 101 setting.
This suggests that there is a real problem with teaching it this way, neh?
I don't think we're disagreeing significantly about how we might describe the dance when it is being done properly, so much as how we describe the dance to folks who aren't doing it properly yet.
I'm not sure what Steve means here, so I'm going to toss out a different spelling, and see if he agrees that they are the same.
A good lead should be unmistakably deliberate (follower knows you moved that way on purpose), and precise (the entire lead should say A, or the entire lead should say B; a lead that is part A and part B is wrong, as is a lead that is midway between A and B).
It doesn't need to be strong. In fact, once you have learned the deliberate and precise bits, you can then start using the volume of your deliberate and precise lead to communicate additional information to the follower (generally, an expression of how much liberty she is welcome to take).
The precision of the lead is usually measured in inches. Meaning to say that if your lead is more than a palm away from the ideal position, there is significant danger that you are leading something else also/instead.
Dance Elf has the right of it for WCS. Different dance genres have different expectations, methodology, and techniques to achieve the same ends. This is why they are in different genres.
What she described is particular to WCS but discusses a number of ideas that are found in all swing dances in varying amounts.
Lindy Hop for example, the proginitor of West Coast Swing, the leader does physically make his follow move. I step back, this causes my follower's center to shift forward which not just indicates a step but creates the step. Once the followers center has started to shift she will go with the step so as to not fall off her balance and to avoid pulling back which would cancel the lead.
This is much more direct than a lot of dances, but when you are dancing at 200-320 beats per minute, the idea of using signals or "suggestions" is a luxary you can't afford. It is great in theory, but the real world quickly shows it is simply not possible for the communication of an idea in the leaders brain to transmit through his body to demonstrate the movement he wishes the follower to take, have her correctly interpret it and then respond in a timely fashion.
If it is a common misconception amongst new tango dancers, then it is probably being explained poorly, or is too esoteric/intellectualized to be a useful explanation, at that level.
I lead. My partner follows. I am constantly aware of floor conditions, musical changes, and follower positioning and adjusting to all of these on the fly every moment of the dance. To not adjust for anyone of these marks me at best as an intermediate dancer. A follower can provide feedback, and even influence what I choose to lead next... but I am the lead, those choices are mine, including giving the follower freedom to play or even to comletely allow her an opportunity to interpret the music outside of a specific move.
If I lead move after move removing any choice for my follower to change the larger shape of the dance I can expect her to not want to dance with me much, if at all. Seeing, feeling or in any other way of sensing my follower's subtle changes to what I have led and then letting those influence and inspire my next move could be considered following the follow... I submit though it is just good leading, and does not need a special term/phrase to describe it. That by doing so it seems to imply that it is not a necessary or fundamental skill to develop within the dance.
However, as I said, it may be that Tango is just too different and the techniques/expectations/methodologies of one just doesn't cross over to the other.
What she described is particular to WCS but discusses a number of ideas that are found in all swing dances in varying amounts.
Lindy Hop for example, the proginitor of West Coast Swing, the leader does physically make his follow move. I step back, this causes my follower's center to shift forward which not just indicates a step but creates the step. Once the followers center has started to shift she will go with the step so as to not fall off her balance and to avoid pulling back which would cancel the lead.
This is much more direct than a lot of dances, but when you are dancing at 200-320 beats per minute, the idea of using signals or "suggestions" is a luxary you can't afford. It is great in theory, but the real world quickly shows it is simply not possible for the communication of an idea in the leaders brain to transmit through his body to demonstrate the movement he wishes the follower to take, have her correctly interpret it and then respond in a timely fashion.
If it is a common misconception amongst new tango dancers, then it is probably being explained poorly, or is too esoteric/intellectualized to be a useful explanation, at that level.
I lead. My partner follows. I am constantly aware of floor conditions, musical changes, and follower positioning and adjusting to all of these on the fly every moment of the dance. To not adjust for anyone of these marks me at best as an intermediate dancer. A follower can provide feedback, and even influence what I choose to lead next... but I am the lead, those choices are mine, including giving the follower freedom to play or even to comletely allow her an opportunity to interpret the music outside of a specific move.
If I lead move after move removing any choice for my follower to change the larger shape of the dance I can expect her to not want to dance with me much, if at all. Seeing, feeling or in any other way of sensing my follower's subtle changes to what I have led and then letting those influence and inspire my next move could be considered following the follow... I submit though it is just good leading, and does not need a special term/phrase to describe it. That by doing so it seems to imply that it is not a necessary or fundamental skill to develop within the dance.
However, as I said, it may be that Tango is just too different and the techniques/expectations/methodologies of one just doesn't cross over to the other.
There are places in tango where the woman is given the opportunity to move however slowly she wants to move. It is always really nice when she does so to something in the music.
When we lead the woman around ourselves, it is very possible for her to take a step indepdent of our lead. If her timing is off (ie the length and speed of the step doesn;t mach what's happening in the music) we have little choice to "follow her". Then try to get back with the music. (And the men are certainly just as guilty at not beign with the music.)
I think this happens because there is not enough emphasis put on the relationship between the music and how we move.
Actually d nice, as usual, you explain it quite well. I've found that much of what I learned in AT can be applied to WCS.
Your explanation of Lindy, "I step back, this causes my follower's center to shift forward which not just indicates a step but creates the step. Once the followers center has started to shift she will go with the step so as to not fall off her balance and to avoid pulling back which would cancel the lead.", is how I like to dance WCS, too.
It's the same in AT, but we can be connected at the chest when we do it, and are never at arms length. (It sounds like Balboa has much in common with AT, too.)
So, we can say with absolute certainty, that it's the same, but it's different.
When we lead the woman around ourselves, it is very possible for her to take a step indepdent of our lead. If her timing is off (ie the length and speed of the step doesn;t mach what's happening in the music) we have little choice to "follow her". Then try to get back with the music. (And the men are certainly just as guilty at not beign with the music.)
I think this happens because there is not enough emphasis put on the relationship between the music and how we move.
Actually d nice, as usual, you explain it quite well. I've found that much of what I learned in AT can be applied to WCS.
Your explanation of Lindy, "I step back, this causes my follower's center to shift forward which not just indicates a step but creates the step. Once the followers center has started to shift she will go with the step so as to not fall off her balance and to avoid pulling back which would cancel the lead.", is how I like to dance WCS, too.
It's the same in AT, but we can be connected at the chest when we do it, and are never at arms length. (It sounds like Balboa has much in common with AT, too.)
So, we can say with absolute certainty, that it's the same, but it's different.
Angel HI
Well-Known Member
It actually reads as though you agree with most of them, if not all.
And neither in BR. I am actually quite knowledgable of swing and wc, and see no difference between your post above and BR or AT.
Again, this is identical to AT, and 'good' BR (not the step-by-rote-crap). We agree on all points, thus far. But, the descriptions do not imply a secondary skill. The fact that it is a primary skill is a base for my inital point, exactly.
I don't follow your logic, here. Why do you assume that there is a distinctive separation? I have danced this seamlessly for decades; classes, comps, TC, etc. with no problems...or demerits.
Why should there be a difference?
Angel HI
Well-Known Member
I believe this to be the same in all/most dance. Perhaps, it is semantics that is the issue here. When I said I do not make the follow do something, it was not to infer that I do not cause the action. To make her, in my earlier post, inferred to physically, or manipulatingly, force her somewhere. The post of cause and affect to effect is what happens in all dance.
I agree.
Forgive my confusion, please. Isn't this exactly what I have been saying that sparked the controversy that we are all agreeing on in the end?
Angel HI
Well-Known Member
I may be in error, but I don't think so.... we started from
You pulled out one verb, and replaced it with another. As I regard the verb that you removed as an important one, and one that is commonly inadequately understood/communicated, it doesn't seem at all to me that you've been saying the same thing.
You can choose your own rules, but I wouldn't consider "d nice can work out what I really meant" an adequate standard against which to measure a description of dance.
Why I reject "follow and follow": in the communities I've danced in, a number of women take up leading. Once past the initial "oh my god, I had no idea it would be so hard", progress is generally fairly steady until they plateau. They've gathered enough confidence in the role that they don't feel inadequate, they've got some pattern vocabulary to play with, they've figured out that they are still *dancing*, and that the musicality/improv/styling can carry over (which tends to keep them out of the "pattern happy" trap).
But there's a piece missing. And when you give them a chance to experience that piece for themselves, the eyes get REALLY BIG as they discover a door that they hadn't noticed yet.
Follow and follow is a perfect description of the plateau. And the piece that's missing? yeah, it's leading.
Because the distinctive separation is implied by the phrasing that you used? Verb A, then Verb B? That verb B is clearly subsequent to verb A, and has an interval associated with it (to the end....). I also infer from impart that you are talking about a discrete, rather than continuous action, and this is supported by the break in the sentence structure, and the lack of an adverb to communicate the notion of simultaneity.
Had you written instead "I commence a lead... then also follow...." I would not have understood you to be suggesting a separation. Of course, my rephrasing may not match what you really meant, and I likely could have come up with another reason to object.
Best I can do. Hope that helps.
99.44% agreement. I don't like connotations of the verb "adjust" though; a broader verb would be more appropriate.