Same Foot Lunge
FHunsicker
Same foot(SF) lunge is common pattern, and very nice pattern, in foxtrot,
waltz , and tango. It is when man and woman are lunging on the same foot- like
RF/RF. Maybe someone will provide a better definition.
Entry is for man to take 1 step while woman takes 2 steps, or man takes 2
steps and woman takes 3 steps. First question is simply about terminology. Is
man skipping a step properly called a fake? Is it a foot change?
Coming out of lunge the man must either take one more step or one less step
than the woman to get back on the opposite foot. Again what is this called?.
Is there a technique to leading leading entry and exits to SF lunges or does
the woman naturally take the correct number of steps?
The exit that really puzzles me is in tango. Partners are in promenade on RF,
man does step/step while expecting woman to do only single step ending of a
promenade link.
Maybe my questions are not of general interest or of interest only to myself.
I have refrained from asking about kinetic energy, accelerations, and Lorentz
invariance.
Frank Hunsicker
James Marshall
In article <199804160534...@ladder01.news.aol.com> fhuns...@aol.com (FHunsicker) writes:
> Same foot(SF) lunge is common pattern, and very nice pattern, in foxtrot,
>waltz , and tango. It is when man and woman are lunging on the same foot- like
>RF/RF. Maybe someone will provide a better definition.
Perhaps, but that's good enough for me to know what you're talking about.
> Entry is for man to take 1 step while woman takes 2 steps, or man takes 2
>steps and woman takes 3 steps. First question is simply about terminology. Is
>man skipping a step properly called a fake? Is it a foot change?
I'm not certain myself, but I would guess that the proper term would be
"foot change" because I know that term is used in other dances to get the
man and woman on the same foot. I think "fake" is the casual term. :)
> Coming out of lunge the man must either take one more step or one less step
>than the woman to get back on the opposite foot. Again what is this called?.
My guess is that it's still called a foot change. As far as I know, it
doesn't matter if you're going to the same foot or going to opposite feet,
it's still called a foot change.
> Is there a technique to leading leading entry and exits to SF lunges or does
>the woman naturally take the correct number of steps?
Hmmm, I bet I'm not the best person to answer this. However, it is my
understanding that whenever a foot change is done it is done by the man to
match the woman (or unmatch if coming out of it). This way the woman doesn't
have to change what she's doing, so she should just naturally take the
proper number of steps. With the man doing the foot change, it's up to
him to make sure he does it in the right place with the right timing and
whatever so that the couple ends up on the same (or opposite) foot correctly.
Like I said, I could be wrong, but I think this is how it's commonly done.
> The exit that really puzzles me is in tango. Partners are in promenade on RF,
>man does step/step while expecting woman to do only single step ending of a
>promenade link.
I'm not familiar with the promenade link in tango. By your wording it sounds
like it's the woman who has to change her steps. If that's the case, I
guess it has to be led somehow, or choreographed. :)
> Maybe my questions are not of general interest or of interest only to myself.
>I have refrained from asking about kinetic energy, accelerations, and Lorentz
>invariance.
Well, I think we can all learn something from questions and stuff posted
here. And whatever we can't use immediately, we can file away for future
reference. At least that's what I try to do with info that's not of
immediate use. :) And as to the recent physics calculations posts, I
think that's the first time I can remember seeing a discussion based around
physics calculations on here, at least for the year or so I've been reading
these posts. :)
--
. . . . -- James Marshall (CAS) . .
,. -- )-- , , . -- )-- , mars...@astro.umd.edu ., .
' ' http://www.astro.umd.edu/~marshall
"Equations are living things." .
Mike Corbett
On 16 Apr 1998 19:28:09 GMT, mars...@astro.umd.edu (James Marshall)
wrote:
>In article <199804160534...@ladder01.news.aol.com> fhuns...@aol.com (FHunsicker) writes:
>> Coming out of lunge the man must either take one more step or one less step
>>than the woman to get back on the opposite foot. Again what is this called?.
>
>My guess is that it's still called a foot change. As far as I know, it
>doesn't matter if you're going to the same foot or going to opposite feet,
>it's still called a foot change.
It really doesn't matter what name you use. If you add a weight
change then you are syncopating. If you leave one out "foot fake" is
as good a term as any. Regardless, it's a foot change.
>
>> Is there a technique to leading leading entry and exits to SF lunges or does
>>the woman naturally take the correct number of steps?
>
>Hmmm, I bet I'm not the best person to answer this. However, it is my
>understanding that whenever a foot change is done it is done by the man to
>match the woman (or unmatch if coming out of it). This way the woman doesn't
>have to change what she's doing, so she should just naturally take the
>proper number of steps. With the man doing the foot change, it's up to
>him to make sure he does it in the right place with the right timing and
>whatever so that the couple ends up on the same (or opposite) foot correctly.
>Like I said, I could be wrong, but I think this is how it's commonly done.
This is true either by choice or by necessity. Leading the woman to
do a foot change is an advanced technique requiring both ability on
the part of the leader and willingness to trust the leader on the part
of the follower.
I can make a follower change her footwork to match mine but if she
doesn't realize it's ok or intentional she'll fix it. In some cases
followers see me on the same footwork as theirs and change to opposite
because they think they screwed up. Advanced "true followers" will
know when a footwork change is intentional and stay with it until led
to change again because the advanced leader only leads the foot change
when the same foot is needed and back when it is not.
An easy example is accelerated turns or extended chasse' steps in
Waltz.
Mike Corbett - Sunnyvale
Facts are cheap...knowing how to use them is precious...
Understanding the big picture is priceless. Anonymous
Jonathan Atkinson
Frank Hunsicker writes:
>> Is there a technique to leading leading entry and exits to SF lunges >> or does the woman naturally take the correct number of steps?
James Marshall replies:
>> However, it is my understanding that whenever a foot change is done >> it is done by the man to match the woman (or unmatch if coming out of
>> it). This way the woman doesn't have to change what she's doing, so
>> she should just naturally take the proper number of steps.
This is undoubtedly the easiest way to end up on the same foot, when
leading socially. There are a zillion ways to lead into a same-foot
lunge, but anything that sets her into place without a change on her
part is more likely to be successful.
I think the most common entry is taken from a natural turn, either from
PP or following a 3-step. After steps 1-2 (your RF, LF), keep your
weight on your LF with a leftward sway, and over-rotate to face almost
center. This will usually put the lady on her LF, and on your center.
Then compress through the L. leg and take one more step sideways onto
the RF.
This entry also works following natural pivots, after the LF back step.
A really fun and easy way to get into same-foot position is from an
outside swivel. Take steps 1-3 of an open reverse turn, leading the lady
to swivel to PP after placing her weight on step 3. Normally, you would
be on opposite feet here, but what you can do is close your RF to your
LF as she swivels, and she won't even notice your weight change. Point
your LF side as she points her LF through in PP, and voila! -- A
same-foot lunge. And if you're feeling extra sassy, you can continue
moving along with some same-foot walks (aka skaters' walks).
More advanced methods include ideas such as telemarks, rumba cross, and
promenade links. And then there's the American style with its infinite
possibilities. But these are a little trickier to lead socially, and
require a follower with some know-how.
Hope this helps.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Atkinson
Andy Broomsgrove
In article <353d615a....@nntp.best.com>, corb...@concentric.net
(Mike Corbett) wrote:
> This is true either by choice or by necessity. Leading the woman to
> do a foot change is an advanced technique requiring both ability on
> the part of the leader and willingness to trust the leader on the part
> of the follower.
>
> I can make a follower change her footwork to match mine but if she
> doesn't realize it's ok or intentional she'll fix it. In some cases
> followers see me on the same footwork as theirs and change to opposite
> because they think they screwed up. Advanced "true followers" will
> know when a footwork change is intentional and stay with it until led
> to change again because the advanced leader only leads the foot change
> when the same foot is needed and back when it is not.
>
> An easy example is accelerated turns or extended chasse' steps in
> Waltz.
>
Erm well.
I suppose if a foot change is accomplished by one partner doing two steps
to the other partners one it is a bit debatable as to who has actually
changed feet. Essentially I think I would argue that it is always the
leader who has changed by leading something different to what he has
danced himself but I guess others could take a different view on that.
In international style at least it would be quite wrong for a follower to
change step because she has noticed she is on the same foot as the leader,
she has to assume that what has been led is correct because she doesn't
know what is going to happen next (I'm assuming that the couple are free
dancing and not following a routine of any form).
There is a situation when I think it's unarguable as to whether the leader
or follower has changed step and that is when the change is accomplished
by dancing a tap rather than a step when it is pretty obvious that whoever
has tapped has changed. However I can't readily think of any situation in
International Style where the follower is led to tap, and I'm not sure how
exactly you could communicate that.
As I said elsewhere, I do know a couple of bits of choreography where the
follower does tap to change feet but I would not say that there was any
lead and follow going on - in both cases that come to mind the couple are
dancing side by side with no physical contact at all.
Andy
PS
I don't particularly like choreographed things like that and don't often
do them, its just something that was taught in class.
Andy Broomsgrove
In article <6h5m49$idv$1...@hecate.umd.edu>, mars...@astro.umd.edu (James
Marshall) wrote:
> In article <199804160534...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
> > fhuns...@aol.com (FHunsicker) writes:
> > Same foot(SF) lunge is common pattern, and very nice pattern, in
> > foxtrot,
> >waltz , and tango. It is when man and woman are lunging on the same
> foot- like
> >RF/RF. Maybe someone will provide a better definition.
>
> Perhaps, but that's good enough for me to know what you're talking
> about.
>
Yes, I think your definition is good enough.
> > Entry is for man to take 1 step while woman takes 2 steps, or man
> > takes 2
> >steps and woman takes 3 steps. First question is simply about
> terminology. Is
> >man skipping a step properly called a fake? Is it a foot change?
>
> I'm not certain myself, but I would guess that the proper term would be
> "foot change" because I know that term is used in other dances to get
> the
> man and woman on the same foot. I think "fake" is the casual term. :)
>
I don't think I've ever heard the term "Fake" used in this context. It may
well be an American term (I'm in the UK) but we always talk about changing
foot.
> > Coming out of lunge the man must either take one more step or one
> > less step
> >than the woman to get back on the opposite foot. Again what is this
> called?.
>
> My guess is that it's still called a foot change. As far as I know, it
> doesn't matter if you're going to the same foot or going to opposite
> feet,
> it's still called a foot change.
>
Again this is the term I would use.
> > Is there a technique to leading leading entry and exits to SF lunges
> > or does
> >the woman naturally take the correct number of steps?
>
> Hmmm, I bet I'm not the best person to answer this. However, it is my
> understanding that whenever a foot change is done it is done by the man
> to
> match the woman (or unmatch if coming out of it). This way the woman
> doesn't
> have to change what she's doing, so she should just naturally take the
> proper number of steps. With the man doing the foot change, it's up to
> him to make sure he does it in the right place with the right timing and
> whatever so that the couple ends up on the same (or opposite) foot
> correctly.
> Like I said, I could be wrong, but I think this is how it's commonly
> done.
Um well. If you're doing proper lead and follow then I think it has to be
the man that does the change, I can't think of a way you could
specifically lead the woman to change foot.
I do actually know one or two bits of choreography where the woman changes
step, but they are choreography rather than lead and follow and I think
the woman could only dance it if she knows it.
>
> > The exit that really puzzles me is in tango. Partners are in
> > promenade on RF,
> >man does step/step while expecting woman to do only single step ending
> of a
> >promenade link.
>
> I'm not familiar with the promenade link in tango. By your wording it
> sounds
> like it's the woman who has to change her steps. If that's the case, I
> guess it has to be led somehow, or choreographed. :)
>
The woman is effectively in the same position as the end of a link as you
say and you lead her forward in a continuous movement for a slow while you
actually do the extra step to change foot without her feeling that you've
done it. If you want her to dance quick quick you'd lead
move-stop-move-stop, as it is you lead moooooove-stop - if you see what I
mean.
Andy
Mike Corbett
On 17 Apr 1998 00:45:22 GMT, abroomsg@REMOVEcix..co.uk (Andy
Broomsgrove) wrote:
>In article <353d615a....@nntp.best.com>, corb...@concentric.net
>(Mike Corbett) wrote:
>
>> This is true either by choice or by necessity. Leading the woman to
>> do a foot change is an advanced technique requiring both ability on
>> the part of the leader and willingness to trust the leader on the part
>> of the follower.
>>
>> I can make a follower change her footwork to match mine but if she
>> doesn't realize it's ok or intentional she'll fix it. In some cases
>> followers see me on the same footwork as theirs and change to opposite
>> because they think they screwed up. Advanced "true followers" will
>> know when a footwork change is intentional and stay with it until led
>> to change again because the advanced leader only leads the foot change
>> when the same foot is needed and back when it is not.
>>
>> An easy example is accelerated turns or extended chasse' steps in
>> Waltz.
>>
>
>Erm well.
>
>I suppose if a foot change is accomplished by one partner doing two steps
>to the other partners one it is a bit debatable as to who has actually
>changed feet. Essentially I think I would argue that it is always the
>leader who has changed by leading something different to what he has
>danced himself but I guess others could take a different view on that.
Like I said, leading the follower to change feet is a more advanced
technique than the leader changing feet. I'm not limiting my comments
to foxtrot or even to "ballroom" dances with extensive "syllabus"
material. In foxtrot, where it's common to vary the combination of
quicks and slows, your point is well taken, in that the leader has
danced different from what he leads but he still led the follower to
step as she did.
There are many instances (particularly in non-syllabus material) where
the advanced leader will lead an advanced follower to make a
non-standard extra weight change to accomplish a same foot or back to
opposite foot status.
>In international style at least it would be quite wrong for a follower to
>change step because she has noticed she is on the same foot as the leader,
>she has to assume that what has been led is correct because she doesn't
>know what is going to happen next (I'm assuming that the couple are free
>dancing and not following a routine of any form).
This would be true for other dances as well, provided the foot change
was lead or intentional. Nevertheless beginners often make exactly
that mistake.
>
>There is a situation when I think it's unarguable as to whether the leader
>or follower has changed step and that is when the change is accomplished
>by dancing a tap rather than a step when it is pretty obvious that whoever
>has tapped has changed. However I can't readily think of any situation in
>International Style where the follower is led to tap, and I'm not sure how
>exactly you could communicate that.
International style or not, that would be difficult and I cannot give
an example.
Mike Corbett
On 17 Apr 1998 00:45:21 GMT, abroomsg@REMOVEcix..co.uk (Andy
Broomsgrove) wrote:
>In article <6h5m49$idv$1...@hecate.umd.edu>, mars...@astro.umd.edu (James
>Marshall) wrote:
>
>> In article <199804160534...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
>> > fhuns...@aol.com (FHunsicker) writes:
>>
>> I'm not certain myself, but I would guess that the proper term would be
>> "foot change" because I know that term is used in other dances to get
>> the
>> man and woman on the same foot. I think "fake" is the casual term. :)
>>
>
>I don't think I've ever heard the term "Fake" used in this context. It may
>well be an American term (I'm in the UK) but we always talk about changing
>foot.
The context in which I have used and heard used the term "foot fake"
is where the leader chooses to skip a weight change and to do so as
covertly as possible. A follower could do the same but it would
likely be a choreographed action.
In Waltz, for instance, I prefer the look of the foot fake over the
syncopation unless the figure requires me to syncopate. In
competition I will commonly enter the shadow footwork by using an
accelerated turn and exit with a hold and foot fake. The reason is
that I want the judges to see that the foot change was intentional but
don't want to add a step simply for that purpose. After completing a
shadow footwork sequence the judges know it was intentional so I'll
use my preferred exit and "foot fake". Not all skipped weight changes
are "foot fakes". The idea is to conceal it. I expect it is an
American term, and a casual one, at that.
Daniel Testa
In article <353f6bed....@nntp.best.com>,
Mike Corbett <corb...@concentric.net> wrote:
>On 17 Apr 1998 00:45:22 GMT, abroomsg@REMOVEcix..co.uk (Andy
>Broomsgrove) wrote:
>
Lot's of stuff snipped for brevity purpose
>
>>
>>There is a situation when I think it's unarguable as to whether the leader
>>or follower has changed step and that is when the change is accomplished
>>by dancing a tap rather than a step when it is pretty obvious that whoever
>>has tapped has changed. However I can't readily think of any situation in
>>International Style where the follower is led to tap, and I'm not sure how
>>exactly you could communicate that.
>
>International style or not, that would be difficult and I cannot give
>an example.
>
>
a West Coast Swing Class where they are doing 12345&6 as oppossed to
123&45&6, they usually tap on count 3.
Would this count?
--
____________________________________________________________________________
Daniel Testa email:tes...@rpi.edu
Mike Corbett
On 17 Apr 1998 13:46:26 -0400, tes...@alumni.rpi.edu (Daniel Testa)
wrote:
>In article <353f6bed....@nntp.best.com>,
>Mike Corbett <corb...@concentric.net> wrote:
>>On 17 Apr 1998 00:45:22 GMT, abroomsg@REMOVEcix..co.uk (Andy
>Hi, I can think of one situation where the follower is led to tap. In
>a West Coast Swing Class where they are doing 12345&6 as oppossed to
>123&45&6, they usually tap on count 3.
>
>Would this count?
Only if you can explain how the leader leads the follower to tap. By
definition "they usually" as it refers to the follower, would be the
opposite of leading a foot change. If it's a choice by the follower
to tap instead of triple that's not a led foot change.
Daniel Testa
In article <35439ebb....@nntp.best.com>,
Mike Corbett <corb...@concentric.net> wrote:
>On 17 Apr 1998 13:46:26 -0400, tes...@alumni.rpi.edu (Daniel Testa)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <353f6bed....@nntp.best.com>,
>>Mike Corbett <corb...@concentric.net> wrote:
>>>On 17 Apr 1998 00:45:22 GMT, abroomsg@REMOVEcix..co.uk (Andy
>
>>Hi, I can think of one situation where the follower is led to tap. In
>>a West Coast Swing Class where they are doing 12345&6 as oppossed to
>>123&45&6, they usually tap on count 3.
>>
>>Would this count?
>
>Only if you can explain how the leader leads the follower to tap. By
>definition "they usually" as it refers to the follower, would be the
>opposite of leading a foot change. If it's a choice by the follower
>to tap instead of triple that's not a led foot change.
>
>
just meant to be an example where the follower does a tap as part of
a figure that is being led in West Coast Swing. I guess my question is,
if the leader leads a figure that includes a tap and then steps when
the follower is tapping, would this count?
By the way, I've been lurking and enjoyed and learned something from the
waltz stride discussion. Thanks to all who posted. I'll be back soon
looking for more two-step assistance. I still have a long way to go
before I can call myself an advanced beginner
Mike Corbett
On 17 Apr 1998 14:59:55 -0400, tes...@alumni.rpi.edu (Daniel Testa)
wrote:
>>
>I know that you and Andy were discussing foot changes. My example was
>just meant to be an example where the follower does a tap as part of
>a figure that is being led in West Coast Swing. I guess my question is,
>if the leader leads a figure that includes a tap and then steps when
>the follower is tapping, would this count?
Not as a led foot change, no. Why do you want it to "count"? In WCS
it is common for the leader and follower to use different footwork.
It's related to individual choice and is neither led nor followed, for
the most part. Generally, tap steps may be substituted for triples by
either partner, at will and to do so is common.
I do lead figures in WCS that require the follower to make a specific
foot change in order to follow the lead. I will also lead in such a
way that it's difficult for the follower to triple step and much
easier to "step, flick" but I can think of no way to lead her to tap
instead of make a weight change. Again, to actually lead a follower
to make a specific foot change at a specific time and for a specific
purpose is an advanced technique requiring both advanced following and
leading skills. This is as true for WCS as for any other dance.
Richard Fowler
Hello all! (posted & sent)
In article <6h5m49$idv$1...@hecate.umd.edu>, mars...@astro.umd.edu
says...
>In article <199804160534...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
fhuns...@aol.com
>(FHunsicker) writes:
<snip--same foot lunge description and the foot change/fake discussion
dealing with one partner taking an even number of steps while the other
takes an odd number>
>> Is there a technique to leading leading entry and exits to SF lunges or
does
>>the woman naturally take the correct number of steps?
>
>Hmmm, I bet I'm not the best person to answer this.
I'll take a stab at it! :^) Consider the option in which the woman takes one
more step than the man. This means that at some point she is making a
weight change while he remains over the same point. In order for him to
stay where he is while leading her to continue moving, he must be
rotating. The key is maintaining the physical connection with the partner
which means he has to rotate her without over-rotating his torso so that it
disconnects from her. Effectively, he is turning them both to the right
while restricting his torso movement so that it feels as if it is going to the
left (or else he loses he and she ends up in his left armpit). This is why
most start in a right (out)side position and the same foot lunge (SFL)
commences in something that is somewhere that would be a left (out)side
position were you to be moving on the "normal" opposing foot instead of
the same foot. The exit is frequently a variant of the entrance--the man
rotates while she moves. In circumstances where the man is taking one
more step than the woman, the rotation is around her such that she
cannot make a weight change (like leading her to do a heel turn, but with
enough elevation so that a weight change in place would feel awkward (as
opposed to the low rotation in the heel turn that forces the feet to remain
down and in place).
That sounds confusing enough. Take with a grain of salt, as with
anything any teacher/theoretician proposes.
Please copy responses to e-mail, as I only peruse this newgroup
occassionally to see if anythign interesting (like this) sprouts up. :^)
--
Richard Fowler | Chair, Drakalor Chain Board of Tourism
thi...@texas.net | Linguist/Dancer/Teacher/netizen
http://lonestar.texas.net/~thinker/ | Ballroom Dance Teacher/Coach
Be gerundive. I'd rather be offended than censored. Carpe Deum.
Bill Sherman
In article <353f6bed....@nntp.best.com>,
Mike Corbett <corb...@concentric.net> wrote:
>On 17 Apr 1998 00:45:22 GMT, abroomsg@REMOVEcix..co.uk (Andy
>
>>In article <353d615a....@nntp.best.com>, corb...@concentric.net
>>(Mike Corbett) wrote:
>>...However I can't readily think of any situation in
>>International Style where the follower is led to tap, and I'm not sure how
>>exactly you could communicate that.
>
>International style or not, that would be difficult and I cannot give
>an example.
I can think of three examples of lead taps: the Brush Tap in
International Tango, (which is lead mostly by the man brushing and
tapping, and the woman feeling his leg movement and following along),
the Coup De Pique in Paso Doble and the Flicks to Breaks in Jive,
(which are lead by a tilt of the upper body with no side motion to
indicate a change of weight).
While I don't know of an example, I could easily imagine
leading a figure with a series of taps, where the man makes a foot
switch by taking a step while leading the woman to continue with the
taps... (Hmmm.. this might not be such a bad thing to try. You'd get
contra Toe Heel Swivels.)
Cheers,
Bill Sherman
Mike Corbett
On 20 Apr 1998 23:29:21 GMT, she...@sol1.lrsm.upenn.edu (Bill
Sherman) wrote:
I'm not directly familiar with those figures, Bill, but our context
was related to accomplishing a foot change to shadow footwork by
leading the follower to tap instead of weight a foot.
Away from the ballroom world it's not so common consider the "leading"
of a syllabus figure (that would include known step patterns that are
completed after conscious recognition) in the same context as "lead
and follow" dancing. In general, if a conscious reaction is
"required" by the follower to complete a figure or she needs to know
the figure to dance it, I don't consider it "lead and follow".
Regardless, your examples are not valid in this particular context.
Specifically when you say "leading a figure with a series of taps" you
give an example of tit for tat dancing where the leader starts a
figure and alters his own footwork. The follower is not led to
continue tapping, she continues tapping in the absence of a lead to do
otherwise. Still a different context and the taps themselves are not
led per se, they are "shown".
Andy Broomsgrove
In article <6hgloh$7dh$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>, she...@sol1.lrsm.upenn.edu
(Bill Sherman) wrote:
> I can think of three examples of lead taps: the Brush Tap in
> International Tango, (which is lead mostly by the man brushing and
> tapping, and the woman feeling his leg movement and following along),
Er well, yes, OK, you are technically correct with that, certainly, but
it's not quite what I had in mind in that you are not leading the lady to
tap to deliberately cause her to change foot whilst you do not, you are
actually both tapping and no foot change is involved.
> the Coup De Pique in Paso Doble
I'm not much of a Paso Doble dancer (I have done a few lessons some time
ago, but that's all) mainly because it's rarely played or danced outside
of competition here in the UK so I certainly couldn't comment on that with
authority but such experience I have of this dance and comments made to me
about it have always suggested that most of the figures are choreographed
rather than led.
It may also be that you are not trying to get her to change foot whilst
you do not, of course.
>and the Flicks to Breaks in Jive,
> (which are lead by a tilt of the upper body with no side motion to
> indicate a change of weight).
If you're describing the figure I believe you are describing I think
partners are tapping? so my above applies.
> While I don't know of an example, I could easily imagine
> leading a figure with a series of taps, where the man makes a foot
> switch by taking a step while leading the woman to continue with the
> taps...
It's the "easily" bit that I can't actually imagine! Let me put the
question (should that be problem?) to you.
You are standing still in close or open hold in any dance. On the next
step (in any direction) you want the woman to tap whilst you step - ie she
has to feel that you've tapped (and your weight hasn't therefor changed)
when you've actually stepped (and your weight in actuality has changed).
You are dancing with a reasonably experienced partner, but not someone
with whom you regularly dance. You are free dancing, ie you are not
dancing any kind of routine or combination that has been put together for
you by a teacher (or in a book, I suppose) and you partner has no idea
what you are going to do next other than by following your lead.
Is this so easy now? - That's not actually a rhetorical question, if you
do have a way of doing that I'd be interested to hear.
Andy
Andy Broomsgrove
In article <353cb402...@nntp.best.com>, corb...@concentric.net
(Mike Corbett) wrote:
> Away from the ballroom world it's not so common consider the "leading"
> of a syllabus figure (that would include known step patterns that are
> completed after conscious recognition) in the same context as "lead
> and follow" dancing. In general, if a conscious reaction is
> "required" by the follower to complete a figure or she needs to know
> the figure to dance it, I don't consider it "lead and follow".
> Regardless, your examples are not valid in this particular context.
To be fair to Bill (although I agree with you that I don't think any of
the figures he mentions actually accomplish a led tap by the follower and
step by the leader - see my response to his post) the figures he mentions
(except possibly the Paso figure - which I don't know much about) do
involve lead and follow even though they are documented figures.
For your info the brush tap as documented together with my explanation of
the lead/follow is as follows: (leaders steps, followers normal opposite)
LF forward (follower lead to step, could do anything next)
RF to side (ditto)
LF Brushes to RF
without weight (follower feels the move to brush and does so - as
Bill described. Follower might here guess the
next step as being a tap because that's what
the book says but the leader could choose to
do something else rather than tap if he wishes)
Tap LF to side (follower feels there's no weight change so taps)
without weight
So the effect is that the follower can't guess the move until the third
step of the four is very nearly finished and even then she couldn't be
absolutely sure.
And I would submit that there are very few dances in which a follower
can't often make an educated guess as to the last step of any move having
got to the penultimate step even though there is no "official"
documentation for the dance.
The thing to remember here is that the text books in International Style
were simply arrived at by documenting how those recognised as being the
world's top dancers by their peers danced the various dances, they weren't
invented by theoreticians to make life difficult for those learning the
dances but rather more as an attempt to make it possible for them to
develop their dancing up to the standard of the top dancers.
I do accept that the documentation isn't exactly light bed time reading
though :)
Andy
tango...@hotmail.com
In article <memo.19980421...@abroomsg.compulink.co.uk>,
abroomsg@REMOVEcix..co.uk wrote:
> You are dancing with a reasonably experienced partner, but not someone
> with whom you regularly dance. You are free dancing, ie you are not
> dancing any kind of routine or combination that has been put together for
> you by a teacher (or in a book, I suppose) and you partner has no idea
> what you are going to do next other than by following your lead.
I don't know if this counts as I've only caught this discussion late on but it
strikes me that this is possible in Latin.
My first thought is that there are many places where I, as leader, can cause
the follower to be on a different foot relative to me. Take basic Samba,
for instance - do some botafogas, man does a flick-ball-change and voila! But
I am thinking this doesn't count since I have done the change rather than my
partner ?
Alternatively, from my partner's solo spin I can, by leading my body weight
appropriately early make my partner step out of the spin on the foot I desire.
This does require a certain level of competence on the follower: that they
will spin with center weight, that they can follow a lead.
Still not sure if either of those are what Andrew is looking for!
Of course, if you go to any latin club you see total strangers dancing
freeform salsa with a zillion foot changes, none of which either person has
any inkling of!
Paul (not a tangodancer at all anymore)
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Mike Corbett
On Tue, 21 Apr 1998 14:31:26 -0600, tango...@hotmail.com wrote:
>In article <memo.19980421...@abroomsg.compulink.co.uk>,
> abroomsg@REMOVEcix..co.uk wrote:
>
>> You are dancing with a reasonably experienced partner, but not someone
>> with whom you regularly dance. You are free dancing, ie you are not
>> dancing any kind of routine or combination that has been put together for
>> you by a teacher (or in a book, I suppose) and you partner has no idea
>> what you are going to do next other than by following your lead.
>
>I don't know if this counts as I've only caught this discussion late on but it
>strikes me that this is possible in Latin.
>
>My first thought is that there are many places where I, as leader, can cause
>the follower to be on a different foot relative to me. Take basic Samba,
>for instance - do some botafogas, man does a flick-ball-change and voila! But
>I am thinking this doesn't count since I have done the change rather than my
>partner ?
Exactly. You didn't "cause" her to do a foot change.
>
>Alternatively, from my partner's solo spin I can, by leading my body weight
>appropriately early make my partner step out of the spin on the foot I desire.
>This does require a certain level of competence on the follower: that they
>will spin with center weight, that they can follow a lead.
... and that they will trust that you intended them to come out on the
wrong foot instead of correcting but yes, that's leading a foot change
and a good description of what is involved. The most current context
of the discussion, however, is if and how one might lead a follower to
tap step instead of take weight.
Jonathan Atkinson
There are several ways to truly 'lead' foot changes (as opposed to just
switching feet yourself). The most common, as someone else pointed out,
is through rotation. If you stand at the center point of a circle and
rotate in place, your partner, who is on the outside edge of the circle,
will have to take steps in order to stay in dance position with you.
This is the theory behind leading same-foot lunges, natural and reverse
twist turns, telespins, standing spins, running wings, etc.
By the same token, if you want to lead your partner to take fewer steps
than you, you would have to set her on the center point of a circle
while you walk around the outside. You don't see this kind of thing
nearly as often. It can be done, but it rarely actually is. The only
example I can think of is a Tango variation where the man leads the lady
into a cruzara (or, lock step for those of you Int'l dancers out there),
and then walks around her while she un-twists her feet.
I don't beleive that the man can actually lead a lady to tap. A tap is a
very specific foot action. He can lead her into a position without
changing weight, but the tap is up to her. In west coast swing for
example, I can lead my partner to stop on 3 without changing weight. But
what she choses to do with the free foot is left to her free will... she
can tap, flick, brush, kick, point, or do just about anything else she
feels like doing at that instant.
The matter of a tango brush-tap is a rather strange one. The man does
actually manipulate the lady's free foot action to some degree, through
the connection between the upper leg. But even here, it's not the
tapping action itself that he is leading. He can only indicate the
approximate position that he wants her foot to move to.
Sinerely,
Jonathan Atkinson
tango...@hotmail.com
In article <3543ffdf....@nntp.best.com>,
corb...@concentric.net (Mike Corbett) wrote:
>
> >for instance - do some botafogas, man does a flick-ball-change and voila!
> Exactly. You didn't "cause" her to do a foot change.
Drat!
> and a good description of what is involved. The most current context
> of the discussion, however, is if and how one might lead a follower to
> tap step instead of take weight.
Hmmmm... okay what about in Tango. Lead the follower into a promenade link.
The third step after the link step could be a tap into walks or I could choose
to continue walking into, say, a swivel. Either way, the follower won't know
what's coming until the timing of bringing them out of promenade. I don't do
Standard any more but I think this is correct.
Does that count ?!
Paul
Mike Corbett
On Wed, 22 Apr 1998 06:51:50 -0600, tango...@hotmail.com wrote:
>In article <3543ffdf....@nntp.best.com>,
> corb...@concentric.net (Mike Corbett) wrote:
>>
>
>> >for instance - do some botafogas, man does a flick-ball-change and voila!
>> Exactly. You didn't "cause" her to do a foot change.
>
>Drat!
>
>> and a good description of what is involved. The most current context
>> of the discussion, however, is if and how one might lead a follower to
>> tap step instead of take weight.
>
>Hmmmm... okay what about in Tango. Lead the follower into a promenade link.
>The third step after the link step could be a tap into walks or I could choose
>to continue walking into, say, a swivel. Either way, the follower won't know
>what's coming until the timing of bringing them out of promenade. I don't do
>Standard any more but I think this is correct.
>
>Does that count ?!
I'm no referee of "what counts" but what we are talking about is
actually leading the follower's specific step. You seem to be looking
for figures that include some sort of foot change or different
footwork within them. We are specifically speaking of physically
causing the follower to take an extra step or leave one out without
that action being part of a known figure and where, although she has a
choice, would find stepping in any other way to be unnatural or
uncomfortable.
Any syllabus or choreographed figure where the partners know the steps
before the figure is complete would not fit in the category of
"leading a foot change". So, in your example above, you say "the
third step after the link step *could* be a tap..." Whose third step?
If the follower's. How did you lead her to do that step at that time?
Smcnyb
>
>By the same token, if you want to lead your partner to take fewer steps
>than you, you would have to set her on the center point of a circle
>while you walk around the outside. You don't see this kind of thing
>nearly as often. It can be done, but it rarely actually is. The only
>example I can think of is a Tango variation>>
I have seen this done by a top British ballroom dancer in waltz, where he
stepped forward on his right foot, placing the lady on her left foot. The lady
then assumed an attitude position with her right foot, and the man walked
around her in waltz time for one-two-three, then rotated on his right foot
into a same foot lunge on four-five-six. The sequence was done in the corner at
the end of a short wall.
Andy Broomsgrove
In article <6his6e$e1r$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, tango...@hotmail.com ()
wrote:
> My first thought is that there are many places where I, as leader, can
> cause
> the follower to be on a different foot relative to me. Take basic Samba,
> for instance - do some botafogas, man does a flick-ball-change and
> voila! But
> I am thinking this doesn't count since I have done the change rather
> than my
> partner ?
>
> Alternatively, from my partner's solo spin I can, by leading my body
> weight
> appropriately early make my partner step out of the spin on the foot I
> desire.
> This does require a certain level of competence on the follower: that
> they
> will spin with center weight, that they can follow a lead.
>
> Still not sure if either of those are what Andrew is looking for!
>
No not really, I don't think so. The former definitely doesn't count.
If you lead someone out of a spin done as a "stepping round" type spin a
beat early you actually haven't changed feet because she still has to do
something on what would have been the last beat of the spin and, unless
she taps, she won't have changed foot. If she is doing a "stand on one
foot and spin round" type spin then she will come out on the same foot
whenever you stop her.
I do have to say that the term "solo spin" isn't used in any dance form
I'm familiar with in the UK so I may be mis-interpreting what you are
suggesting.
The question was actually posed as a response to somebody (sorry, I've
forgotten his name off the top of my head) who said he could easily lead a
follower to change foot as a specific action that was undeniably the
follower changing foot rather than the leader.
The only method so far suggested is by leading the follower to tap without
tapping yourself and no-one has been able to come up with a way of doing
that.
The guy concerned named a number of International steps in which this
happened, my contention is that this is not so (I am also an Int style
dancer). The example was set up to see whether he (or anyone else) could
say how he would get the follower to tap on the next step from the given
starting position. Though not necessarily in Int. Style.
> Of course, if you go to any latin club you see total strangers dancing
> freeform salsa with a zillion foot changes, none of which either person
> has
> any inkling of!
>
<grin>
Andy
Andy Broomsgrove
In article <353D45...@earthlink.net>, ELN/walt...@earthlink.net
(Jonathan Atkinson) wrote:
> There are several ways to truly 'lead' foot changes (as opposed to just
> switching feet yourself). The most common, as someone else pointed out,
> is through rotation. If you stand at the center point of a circle and
> rotate in place, your partner, who is on the outside edge of the circle,
> will have to take steps in order to stay in dance position with you.
> This is the theory behind leading same-foot lunges, natural and reverse
> twist turns, telespins, standing spins, running wings, etc.
>
<snip>
Sure, though as I said in another post, it's a debatable point as to
whether its the leader or the follower who's actually changed feet in that
type of move. Essentially the follower has taken three steps to the
leaders two, but you could either say that the follower has been led to
dance an extra step or you could say that the leader has led a move in
which he is able to dance one less step. It's semantics in some ways , of
course, but the thread has been debating whether there is any way in which
a follower can be led to change step in some way in which it is undeniably
she that has changed.
The answer so far seems to be no.
I've snipped the rest of your post because, as far as I can see, you are
simply agreeing with what has already been said by some of us.
Andy
> By the same token, if you want to lead your partner to take fewer steps
> than you, you would have to set her on the center point of a circle
> while you walk around the outside. You don't see this kind of thing
> nearly as often. It can be done, but it rarely actually is. The only
Mike Corbett
On 22 Apr 1998 22:10:42 GMT, abroomsg@REMOVEcix..co.uk (Andy
Broomsgrove) wrote:
>In article <6his6e$e1r$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, tango...@hotmail.com ()
>wrote:
>> Alternatively, from my partner's solo spin I can, by leading my body
>> weight
>> appropriately early make my partner step out of the spin on the foot I
>> desire.
>> This does require a certain level of competence on the follower: that
>> they
>> will spin with center weight, that they can follow a lead.
>>
>> Still not sure if either of those are what Andrew is looking for!
>>
>
>No not really, I don't think so. The former definitely doesn't count.
>
>If you lead someone out of a spin done as a "stepping round" type spin a
>beat early you actually haven't changed feet because she still has to do
>something on what would have been the last beat of the spin and, unless
>she taps, she won't have changed foot. If she is doing a "stand on one
>foot and spin round" type spin then she will come out on the same foot
>whenever you stop her.
I'm not certain what he means by solo spin here either but using your
one footed spin as an example and Waltz as the dance, if she's
spinning on the left foot and you bring her out stepping on her right
foot a beat early while you have maintained standard weight changes
she will be on your footwork. If this was your intention, you have
led a foot change.
>
>I do have to say that the term "solo spin" isn't used in any dance form
>I'm familiar with in the UK so I may be mis-interpreting what you are
>suggesting.
>
>The question was actually posed as a response to somebody (sorry, I've
>forgotten his name off the top of my head) who said he could easily lead a
>follower to change foot as a specific action that was undeniably the
>follower changing foot rather than the leader.
I have said that and used the example of an accelerated turn in Waltz
where I would cause the follower to take an extra step. It's quite
common in CW competitive Waltz. I am describing a situation where the
leader takes 3 steps in 3 beats while the follower steps 4, as in
1,2&3. The procedure is most commonly followed by a similar one so
that the couple can remain on phrase after completing any planned
figures requiring the shadow footwork.
>
>The only method so far suggested is by leading the follower to tap without
>tapping yourself and no-one has been able to come up with a way of doing
>that.
The challenge is still down.
>The guy concerned named a number of International steps in which this
>happened, my contention is that this is not so (I am also an Int style
>dancer). The example was set up to see whether he (or anyone else) could
>say how he would get the follower to tap on the next step from the given
>starting position. Though not necessarily in Int. Style.
Yes figures were named where tap steps were a known element but no
mention was made of how to actually cause the follower to tap in place
of a weight change.
Jonathan Atkinson
Smcnyb wrote:
> I have seen this done by a top British ballroom dancer in waltz, where he
> stepped forward on his right foot, placing the lady on her left foot. The lady
> then assumed an attitude position with her right foot, and the man walked
> around her in waltz time for one-two-three, then rotated on his right foot
> into a same foot lunge on four-five-six. The sequence was done in the corner at
> the end of a short wall.
This kind of thing is even more common in the American style. Come to
think of it, my partner and I have a few things like it in our Waltz,
Foxtrot, and Viennese. Debatable as to whether it's actually led,
though. I tend to think that in general, a Standing Spin is more like a
Spot Run where the lady "decides" to lift a leg into a position, rather
than actually being led to lift the leg. However, the fact that he began
by leading her into a Rudolf Ronde suggests that he did in fact lead the
leg-lift itself. The question is, can you socially lead the lady *not*
to drop her leg, following a Rudolf?
Spot Runs are an interesting issue in and of themselves. They're
certainly very easy to lead, and the person who takes more steps is
obviously the one who takes to the outside of the rotation. The most
challenging part of a Spot Run is the exit... getting synchronized with
the feet again.
Jonathan Atkinson
Ron Nicholson
corb...@concentric.net (Mike Corbett) allegedly wrote:
> Yes figures were named where tap steps were a known element but
> no mention was made of how to actually cause the follower to
> tap in place of a weight change.
"tap"? "cause"?
If a "tap" step is within the vocabulary of patterns that a
particular follower is capable of executing upon the detection
of a lead sufficient to call out that pattern from her (muscle)
memory, as opposed to some alternate pattern, then I suppose
that one could say that the "tap" was "caused" by the leader.
On the other hand, if no step resembling a tap exists in a
particular dance, or at a particular followers level, then
anything that can be called a lead for a tap is probably close
to impossible in that situation.
If, by "tap", one means the exact sonic energy generated by
impact of the followers foot, I'm not sure that's within the
realm of things under control via a lead. If, by "tap", one
means a foot motion towards and away from a spot without a
complete weight change, then there are lots of "tap" step in
various dances. Brush Tap in Intl. Tango, various half swivels
in WCS/ECS/Jive (kick/ball/change, etc.) are within the
vocabulary of what many people call lead-follow dancing.
The follower shouldn't be looking at the leaders feet anyway.
So any leader good enough to mimic the lead via only his frame
of one of these brushes/swivels/kicks/etc. patterns could be
said to be leading a "tap" without the appropriate matching
footwork. (In fact, "good" is not a requirement here. I've
led a follower though an intended swivel/unswivel sequence
while accidentally ending up on the wrong foot for myself!)
Which is all probably irrelevant anyway. Social dancing
requires taking steps, which are changes of weight, which are
changes of feet. It's purely a matter of convention who has
"changed" foot from the always changing pattern of changing
foot weightings.
YMMV.
--
Ron Nicholson r...@nicholson.com http://www.nicholson.com/rhn/
#include <canonical.disclaimer> // only my own opinions, etc.
cauce....@vo.cnchost.com
See ye here, abroomsg@REMOVEcix..co.uk (Andy Broomsgrove) crafted the following
words:
>In article <353cb402...@nntp.best.com>, corb...@concentric.net
>(Mike Corbett) wrote:
>
>> Away from the ballroom world it's not so common consider the "leading"
>> of a syllabus figure (that would include known step patterns that are
>> completed after conscious recognition) in the same context as "lead
>> and follow" dancing. In general, if a conscious reaction is
>> "required" by the follower to complete a figure or she needs to know
>> the figure to dance it, I don't consider it "lead and follow".
>> Regardless, your examples are not valid in this particular context.
>
>To be fair to Bill (although I agree with you that I don't think any of
>the figures he mentions actually accomplish a led tap by the follower and
>step by the leader - see my response to his post) the figures he mentions
>(except possibly the Paso figure - which I don't know much about) do
>involve lead and follow even though they are documented figures.
Exactly, they are leading the "figure" not leading the tap.
I am a fairly good follower but I have almost no knowledge of the standard
ballroom figures. I can follow "steps" but can NOT be expected to automatically
do a figure based on a lead into the first step of the figure.
So, I will give an example. There is a figure in WCS, a sugar push variation,
where the leader leads a move that the follower mirrors as thus (follower's
footwork). Walk, walk (standard 1,2) point (3) (turning to the right, pointing
the right foot straight forward which is 90 degrees to the line of the slot)
ball change (&4) (swapping feet and ending up stepping forward (to the right,
cross the slot) on the left foot).
I never was able to "follow" this variation until I was taught it in a lesson,
then I was able to follow it every time it was led. What is led is the
"pattern" not the step. If you aren't familiar with the pattern, it's
practically impossible to lead. I am sure that there is some fantastic follower
out there who knows how to follow this "lead" while having never experienced
this move in a lesson, but I haven't met her yet...
YMMV
jc
All email sent to the address used for this post is deleted unread
(although headers may be used in my spam filters). To reach my real
email box, send to personal@ at the above domain.
cauce....@vo.cnchost.com
>Um well. If you're doing proper lead and follow then I think it has to be
>the man that does the change, I can't think of a way you could
>specifically lead the woman to change foot.
Easy. An example is any of the many moves in waltz that syncopate, where the
follower dances a QQ instead of a standard S. All that has to happen for the
follower to end up in a foot change is for the leader to lead the follower into
one of these moves while doing standard S footwork on *one* of her QQs.
>I do actually know one or two bits of choreography where the woman changes
>step, but they are choreography rather than lead and follow and I think
>the woman could only dance it if she knows it.
Nope. All she has to do is follow the lead for the extra step. If she can
follow a syncopation lead, she can follow a foot change lead. (I am proof of
this :-).
A simple c/w waltz technique is to lead into a 2 step spin, then change it to a
3 step spin, but only taking 2 beats of music to accomplish this. Going down
LOD in closed position, a 2 step spin (360 degrees, a "1" spin) would return to
closed (face to face) position, while a 3 step spin (540 degrees, a "1 1/2"
spin) will return to open or both facing down LOD position. The leader leads
the second move *with a follower's foot change* by accelerating after the first
step, so that the follower takes 2 steps and a full rotation in the second beat
of the spin, rather than the one step and half rotation in the second beat of
the spin. Her foot work would be 1, 2, &3, and she would step on 4 on the same
foot that she had stepped on 1 (having done a foot change).
To successfully lead this foot change *socially*, the leader should then have a
move that immediately requires the "now opposite" footwork from the follower.
Then the follower will not attempt to change back as she realizes that she is on
the correct feet to follow this "same foot" move that the leader is leading.
An example: The initial lead into the foot change comes from a closed position
reversed (leader's back to LOD, leader stepping backwards on his right on 1,
follower forward on her left on 1), and the leader leads an accelerated 1 1/2
counter-clockwise spin (with his right hand) on beats 2 & 3. He catches her in
his right arm at the end of the spin on 3 in "sweetheart position". Then they
will both be stepping backwards on 4, both on the right foot (leader's footwork
normal, follower in "changed foot" footwork), and continue to rotate counter
clockwise on 4, 5, (and stepping forward on 6) in a skater's turn that requires
same footwork to be danced properly. At this point the follower will recognize
that she put in an extra step and is on "opposite footwork" but will also
recognize that she is on the right foot for the move just led so it must have
been an intentional result the leader desired from his lead in the accelerated
spin. She should just wait for him to lead her back, or to lead himself into a
footchange to result in their being on opposite footwork again, at some later
time when he desires to lead moves that require opposite footwork instead of
same footwork.
Of course, this is *much* harder to accomplish in dances where separate moves
(other than closed position moves) are uncommon or frowned upon. This makes
leading a footchange in c/w easier than in the comparable ballroom dances, c/w
waltz and 2-step having more open moves and spins than ballroom waltz and
fox-trot.
HTH
FHunsicker
cauce....@vo.cnchost.com
jc wrote
>>snip-
An example: The initial lead into the foot change comes from a closed position
reversed (leader's back to LOD, leader stepping backwards on his right on 1,
follower forward on her left on 1), and the leader leads an accelerated 1 1/2
counter-clockwise spin (with his right hand) on beats 2 & 3. He catches her in
his right arm at the end of the spin on 3 in "sweetheart position". Then they
will both be stepping backwards on 4, both on the right foot (leader's footwork
normal, follower in "changed foot" footwork), and continue to rotate counter
clockwise on 4, 5, (and stepping forward on 6) in a skater's turn that requires
same footwork to be danced properly. At this point the follower will recognize
that she put in an extra step and is on "opposite footwork" but will also
recognize that she is on the right foot for the move just led so it must have
been an intentional result the leader desired from his lead in the accelerated
spin. She should just wait for him to lead her back, or to lead himself into a
footchange to result in their being on opposite footwork again, at some later
time when he desires to lead moves that require opposite footwork instead of
same footwork.
>>end snip
I have tried almost all dances mentioned in rec.arts.dance. One of the
exceptions is c/w waltz. It was a surprize to learn that the man can lead
woman to do a foot change so both end on same foot.
Is the accelerated turn lead with the mans right or left hand?
Besides accelerated turns are there other way to lead a foot change by woman?
Frank Hunsicker
cauce....@vo.cnchost.com
See ye here, fhuns...@aol.com (FHunsicker) crafted the following words:
c/w waltz is much like ballroom waltz. The major differences are that the steps
always head down LOD (always traveling, no stationary box turns) unless you move
out of the "track" and into the center of the floor for a stationary move, there
are more varied positions, more spins, and the lady always looks *at* her
partner or down LOD or at the judges/audience, rather than the ballroom style
"look over the man's right shoulder" fixed head position.
>Is the accelerated turn lead with the mans right or left hand?
In the move described above, it's led with the man's left hand, which comes down
at the end of the spin to then rest behind the woman's back with either an "at
the shoulder" hand hold or an "at the waist" hand hold (2 hand hold variations
in the sweetheart position) as they then finish with the skaters turn in that
example.
>Besides accelerated turns are there other way to lead a foot change by woman?
There are other ways, this is just the easiest. The woman can also be led into
a paused where she skips a step, also called a "foot fake" earlier in this
thread. It's much harder to keep an inexperienced follower from taking the step
that "belongs there" though. The accelerated spin has more positive results,
she MUST take the steps to do the spin properly, so she takes 2 steps in the
single beat of the music. I suppose one can also lead any move that has
syncopated steps and then as the leader "not syncopate" the last step (leaving
out a step) and then you are on same foot footwork. It's then a moot point as
to who "changed foot" but the fact was that it is led rather than choreographed.
When I learned the foot change, it was said that the leader should do the change
socially but generally to hide the change in a follower's spin for a competition
routine as it looks more natural that way. Thus, I learned it with the leader
doing the change (as we were practicing a competition routine) and only
discovered that it was easy to follow quite by accident when I was led into the
move I described above on the social dance floor (although the following move
wasn't the skater's turn I describe but another move generally only seen in c/w
dancing, I used the skater's turn in my example because I felt it was more
widely known and wouldn't need as much description).
Mike Corbett
On 24 Apr 1998 07:48:18 GMT, fhuns...@aol.com (FHunsicker) wrote:
>
>cauce....@vo.cnchost.com
>jc wrote
>
>>>snip-
>An example: The initial lead into the foot change comes from a closed position
>reversed (leader's back to LOD, leader stepping backwards on his right on 1,
>follower forward on her left on 1), and the leader leads an accelerated 1 1/2
>counter-clockwise spin (with his right hand) on beats 2 & 3. He catches her in
>his right arm at the end of the spin on 3 in "sweetheart position". Then they
>will both be stepping backwards on 4, both on the right foot (leader's footwork
>normal, follower in "changed foot" footwork), and continue to rotate counter
>clockwise on 4, 5, (and stepping forward on 6) in a skater's turn that requires
>same footwork to be danced properly. At this point the follower will recognize
>that she put in an extra step and is on "opposite footwork" but will also
>recognize that she is on the right foot for the move just led so it must have
>been an intentional result the leader desired from his lead in the accelerated
>spin. She should just wait for him to lead her back, or to lead himself into a
>footchange to result in their being on opposite footwork again, at some later
>time when he desires to lead moves that require opposite footwork instead of
>same footwork.
>>>end snip
>
>
>
> I have tried almost all dances mentioned in rec.arts.dance. One of the
>exceptions is c/w waltz. It was a surprize to learn that the man can lead
>woman to do a foot change so both end on same foot.
>
>Is the accelerated turn lead with the mans right or left hand?
Yes. As with any turn the leader uses whichever hand is appropriate.
An accelerated turn can be led with either hand and from any position,
provided the follower has been properly prepared and placed in proper
position for rotation.
>
>Besides accelerated turns are there other way to lead a foot change by woman?
Yes, but I would rather not attempt to explain the details in this
forum. These are advanced techniques that require excellent lead and
follow skills, best taught by humans in the same room. Figures can be
described easily in the written word. I would not want to attempt to
teach lead and follow skills that way.
Ron Nicholson
(JC Dill) cauce....@vo.cnchost.com allegedly wrote:
> See ye here, abroomsg@REMOVEcix..co.uk (Andy Broomsgrove)
> crafted the following words:
> > even though they are documented figures.
> Exactly, they are leading the "figure" not leading the tap.
>
> I am a fairly good follower but I have almost no knowledge of
> the standard ballroom figures. I can follow "steps" but can NOT
> be expected to automatically do a figure based on a lead into
> the first step of the figure.
Seems to me this is just calling the figures which you can follow
"steps", and the figures which you can't "figures".
Lead and follow is a language with a vocabulary that must be
learned. Good followers are not marionettes; they must actively
participate in their half of the partnership if they can, if they
know how, if the step or figure or whatever is in either their
muscle or conscious memory. The degree of participation may vary
from dance to dance, but it's never zero.
Even the most basic steps are figures that a good follower must
learn. (must learn to both do her part and to also detect and
discriminate/antialias the lead.)
Watch beginning followers some time, and see how many different
interpretations that even someone with a decent frame can put on
a clear lead for a basic single step that they don't know yet.
Examples abound of very good C/W followers who have problems
with basic Salsa, very good WCS followers who have problems with
basic Hustle, very good American social ballroom followers who
have problem with basic Intl. style steps, and vice versa, and etc.
Some dances have basic figures with steps like a brush tap. To
people who know those dances, it's leadable; to those who can't
do the dance, it's not.
Mike Corbett
On Fri, 24 Apr 1998 12:57:14 -0700, Ron Nicholson <r...@sgi.com> wrote:
>(JC Dill) cauce....@vo.cnchost.com allegedly wrote:
>> See ye here, abroomsg@REMOVEcix..co.uk (Andy Broomsgrove)
>> Exactly, they are leading the "figure" not leading the tap.
In addition, all the dances I do regularly have "figures" or "moves"
that are *only* leadable if both parties know them. That's not really
what we are discussing here in the context of this thread.
Leading a known figure that includes something like a brush-tap is an
entirely different animal than leading a tap as a "foot change" with
the purpose of accomplishing or returning from shadow footwork or
some other similar reason for doing so.
Frankly we have pretty much exhausted that context unless somebody can
come up with a way to do that or a reason to need to do it.
I'm happy to participate in discussing lead and follow in it's own
thread, if somebody wants to start it.
Timothy Hunt
In article <354b0d89...@nntp.best.com>,
Mike Corbett <corb...@concentric.net> wrote:
>I'm happy to participate in discussing lead and follow in it's own
>thread, if somebody wants to start it.
OK! This is a topic that came up tonight at a dance I was at. Those of
us in London who do WCS had all conspired to meet at a particular dance to
get some practise in. We knew the DJ, so we knew we'd be able to get some
appropriate music. As well as the regular crowd, there were three others,
a guy from Seattle who's here on vacation, and had been put in touch with one
of us, and a British couple who have been dancing WCS for about 5 years
whenever they are in the US (which they same to be quite frequently) and
had recently discovered the London WCS scene.
It was a really good evening.
Anyway, in the car back, a friend and I were discussing lead and follow.
Lead and follow is probably one of the most important things to be
able to do well in any partner dance. Being able to do a choreographed
routine may be hard, but it's so much harder (IMO) to be able to lead
well. Leading people who are not your regular partner is a real
challenge. A regular partner knows your little foibles, your little
twitches that mean you're doing this pattern and not that. There's a couple
who dance regularly who were there tonight who dance really well together.
But other women seem to have difficulty following his lead. He seems
to think it's because the other women aren't good at following, yet
they can follow other people fine. The problem is he's not a wonderful
leader. His regular partner interprets all his little twitches because
she's seen them so often, she knwos what they mean. They practise together
lots. But practise doesn't make perfect, practise makes permanent.
Practise wrong, and you'll do it wrong permanently.
What's the best way to improve your lead or follow? Well, I think there
are several ways.
[Note, I've used the term "move" in the following where other people
would use "pattern" or "figure". In this context these terms can
be used interchangeably. Also, there's a bias towards improving leading.
That's largely because I normally lead, so that's what I have most
experience of.]
1) Remember there are different kinds of moves. There are (a) moves you
can lead soemone off the street in, with them never having danced that
kind of dance before. (b) moves that someone who dances that style
of dance has never done before can follow, and (c) moves that
the follower ahs to have learnt too, before they can follow it.
Knowing which class any particular move is in is important.
2) Watch other people dance. Look for moves you like, moves you don't
like, style (or lack of it), good habits, bad habits. Don't comment
on the bad points to people you watch (unless invited to do so, and
even then, give one solid point of how to improve a particular thing
rather than a shopping list of faults). By all means, do comment
on good things. That can be really encouraging.
3) Dance with people who are not as good as you. They are less likely to be
able to compensate for your bad habits and imperfections. This means you
have to be able to lead clearly in order to get your partner to
follow. Remember that if she does nto follow your lead for a type (a) or
(b) move [as above] then it's probably your lead at fault. If she
follows your type (a) and (b) moves flawlessy but stumbles over a (c)
move, then it's probably because she doesn't know it.
For followers, it means you have to interpret ambiguous signals from
the person leading. Try to follow what they lead, not what you think
their move is according to what you think they know. After all, they
may be trying something knew. If in a class situation especially,
follow what they lead, rather than doing your "role". Leaders who get
a proper reaction to their action will learn what happens if they do
such-and-such. If leaders dont' get an accurate reaction, they'll not
learn an accurate action (lead).
4) Dance with people better than you. This enables you to push yourself
to your own limits if leading, or find yoruself in unexpected situations
if following.
5) Dance the other part. I frequently (at least once per evening if
possible) dance the followers part in WCS. It keeps me focused, as I have
to think harder than when doing my regualr part. It helps me understand
the difficulties followers have (and followers, it will help you understnd
the problems we leaders have). It also introduces me to new moves. As
a leader, I dance the moves I know, the followers have to dance whatever's
led. By following, I'll be dancing someone else's favourite moves.
Also, if I have difficulty leading a move that my partner knows how
to lead and follow, then I can get her to lead me in it, both
how I led it, and how she would like it led. I can feel the difference
in the lead, and it's quite easy (usually) to modify my lead to
recreate the correct effect. Also, remember that move you
saw someone do that you really liked? Ask them to show you how to lead
it, perhaps with them leading you in it.
6) Dance your regular part with someone who normally dances the same part.
They are in the best position to help you improve. If I lead
a guy and have a problem, we can discuss it to work out where the problem is.
As he knows how to lead that move (probably) he may be able to provide a
different perspective.
7) Remember that lead isn't just lead. It's lead and follow. If my partner
does not do what I expect her to according to what I (thought I) led, then
it's my responsibility to recover as flawlessly as possible. In order
to do that, I must be able to detect that she's not doing what I expect.
That's following.
Well, that's something to get the ball rolling. Anyone else care to
comment?
Timothy
Jonathan Atkinson
jc dill wrote:
>> c/w waltz is much like ballroom waltz. The major differences are that the steps
>> always head down LOD (always traveling, no stationary box turns) unless you move
>> out of the "track" and into the center of the floor for a stationary move, there
>> are more varied positions, more spins, and the lady always looks *at* her
>> partner or down LOD or at the judges/audience, rather than the ballroom style
>> "look over the man's right shoulder" fixed head position.
Technically, ballroom Waltz is supposed to travel around the LOD, too.
When done correctly, a Left or Right Box Turn travels along LOD with all
but the third step, which is a foot-closing. "Stationary" Box Turns are
really only used for turning corners, or by beginners who haven't yet
learned how to turn 3/8 for the purpose of traveling. Still, I would go
along with the idea that c&w Waltz is somewhat more stramlined in it's
movememnt down LOD. Ballroom Waltz tends to weave in and out more,
cutting across and using diagonals. It's also a little bit more liberal
about slowing down or pausing occasionally.
Another thing that contributes to the streanlining of c&w movement is
the fact that they tend to cut their corners. In fact, their LOD is
almost just a circle (or oval) that doesn't have corners at all. I have
rarely seen a c&w dancer make use of a corner. This is not necessarily a
bad thing; It's just part of the style.
Think of the dance floor as a huge body of water, and the LOD as a
circular current. If the shape of the dance floor is round, then the
current will run strong around the outside, with more stagnant water in
the center. This is how I think the c&w dancers tend to look at it...
When you want to move more slowly, spin around on the spot, or hit a
line, you move toward the center where the current is less severe.
A ballroom dancer will tend to see the body of water as rectangular. The
circular current is still stronger on the outside than in the center,
but there are also pockets of stagnant water in the corners. The water
may even circle around in a clockwise fashion in these corner areas.
Ballroom dancers will use the center in the same way that c&w dancers
do, but they will also use their corners quite a bit, dancing into them
and moving around within them as though they were an extra "pocket" of
the dance floor.
The issue of the head being "fixed" into position is a misconception. It
is the "default" position, so to speak. But the best dancers never have
their head fixed in any position. It is constantly turning from open to
closed, or even to look at one's partner... not randomly, but according
to the shape of the body and the feeling of the movement. And like the
dance position, the head position will "breathe", expanding and
contracting with the movement. I would say that the difference between
c&w head position and ballroom head position is not how "fixed" it is,
but simply the general placement of the head WEIGHT. In c&w it will tend
to be placed in the middle, similar to latin. In ballroom, the head
weight tend to be placed over the left side, in varying amounts. But
this has nothing to do with where you look.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Atkinson
DebyRamsey
Well I think Timothy has the right idea(s) All of his numbered
answers are great. I teach, believe and preach all of the same.
Lead and Follow has been been beaten and kicked around on
the newsgroup many times...I'm sure this won't be the last. I
just wanted to jump in and congratulate him on well chosen
words and ideas.
Debbie Ramsey
"you must receive to believe"
NEW E-MAIL Address debbie...@mindspring.com
For some of the best in Music and Videos
Vist our Web Page at www.musicanddance.com
Andy Broomsgrove
In article <199804240748...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
fhuns...@aol.com (FHunsicker) wrote:
> I have tried almost all dances mentioned in rec.arts.dance. One of the
> exceptions is c/w waltz. It was a surprize to learn that the man can
> lead
> woman to do a foot change so both end on same foot.
>
> Is the accelerated turn lead with the mans right or left hand?
>
> Besides accelerated turns are there other way to lead a foot change by
> woman?
>
>
> Frank Hunsicker
I suggest you look back through the last few days conversation, Frank.
There have been quite a number of ways of achieving this discussed which
are just as applicable to C/W waltz as they are to any other dance.
Andy
Andy Broomsgrove
In article <35476f3e....@nntp.best.com>, corb...@concentric.net
(Mike Corbett) wrote:
> I'm not certain what he means by solo spin here either but using your
> one footed spin as an example and Waltz as the dance, if she's
> spinning on the left foot and you bring her out stepping on her right
> foot a beat early while you have maintained standard weight changes
> she will be on your footwork. If this was your intention, you have
> led a foot change.
Actually (having worked it out on a piece of paper!) I think you are
right, you can get a foot change as follows:
Follower spinning one footedly on her left foot in waltz:
1 2 3 1 2
Follower L L R L R
Leader R L R L R
----------- ----------->
Spin of exit a same foot
some form figure
Though follower spins are not normally found in Int. Style waltz, of
course.
Andy
Andy Broomsgrove
> --
> Ron Nicholson r...@nicholson.com http://www.nicholson.com/rhn/
> #include <canonical.disclaimer> // only my own opinions, etc.
>
With respect, Ron, I think you need to read (or re-read) the previous
posts in this thread, which would make sense of Mike's comment.
Some of the things you say have already been discussed in some length so I
won't repeat it all here.
No one ever suggested the follower should look at the leaders feet.
For your information the word "tap" in this context means a step made with
no (or possibly part) weight done so that the next step can be made on the
same foot so that instead of stepping LRLR the person steps L tapR R L. It
has nothing to do with making a noise!
The question at issue about taps is whether you can lead your follower to
tap without doing the same yourself and the answer so far is no.
Leading your follower to tap whilst you also tap is (well relatively,
anyway) not a problem since she should be able to feel that you haven't
changed weight.
Making her feel that you haven't changed weight when you actually have
changed is the problem.
Andy
Andy Broomsgrove
In article <354e13a2...@news.concentric.net>,
cauce....@vo.cnchost.com () wrote:
> See ye here, abroomsg@REMOVEcix..co.uk (Andy Broomsgrove) crafted the
> following
> words:
>
> >Um well. If you're doing proper lead and follow then I think it has to
> be
> >the man that does the change, I can't think of a way you could
> >specifically lead the woman to change foot.
>
> Easy. An example is any of the many moves in waltz that syncopate,
> where the
> follower dances a QQ instead of a standard S. All that has to happen
> for the
> follower to end up in a foot change is for the leader to lead the
> follower into
> one of these moves while doing standard S footwork on *one* of her QQs.
>
With respect, you're a little late at the party here :)
Yes, sure, we all do that. I can also (in appropriate circumstances) dance
QQ whilst leading my follower to dance S.
The point was, though, that it was a reasonable argument that what had
happened here was that the leader had actually made the foot change by
deliberately inserting or removing a step whilst leading the follower to
do the opposite.
The debate is really as to whether there is any way a leader can lead a
follower to do something which definitely causes her to change step rather
than changing himself.
At present it's been suggested that a way to do that would be to lead the
follower to tap whilst the leader steps, but none of us (up till now all
normal leaders, I believe) have been able to think of a way to do that.
That led on to my next paragraph which you have quoted:
> >I do actually know one or two bits of choreography where the woman
> changes
> >step, but they are choreography rather than lead and follow and I think
> >the woman could only dance it if she knows it.
>
> Nope. All she has to do is follow the lead for the extra step. If she
> can
> follow a syncopation lead, she can follow a foot change lead. (I am
> proof of
> this :-).
>
Which referred to some bits of choreography I happen to know where the
follower taps to change foot, but are danced in side by side position with
no hold and I wouldn't claim to be properly "lead and follow".
I also said that I wasn't very keen on those particular moves because of
the lack of lead and follow, but that's another matter.
> A simple c/w waltz technique is to lead into a 2 step spin, then change
> it to a
<long description of CW waltz moves snipped>
> leading a footchange in c/w easier than in the comparable ballroom
> dances, c/w
> waltz and 2-step having more open moves and spins than ballroom waltz
> and
> fox-trot.
>
> HTH
>
> jc
>
Something of this sort has already been mentioned and again it achieves
the intention of putting the couple on the same foot. But I'm not entirely
sure that it achieves it by doing anything other than having the leader
take one more or one less step than the follower, albeit that you suggest
the follower put in an extra step as a syncopation.
Andy
Dan Paukert
The waltz that is often referred to as CW Waltz is the silver waltz.
It is taught in ballroom, but only after a student has spent a lot
of time learning the bronze level waltz. The silver waltz movements
flow around the floor in the counter clockwise Line of Dance.
My wife and I recently attended a local ballroom dance after dancing
with CW crowds for the past few years. It is very frustrating trying
to dance the waltz using dance floor etiquette. The ballroom
students are doing their bronze movements with no consideration
for LOD. Oh well, I could go on and on about this subject.
James Marshall
In article <354473...@cca.rockwell.com> Dan Paukert <djpa...@cca.rockwell.com> writes:
>My wife and I recently attended a local ballroom dance after dancing
>with CW crowds for the past few years. It is very frustrating trying
>to dance the waltz using dance floor etiquette. The ballroom
>students are doing their bronze movements with no consideration
>for LOD. Oh well, I could go on and on about this subject.
This is sort of a general problem when people are not aware of the proper
etiquette rules. It's not strictly a problem based on level, although you
would expect the error more from beginners than advanced dancers, but mainly
one of not knowing the rules. Fast traffic dances near the outside of the
ballroom, slow traffic near the inside, stationary right in the center.
I've been to a number of dances where people don't follow this rule and
there are slow moving couples near the outside of the floor blocking the
faster moving couples. A few places have made announcements in the middle of
the dance that slow moving couples should be near the center of the floor.
Our dance teacher also handed out a sheet on dance etiquette to us this
semester which included that as one of its points. Hopefully things like
this get more people aware of the rules and help eliminate the problems,
but I don't think the problem will be eliminated 100% since there will
probably always be some people who don't know the rules. We'll have to
deal with it as best we can, but should also try to inform those dancers
of the rules so that there isn't an ongoing problem.
--
. . . . -- James Marshall (LYR) '*
,. -- )-- , , . -- )-- , mars...@astro.umd.edu , '
' ' http://www.astro.umd.edu/~marshall
"How are we going to do this? Easy, we cheat." , '
Mike Corbett
On 27 Apr 1998 05:16:03 GMT, debyr...@aol.com (DebyRamsey) wrote:
>Well I think Timothy has the right idea(s) All of his numbered
>answers are great. I teach, believe and preach all of the same.
>
>Lead and Follow has been been beaten and kicked around on
>the newsgroup many times...I'm sure this won't be the last. I
>just wanted to jump in and congratulate him on well chosen
>words and ideas.
>
>Debbie Ramsey
>
I agree that Timothy is on the right track but would avoid using the
words signal or interpret.
>>
>>3) Dance with people who are not as good as you. They are less likely to be
>>able to compensate for your bad habits and imperfections. This means you
>>have to be able to lead clearly in order to get your partner to
>>follow. Remember that if she does nto follow your lead for a type (a) or
>>(b) move [as above] then it's probably your lead at fault. If she
>>follows your type (a) and (b) moves flawlessy but stumbles over a (c)
>>move, then it's probably because she doesn't know it.
>>For followers, it means you have to interpret ambiguous signals from
>>the person leading. Try to follow what they lead, not what you think
>>their move is according to what you think they know.
The term interpret, by definition requires cognitive action on the
part of the follower instead of a connected reaction. Signals are not
leads. Signals must be interpreted. Proper leads will directly cause
the connected follower to do as is intended. Interpretations (of
signals, particularly the ambiguous kind) are generally either late or
wrong.
When a leader only gives signals (ambiguous or clear) and followers
correctly interpret them to complete the intended figure, some would
say that's good lead and follow. I would not. You may say this is
just semantics. Perhaps but words mean things.
Proper leads for leadable moves, do not require interpretation.
Should the follower choose to add interpretive styling or syncopations
without interfering with the leader, that's "positive following".
Mike Corbett
On 27 Apr 1998 11:41:27 GMT, abroomsg@REMOVEcix..co.uk (Andy
Broomsgrove) wrote:
>In article <354e13a2...@news.concentric.net>,
>cauce....@vo.cnchost.com () wrote:
>
>> See ye here, abroomsg@REMOVEcix..co.uk (Andy Broomsgrove) crafted the
>> following
>> words:
>big snip<
>> A simple c/w waltz technique is to lead into a 2 step spin, then change
>> it to a
>
>
><long description of CW waltz moves snipped>
>
>> leading a footchange in c/w easier than in the comparable ballroom
>> dances, c/w
>> waltz and 2-step having more open moves and spins than ballroom waltz
>> and
>> fox-trot.
>>
>> HTH
>>
>> jc
>>
>
>Something of this sort has already been mentioned and again it achieves
>the intention of putting the couple on the same foot. But I'm not entirely
>sure that it achieves it by doing anything other than having the leader
>take one more or one less step than the follower, albeit that you suggest
>the follower put in an extra step as a syncopation.
>
>Andy
I think it's fairly simple to conclude that the partner who has
remained on the standard footwork *did not* make a foot change and the
one who added or subtracted a weight change from the standard *did*
make a foot change. If it is the follower who adds or subtracts
weight change as a result of a lead from the leader who remained on
the standard footwork then the follower has been lead to make a foot
change. This of course is only true if the leader actually led it.
With regard to the tap step. That was only one possible suggestion
for a foot change. Andy is quite correct that nobody has yet
suggested a way to actually lead a follower to touch without weighting
the foot. They have only suggested known figures that include tap or
touch steps and described leading the figure, not the foot change.
I can actually think of a figure I use where it is possible to lead
the touch without weight but not while the leader is doing otherwise.
In this figure a syncopated chasse' (5&6) is lead with the partners
beginning in promenade and ending sideways to line of dance. The
leader then leads the follower to cross in front as he does but does
not allow her to place her center and thus her weight on the left
foot. She touches and is immediately led to touch back with the same
foot and hold a beat. The couple then continues 4,5,6 without having
accomplished a foot change. They simply both added one and left out
three. I find this figure nearly impossible to lead socially, however
and it still "doesn't count" because both partners did the touch step
instead of only one.
All of this foot change leading requires the use of advanced
techniques and skills.
Howard Spurr
Dan Paukert <djpa...@cca.rockwell.com> wrote in article
<354473...@cca.rockwell.com>...
> The waltz that is often referred to as CW Waltz is the silver waltz.
> It is taught in ballroom, but only after a student has spent a lot
> of time learning the bronze level waltz.
That's not my experience here in the UK. I haven't done much CW so I may
be totally wrong but CW Waltz appears to be only similar to the
international style, in 3-time but often much quicker, with several moves
done in open or shadow hold, and danced in a relatively narrow groove
around the room.
To my mind, there is no real difference between our bronze and silver waltz
and there is a natural progression through to gold and beyond. In all
cases there is movement generally along the LOD but in a zig-zag fashion as
most steps start and finish on a diagonal. In terms of etiquette, I was
always told experienced dancers are responsible for avoiding collisions
since they have a larger range of steps available to them than the
beginners, and should be able to cope with any over or under turning
required. Similarly, they should have enough floorcraft to ensure that any
'stationary' patterns do not impede other dancers. It was put to me as a
similar concept to power versus sail on water.
I can see that the two styles would have difficulty co-existing on the
floor if there were more than a few couples.
Regards
Howard
r...@nicholson.com
Howard Spurr <Howard...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>Dan Paukert <djpa...@cca.rockwell.com> wrote in article
><354473...@cca.rockwell.com>...
>> The waltz that is often referred to as CW Waltz is the silver waltz.
>> It is taught in ballroom, but only after a student has spent a lot
>> of time learning the bronze level waltz.
>
>That's not my experience here in the UK. I haven't done much CW so I may
>be totally wrong but CW Waltz appears to be only similar to the
>international style,
This seems to be confusing International and American social style
Waltz. There are several types of Waltz; and bronze American Social
style Waltz is a different dance from bronze International Standard
(Slow (English) Waltz, both of which are different from CW Waltz.
Having tried to dance all 5 kinds within the last couple week, I'll try
to briefly summerize my view of the differences.
International Waltz (both bronze and silver) are traveling dances that
move not only down line of dance, but diagonally (3/8th turns according
to the syllabus) across LOD, and include both straight tempo steps and
syncopated steps (dbl. reverse spin and syncopated chasse in the bronze
syllabus).
American bronze is a spot dance, closer to box rumba than silver waltz,
and probably invented by franchise studios in order to make money by
easy teaching stuff to paying students as slowly as possible. Useful
on dance floors where it's too crowded to travel. Also danced by older
couples to big band music.
Silver American style is a traveling dance, mostly moving straight
down LOD, and including more outside partner foorwork than Intl. style.
C/W Waltz in a traveling dance that very rarely moves diagonally across
LOD (aside from partners crossing tracks), and includes lots of
two-handed and cross-handed side-by-side and semi-open patterns where
the lady spins or turns more than the man. The only syncopated steps
commonly seen are ladies spins and hesitations.
C/W and American silver Waltz seem compatible in terms of floorcraft.
American bronze dancers clog up the works unless they stick to the
center of the floor. Intl. Standard Waltz dancing seems to confuse or
annoy the C/W dancers, who are not used to manuvering around couples
which zig-zag across LOD.
r...@nicholson.com
In article <6i2noc$atb$1...@samba.rahul.net>, <r...@nicholson.com> wrote:
> [severly garbled description, regarding various Waltz styles, deleted]
I have to remember not to post over a severely lagged telnet session
without more proofreading, or my grammer will start looking like that
of another frequent r.a.d. C/W contributor. (hope it's not contagious :)
ObOnTopic: also observed recently were folks doing a CW line dance
to Waltz music, some solo, some as couples.
cauce....@vo.cnchost.com
See ye here, Ron Nicholson <r...@sgi.com> crafted the following words:
>Seems to me this is just calling the figures which you can follow
>"steps", and the figures which you can't "figures".
You misunderstand then.
Steps come one at a time. A clear example is Argentine Tango, which is led step
by step, rather than as a group of steps (known as a figure) and each step is
led individually as there is not set step rhythm (QQSS etc) so the follower
doesn't have a default rhythm or pattern to follow to take the next step and
*must* wait for the lead.
I don't know ANY foxtrot "figures" but I can dance QQSS and QQS. I can tell one
from the other if the leader does the proper rise to indicate the QQ.
Otherwise, I can't follow ANY foxtrot because I don't know any of the figures to
know if the current pattern is a QQS or QQSS pattern. This means that I can't
foxtrot at all with less experienced leaders who don't know how to rise on the
QQ and thus signal me that this is the QQ step and not another S step.
>Lead and follow is a language with a vocabulary that must be
>learned. Good followers are not marionettes; they must actively
>participate in their half of the partnership if they can, if they
>know how, if the step or figure or whatever is in either their
>muscle or conscious memory. The degree of participation may vary
>from dance to dance, but it's never zero.
They must know how to step. It isn't necessary for them to know the figure
vocabulary if the leader can lead the steps of the figures.
Getting back to the tap step, it's pretty much impossible to lead the follower
to place her foot without stepping on it (weighting it), unless it's a *known*
figure.
>Even the most basic steps are figures that a good follower must
>learn. (must learn to both do her part and to also detect and
>discriminate/antialias the lead.)
WRONG! I have successfully followed Rumba and Foxtrot, following figures I had
never danced or seen danced, because I knew the basics of frame and follow and
nothing more about either of these dances.
>Some dances have basic figures with steps like a brush tap. To
>people who know those dances, it's leadable; to those who can't
>do the dance, it's not.
Again, it's leading the figure, not leading the "step". That's the difference.
Jonathan Atkinson
Ron Nicholson writes:
>> American bronze is a spot dance, closer to box rumba than silver >> waltz, and probably invented by franchise studios in order to make >> money by easy teaching stuff to paying students as slowly as
>> possible. Useful on dance floors where it's too crowded to travel.
>> Also danced by older couples to big band music.
>> Silver American style is a traveling dance, mostly moving straight
>> down LOD, and including more outside partner foorwork than Intl. >> style.
The "Spot Waltz" is not what I would call Bronze American style. In my
opinion, Waltz that doesn't progress in the general direction of LOD is
danced by people who are (1) Too inconsiderate to care about the flow of
traffic, (2) Too new to dancing to have the ability to direct the
movement properly, or (3) On a crowded social floor where there is no
flow of traffic.
It's really just a matter of semantics, but I would call this style of
dancing "Social Waltz", not American Waltz.
I think the Bronze American Waltz is most similar to Bronze
International Waltz. Take a look at the figures:
(1) Closed Changes (identical)
(2) Left & Right Box Turns -- Natural & Reverse Turns (identical)
(3) Twinkle -- Whisk (very similar)
(4) Spin Turn -- (identical)
(5) Side Hesitations -- Nat. Turn w/ hesitation (remotely similar)
The only American Bronze figures that I can think of that don't travel
toward LOD are (1) Hesitations, (2) The 6-Count Underarm Turn, (3) Open
Break & Underarm Turn, and (4) Back Spot Turns. And even these figures
are supposed to be taken in extreme moderation.
Silver American Waltz, which shares all of the basic figures with Silver
American Foxtrot, is extremely similar to the International Slowfox.
Let's take a look at this basic American amalgamation:
Continuity Basic / Open Reverse Turn (Continuity Finish) / Twinkle /
Natural Turn from PP / Spin Twinkle / Continuity Finish
And in Int'l Foxtrot:
Feather Step / Reverse Turn (Feather Finish) / 3-Step / Natural Turn /
Open Impetus / Feather Finish
...Except for the heel turns, they're pretty much the same dance.
These are, of course, my own impressions of the movement of each dance.
They are based on my own teaching, and what I beleive the dances are
supposed to be like. I realize that there is a multitude of dancers (and
teachers) out there who treat the dances in the way that Ron has
observed. But it's not "correct" in my opinion. Or at least, not up to
the standard set by today's top American dancers.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Atkinson
Andy Broomsgrove
In article <354a3cf2....@news.concentric.net>,
cauce....@vo.cnchost.com () wrote:
> >Some dances have basic figures with steps like a brush tap. To
> >people who know those dances, it's leadable; to those who can't
> >do the dance, it's not.
>
> Again, it's leading the figure, not leading the "step". That's the
> difference.
>
The tango Brush tap is a bit of an unusual figure and I think it would
require a pretty advanced leader to lead a pretty advanced follower to do
a brush tap if she didn't know it at all but theoretically at least it
should be leasable on a step by step basis.
The difficulty is presented by the two consecutive "steps" without weight
change - the brush and the tap - which is not a very common thing and
there is a danger of the follower changing weight simply because she
assumes that the final tap will be a weight change. (As an aside, it could
in fact be - there is nothing to prevent the leader stepping forward L
again after brushing).
That's why I say she needs to be fairly advanced so that she truly follows
and doesn't make any assumptions at all about the move. Likewise the
leader needs to make it crystal clear in his movement that weight changes
are not taking place so he needs to be fairly good as well.
So to some extent you are both right and both wrong in my view. This
figure (along with others in international style and - presumably-
American style) is fully leadable on a step by step basis but in practice
most average dancers probably will be partly relying on the follower
recognising the figure to complete it.
As an aside for Tango Argentina fans, the brush tap presumably derives
from Adornos type decorations used in TA. But the follower in TA has (at
least ostensibly) a slightly easier job in this circumstance because she
wouldn't necessarily have to copy the leader's movements with her free
foot. She could either stay still waiting for the leader to lead another
move or do some other foot movement herself - possibly intended to convey
her impatience at having to wait whilst the leader showed off :). Any
thoughts on that, anyone?
Andy
Andy Broomsgrove
In article <01bd7205$0a02cac0$e63963c3@alvbynsy>,
Howard...@btinternet.com (Howard Spurr) wrote:
> That's not my experience here in the UK. I haven't done much CW so I
> may
> be totally wrong but CW Waltz appears to be only similar to the
> international style, in 3-time but often much quicker, with several
> moves
> done in open or shadow hold, and danced in a relatively narrow groove
> around the room.
>
> To my mind, there is no real difference between our bronze and silver
> waltz
> and there is a natural progression through to gold and beyond. In all
> cases there is movement generally along the LOD but in a zig-zag
> fashion as
> most steps start and finish on a diagonal. In terms of etiquette, I was
> always told experienced dancers are responsible for avoiding collisions
> since they have a larger range of steps available to them than the
> beginners, and should be able to cope with any over or under turning
> required. Similarly, they should have enough floorcraft to ensure that
> any
> 'stationary' patterns do not impede other dancers. It was put to me as
> a
> similar concept to power versus sail on water.
>
> I can see that the two styles would have difficulty co-existing on the
> floor if there were more than a few couples.
>
>
> Regards
>
> Howard
They're talking about American style which (as I understand it) is rather
different in that respect, Howard.
As you say in International style basically everything progresses until
you start learning "line" type steps (such as Throwaway Oversways etc)
which are normally fairly advanced level steps and it's up to couples who
want to do things like that to ensure they find the floorspace before they
try it. If they're not advanced enough to find the floorspace they
shouldn't be trying to do the line.
But (and correct me someone if I'm wrong) American style beginners are
taught box steps at an early stage which I take to be similar to a "square
step" such as found in the square tango sequence dance which don't
actually progress at all.
Andy
James Marshall
In article <memo.19980428...@abroomsg.compulink.co.uk> abroomsg@REMOVEcix..co.uk writes:
>But (and correct me someone if I'm wrong) American style beginners are
>taught box steps at an early stage which I take to be similar to a "square
>step" such as found in the square tango sequence dance which don't
>actually progress at all.
I think you are correct. The basic step for American waltz as we were taught
it started with a simple forward-side-together-back-side-together in place.
Obviously that doesn't progress. After we got the hang of that, we started
turning it using quarter turns. That still doesn't really go anywhere. But
by the end of the course our teacher had us doing 3/8 turns on each half
of the box step, thus making us able to progress around LOD. So it may
depend on how far the beginners have gotten in their lessons as well as how
comfortable they are with doing what they've been taught. I don't think I
know that square tango sequence dance you mention, so I can't make a
comparison there.
--
. . . . -- James Marshall (CAS) . .
,. -- )-- , , . -- )-- , mars...@astro.umd.edu ., .
' ' http://www.astro.umd.edu/~marshall
"Equations are living things." .
Daniel Testa
>>Dan Paukert <djpa...@cca.rockwell.com> wrote in article
>><354473...@cca.rockwell.com>...
>>> The waltz that is often referred to as CW Waltz is the silver waltz.
>>> It is taught in ballroom, but only after a student has spent a lot
>>> of time learning the bronze level waltz.
>>
>>be totally wrong but CW Waltz appears to be only similar to the
>>international style,
>
>Waltz. There are several types of Waltz; and bronze American Social
>style Waltz is a different dance from bronze International Standard
>(Slow (English) Waltz, both of which are different from CW Waltz.
>
>Having tried to dance all 5 kinds within the last couple week, I'll try
>to briefly summerize my view of the differences.
>
>International Waltz (both bronze and silver) are traveling dances that
>move not only down line of dance, but diagonally (3/8th turns according
>to the syllabus) across LOD, and include both straight tempo steps and
>syncopated steps (dbl. reverse spin and syncopated chasse in the bronze
>syllabus).
>
>and probably invented by franchise studios in order to make money by
>easy teaching stuff to paying students as slowly as possible. Useful
>on dance floors where it's too crowded to travel. Also danced by older
>couples to big band music.
>
>Silver American style is a traveling dance, mostly moving straight
>down LOD, and including more outside partner foorwork than Intl. style.
>
>LOD (aside from partners crossing tracks), and includes lots of
>two-handed and cross-handed side-by-side and semi-open patterns where
>the lady spins or turns more than the man. The only syncopated steps
>commonly seen are ladies spins and hesitations.
>
>C/W and American silver Waltz seem compatible in terms of floorcraft.
>American bronze dancers clog up the works unless they stick to the
>center of the floor. Intl. Standard Waltz dancing seems to confuse or
>annoy the C/W dancers, who are not used to manuvering around couples
>which zig-zag across LOD.
That was a very educational post. It looks like you covered Bronze and
Silver ballroom waltzing and country waltzing.
Just to complete the picture, what about gold and what about Viennese?
--
____________________________________________________________________________
Daniel Testa email:tes...@rpi.edu
Mike Corbett
On 28 Apr 1998 12:09:56 GMT, abroomsg@REMOVEcix..co.uk (Andy
Broomsgrove) wrote:
>
>The tango Brush tap is a bit of an unusual figure and I think it would
>require a pretty advanced leader to lead a pretty advanced follower to do
>a brush tap if she didn't know it at all but theoretically at least it
>should be leasable on a step by step basis.
>
>The difficulty is presented by the two consecutive "steps" without weight
>change - the brush and the tap - which is not a very common thing and
>there is a danger of the follower changing weight simply because she
>assumes that the final tap will be a weight change. (As an aside, it could
>in fact be - there is nothing to prevent the leader stepping forward L
>again after brushing).
>
>That's why I say she needs to be fairly advanced so that she truly follows
>and doesn't make any assumptions at all about the move. Likewise the
>leader needs to make it crystal clear in his movement that weight changes
>are not taking place so he needs to be fairly good as well.
>
>So to some extent you are both right and both wrong in my view. This
>figure (along with others in international style and - presumably-
>American style) is fully leadable on a step by step basis but in practice
>most average dancers probably will be partly relying on the follower
>recognising the figure to complete it.
Very well said. Leading foot changes and variations in rhythm
patterns both require the use of more advanced techniques than are
available to the average dancer. Evidence would be all the "I didn't
know you could..." comments.
Howard Spurr
James Marshall <mars...@astro.umd.edu> wrote in article
<6i4ofd$757$1...@hecate.umd.edu>...
> In article <memo.19980428...@abroomsg.compulink.co.uk>
abroomsg@REMOVEcix..co.uk writes:
> >But (and correct me someone if I'm wrong) American style beginners are
> >taught box steps at an early stage which I take to be similar to a
"square
> >step" such as found in the square tango sequence dance which don't
> >actually progress at all.
>
> I think you are correct. The basic step for American waltz as we were
taught
> it started with a simple forward-side-together-back-side-together in
place.
> Obviously that doesn't progress. After we got the hang of that, we
started
> turning it using quarter turns. That still doesn't really go anywhere.
But
> by the end of the course our teacher had us doing 3/8 turns on each half
> of the box step, thus making us able to progress around LOD.
Thanks. I think our beginners are taught a similar box step, but after
five minutes are told to do the same steps with 3/8 turn, so they start
travelling straight away (at least until they get onto a crowded floor).
> I don't think I know that square tango sequence dance you mention, so I
can't make a
> comparison there.
I do, and it seems a good comparison.
Can I also thank Ron Nicholson and Jonathan Atkinson for their very useful
comments.
Regards,
Howard
Ron Nicholson
In article <35458B...@earthlink.net>,
Jonathan Atkinson <Walt...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>The "Spot Waltz" is not what I would call Bronze American style.
>I think the Bronze American Waltz is most similar to Bronze
>International Waltz. Take a look at the figures:
>
> (1) Closed Changes (identical)
> (2) Left & Right Box Turns -- Natural & Reverse Turns (identical)
> (3) Twinkle -- Whisk (very similar)
> (4) Spin Turn -- (identical)
> (5) Side Hesitations -- Nat. Turn w/ hesitation (remotely similar)
>
>The only American Bronze figures that I can think of that don't travel
>toward LOD are (1) Hesitations, (2) The 6-Count Underarm Turn, (3) Open
>Break & Underarm Turn, and (4) Back Spot Turns.
Well. Unlike International Standard Waltz, American Waltz isn't
nationally standardized.
From a 1995 post to r.a.d. (maybe from mabg...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu):
>The ISTD American Style Syllabus Figures list.
...
>WALTZ
>BRONZE
>1. Forward Change Steps
>2. Left Box Turn
>3. Right Tum [turning ?] Box
>4. Simple Twinkle
>5. Hesitations
>6. Hesitation Combinations
>7. Promenade Hesitation
>8. Promenade Turn
>9. Twinkle and Walk Around
>10. Left Turn Cross
This seems more like what most studios teach to non-competition
beginners around here. Most of the figures are non-travelling. No
spin turn. No back spot turn. The box turns are taught very
differently from International Standard Natural and Reverse turns.
The Twinkle and Whisk seem to be similar in both styles.
I very rarely see strict American Bronze Waltz danced socially. Around
my area, most people who venture outside the franchise studios progress
very quickly to using figures similar to this American Silver syllabus.
>SILVER
>1. Progressive Basic
>2. Open Left Box Turn
...
>4. Progressive Twinkle
...
>6. Open Right Turn
IMHO. YMMV.
--
cauce....@vo.cnchost.com
>As an aside for Tango Argentina fans, the brush tap presumably derives
>from Adornos type decorations used in TA. But the follower in TA has (at
>least ostensibly) a slightly easier job in this circumstance because she
>wouldn't necessarily have to copy the leader's movements with her free
>foot. She could either stay still waiting for the leader to lead another
>move or do some other foot movement herself - possibly intended to convey
>her impatience at having to wait whilst the leader showed off :). Any
>thoughts on that, anyone?
Carlos Gavito (one of the stars in Forever Tango and an Internationally known
expert Argentine Tango instructor) was *quite* memorable on this subject. He
said: "you never step with the same foot twice. Tango is like walking. You
never walk by stepping right left right left left do you? (done with
demonstration of left foot stepping twice, and much laughter)".
According to all of my AT instructors, you ALWAYS weight a foot and then step
next with the other foot. Always. Never a tap step as a "move", although it is
permitted as a decoration (adorno). Thus it's never led.
YMMV
cauce....@vo.cnchost.com
See ye here, corb...@concentric.net (Mike Corbett) crafted the following words:
>Very well said. Leading foot changes and variations in rhythm
>patterns both require the use of more advanced techniques than are
>available to the average dancer. Evidence would be all the "I didn't
>know you could..." comments.
Although the same (requires advanced techniques) is not true of following them.
I certainly wasn't an "advanced dancer" the first time I was led into a
follower's foot change in a social c/w waltz. That's what makes it clear (to
me) that this *is* a readily leadable move, the fact that a follower only needs
to know how to do her steps "within the move" and not the move itself, or
anything else, to be able to follow the foot change. In my case, all I needed
to know was how to do a single syncopated spin with a single QQ in a waltz, a
fairly simple move that doesn't require "advanced skills" as it's no faster than
the typical spin in the QQ of a 2-step. I suspect that if while waltzing, you
led any competent 2-step follower into what would be a common 2 step move with a
spin on the QQ, she would automatically do the QQ footwork and find herself on
the opposite foot without thinking about it.
Andy Broomsgrove
In article <6i4ofd$757$1...@hecate.umd.edu>, mars...@astro.umd.edu (James
Marshall) wrote:
> I think you are correct. The basic step for American waltz as we were
> taught
> it started with a simple forward-side-together-back-side-together in
> place.
> Obviously that doesn't progress. After we got the hang of that, we
> started
> turning it using quarter turns. That still doesn't really go anywhere.
> But
> by the end of the course our teacher had us doing 3/8 turns on each half
> of the box step, thus making us able to progress around LOD. So it may
> depend on how far the beginners have gotten in their lessons as well as
> how
> comfortable they are with doing what they've been taught. I don't
> think I
> know that square tango sequence dance you mention, so I can't make a
> comparison there.
Yes that's what I thought.
The Square Tango I mentioned (because I was responding to someone else in
the UK) is a commonly known sequence dance (ie a dance with a set
choreography that repeats every 16 (I think) bars of music) which is quite
popular here especially amongst older dancers. Simply put, the "square"
bit of the square tango is basically your waltz box step in tango time.
You might like to know that beginning International dancers would normally
learn Natural and Reverse Turns as their first steps which are
progressive, a natural turn (simply put) being a turn in a clockwise
direction through 270 degrees over 6 steps (starting right foot facing
diagonally wall, forward side close turning 135 degrees to back line of
dance then backward side close to end facing diagonally centre) and a
reverse turn is the same thing going in the other direction, starting on
the left foot. A change step is danced between the two turns (forward side
close) to get you on the correct foot.
This has the big advantage that there are never any beginners on the floor
actually dancing a stationery figure (though I remember the days when I
might have paused to try to remember what to do next <grin>).
Andy
cauce....@vo.cnchost.com
>But (and correct me someone if I'm wrong) American style beginners are
>taught box steps at an early stage which I take to be similar to a "square
>step" such as found in the square tango sequence dance which don't
>actually progress at all.
Exactly. Especially at studios that stress social dancing rather than
competition dancing.
Mike Corbett
On 28 Apr 1998 17:46:32 EDT, cauce....@vo.cnchost.com wrote:
>See ye here, corb...@concentric.net (Mike Corbett) crafted the following words:
>
>>Very well said. Leading foot changes and variations in rhythm
>>patterns both require the use of more advanced techniques than are
>>available to the average dancer. Evidence would be all the "I didn't
>>know you could..." comments.
>
>Although the same (requires advanced techniques) is not true of following them.
>I certainly wasn't an "advanced dancer" the first time I was led into a
>follower's foot change in a social c/w waltz. That's what makes it clear (to
>me) that this *is* a readily leadable move, the fact that a follower only needs
>to know how to do her steps "within the move" and not the move itself, or
>anything else, to be able to follow the foot change. In my case, all I needed
>to know was how to do a single syncopated spin with a single QQ in a waltz, a
>fairly simple move that doesn't require "advanced skills" as it's no faster than
>the typical spin in the QQ of a 2-step. I suspect that if while waltzing, you
>led any competent 2-step follower into what would be a common 2 step move with a
>spin on the QQ, she would automatically do the QQ footwork and find herself on
>the opposite foot without thinking about it.
Exactly. The advanced part comes in when the follower realizes she's
on the same footwork as the leader, thinks she's wrong and "fixes" it.
Advanced followers will know the foot change was intentional and avoid
"fixing it". If she doesn't even realize she's changed footwork, that
same follower may accidentally change feet without a lead. The leader
is lucky to accomplish both the original foot change and then another
one to get back to standard footwork with other than an advanced
follower.
So we are talking about three levels of follower competency here. The
clueless (with regard to the foot change) , those who don't realize
the foot change was intentional and then fix it, and the advanced
follower who knows what's happening and trusts the leader.
Your waltz example is the easiest to accomplish with the clueless
follower. Unless she looks down she usually isn't even aware of
either end of the foot change. With 2 Step, she has to be really
clueless not to notice she's starting each pattern with the wrong
foot. That's why competent leaders lead multiple quicks in the proper
number to get the follower to come out on the correct foot and most
often make foot changes themselves when they wish to lead a series of
shadow footwork movements.
James Marshall
>learn Natural and Reverse Turns as their first steps which are
>. . . A change step is danced between the two turns (forward side
>close) to get you on the correct foot.
Yep, those were the first things we were taught in our beginner International
style class. :) Even though I am over here in the US, I almost always
dance International style and I'm probably more familiar with that style
than American. I just like International better, though I'm not sure if I
could clearly say why. :)
>This has the big advantage that there are never any beginners on the floor
>actually dancing a stationery figure (though I remember the days when I
>might have paused to try to remember what to do next <grin>).
That is a good point. The thing about dancing here (at least for the people
I go dancing with and the places we go to) is that you almost always have
both American and International style dancers on the floor at the same time.
It can make things a little tricky at times, especially with resepct to
being in the right area of the floor (i.e., fast travellers on the outside,
slow movers on the inside). As long as I'm not hallucinating :)
International style dances tend to travel more quickly than American style
dances (something I found out when I started doing ones like tango and
foxtrot) and it can be annoying to have the slower moving American style
dancers on the outside of the room blocking you. But that's really
another topic of discussion. :)
Ron Nicholson
In article <354b4bc1....@news.concentric.net>,
JC <cauce....@vo.cnchost.com> allegedly wrote:
>According to all of my AT instructors, you ALWAYS weight a foot and
>then step next with the other foot. Always. Never a tap step as a
>"move", although it is permitted as a decoration (adorno). Thus it's
>never led.
In both International Standard Tango and WCS, there is the concept of
initiation and completion of a lead, where you might start with the
lead for one type of step but in flight change the lead into one for a
different type of step. In WCS there are a few leads which start out
as a lead for a step straight ahead, but change into a lead for a turn
or a spin before the moving foot is (fully) weighted.
In Intl. Tango, the leader can shape as if heading in one direction for
a staccato step, which should cause most followers skilled in the state
of the art to extend their foot to catch the next step; if however the
leader changes mid-step (before the weight change) to not stepping, or
even reversing the direction of the step (syncopated fallaway, ronde,
turned oversway, etc.), then many followers will withdraw the foot
before weighting it and move the foot to a more supportive location.
I've seen a similar (but not identical) action taught for leading
swivels in American Tango and closed dance position WCS.
However, whether the extended but unweighted foot hits the floor loudly
enough for someone to consider it a tap is probably just a matter of
styling.
IMHO.
--
Ronald H. Nicholson, Jr. http://reality.sgi.com/rhn/
Silicon Graphics Computer Systems email: r...@sgi.com
2011 N. Shoreline Blvd. MS 43U-592 phone: 650 933-2880
Mountain View, CA 94043-1389 fax: 650 933-0926
Jonathan Atkinson
Ron Nicholson writes:
From a 1995 post to r.a.d. (maybe from mabg...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu):
>The ISTD American Style Syllabus Figures list.
...
>WALTZ
>BRONZE
>1. Forward Change Steps
>2. Left Box Turn
>3. Right Tum [turning ?] Box
>4. Simple Twinkle
>5. Hesitations
>6. Hesitation Combinations
>7. Promenade Hesitation
>8. Promenade Turn
>9. Twinkle and Walk Around
>10. Left Turn Cross
> This seems more like what most studios teach to non-competition
> beginners around here. Most of the figures are non-travelling. No
> spin turn. No back spot turn. The box turns are taught very
> differently from International Standard Natural and Reverse turns.
All of those figures travel down LOD, except for the Hesitations, which
are to be used sparingly. Forward Changes move directly down LOD, or
toward DC or DW when connecting Left and Right Boxes. The Left Box
starts facing DC and then ends facing DW, causing it to move in a zig
zag fashion down LOD. The Right Box starts DW and ends DC... same thing.
The Twinkle moves like a Whisk. The Promenade Hesitation moves directly
down LOD, similar to basic Foxtrot Promenade. "Promenade Turn" is a
Promenade to Natural Pivot Turn... this baby definitely travels.
"Twinkle and Walkaround" can be most closely associated with the
International "Wing", but with a man's reverse twist-turn action.
Left-Cross Turn, of course, makes a bee-line.
You get the idea.
Pick whichever Americn syllabus you like. NDCA (listed above), Arthur
Murray, Fred Astaire... we could break them down, and they'd all render
the same results: When done correctly, the figures cause you to move
around LOD in the same zig-zaggy manner that the International figures
do.
Certainly you can point out that there are many people, teachers
included, who ignore the basic principles of the American syllabus.
That's their perogative. Actually, in certain social situations, it's a
plus. But don't expect these people to do well in any competition or
examination.
By the same token, I'm sure I could find you plenty of international
social dancers who just as blatently ignore the "rules" set forth by the
syllabus. Again, there's a time and a place for everything. Social
dancing was not necessarily meant to travel furiously around LOD...
American, International, or otherwise. But I'm not talking about social
dancing here. I'm talking about the *syllabus*, which clearly defines
figures and alignments that cause the dance to progress around the LOD,
when done correctly as written.
By the way, there is, in the Fred Astaire and A.M. syllabus, a left and
right box that turn 1/4 per measure, in addition to the standard 3/8
boxes. Clearly, these 1/4 turning boxes do not travel. But the better
teachers understand that these were included in the syllabus solely as a
teaching tool... something to be abandoned once the student has learned
to turn 3/8 in order to travel. The only time I would ever use a 1/4
turn is in a corner, or perhaps in the context of half-boxes which
travel toward LOD.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Atkinson
Mike Corbett
On 28 Apr 1998 23:39:00 GMT, r...@waltz.engr.sgi.com (Ron Nicholson)
wrote:
>In article <354b4bc1....@news.concentric.net>,
> JC <cauce....@vo.cnchost.com> allegedly wrote:
>>According to all of my AT instructors, you ALWAYS weight a foot and
>>then step next with the other foot. Always. Never a tap step as a
>>"move", although it is permitted as a decoration (adorno). Thus it's
>>never led.
>
>In both International Standard Tango and WCS, there is the concept of
>initiation and completion of a lead, where you might start with the
>lead for one type of step but in flight change the lead into one for a
>different type of step. In WCS there are a few leads which start out
>as a lead for a step straight ahead, but change into a lead for a turn
>or a spin before the moving foot is (fully) weighted.
>
>In Intl. Tango, the leader can shape as if heading in one direction for
>a staccato step, which should cause most followers skilled in the state
>of the art to extend their foot to catch the next step; if however the
>leader changes mid-step (before the weight change) to not stepping, or
>even reversing the direction of the step (syncopated fallaway, ronde,
>turned oversway, etc.), then many followers will withdraw the foot
>before weighting it and move the foot to a more supportive location.
>I've seen a similar (but not identical) action taught for leading
>swivels in American Tango and closed dance position WCS.
>
>However, whether the extended but unweighted foot hits the floor loudly
>enough for someone to consider it a tap is probably just a matter of
>styling.
I think for our purposes here we are talking about a tap or touch step
as a led skipped weight change for the follower. In that context,
sound is irrelevant. In Ron's example above the extension of the foot
is by choice. The lead is for something else. He doesn't mention a
skipped weight change. Is there one?
Russell Hicks hicks
not of said it better.
15 years around international style teaching and now year 7 teaching
in a chain studio,i think the chains do a good job.
Russell Hicks.
Ron Nicholson
Mike Corbett <corb...@concentric.net> wrote:
>I think for our purposes here we are talking about a tap or touch step
>as a led skipped weight change for the follower. In that context,
>sound is irrelevant. In Ron's example above the extension of the foot
>is by choice. The lead is for something else. He doesn't mention a
>skipped weight change. Is there one?
Skipped weight change? What's there to skip? Skipped according to
who? How is that different from not changing weight at all? Or are
all slow steps really two quick steps with a skipped quick? Or if the
leader or follower merely think about taking a step but doesn't, is the
step skipped? (I just thought about you taking 3 steps and you didn't;
did you skip them then? aha! a led foot change! :-)
The above questions are metaphysical ponderings that have very little
to do with observable dance. Something observable (or "feelable" by
followers) might be a lead to take a step (which initiates visible foot
motion) that stops before the follower can actually step (change
weight). (or vice versa, as commonly seen in WCS where a beginner with
a late lead pulls a follower out of her syncopation.)
Another observable happening might be a pattern that a majority of some
group of people can recognize and name. "That's a weave; oh, but he
seems to have left out the last step." This is only by convention, and
depends on the group of people to have a common vocabulary of
patterns. (re: previous comments about some conventions having "taps"
and other not. some people will see a brush tap where the man used
modified footwork; other people will see unleadable gibberish.)
>"extension of the foot is by choice"
is also a little bit metaphysical. If I lead a step that displaces the
follower 0.6 M in two beats of foxtrot music, is she choosing to move
her foot and not to fall on her rear end? Is she choosing not to hop 3
times on one foot? Or is the followers foot movement that results in
taking a the first slow step of a Intl. Foxtrot reverse turn something
that is led? Or is it some combination of the two? (she chose to
follow, and then the leader chose to initiate the first step of a
reverse turn?)
I would say the question should be whether the extension of the foot is
by lead, as leads are commonly understood by some community of
dancers. And foot extensions must be leadable because it's hard to
take certain kinds of steps (in commonly accepted good dance form in
certain kinds of dances) without first extending the foot. Intl.
Tango has this kind of action in even the most beginning basic
single steps.
YMMV. IMHO. moo. quack. multicolored giraffes.
Mike Corbett
On 29 Apr 1998 22:16:24 GMT, r...@waltz.engr.sgi.com (Ron Nicholson)
wrote:
>Mike Corbett <corb...@concentric.net> wrote:
>>I think for our purposes here we are talking about a tap or touch step
>>as a led skipped weight change for the follower. In that context,
>>sound is irrelevant. In Ron's example above the extension of the foot
>>is by choice. The lead is for something else. He doesn't mention a
>>skipped weight change. Is there one?
>
>Skipped weight change? What's there to skip? Skipped according to
>who? How is that different from not changing weight at all? Or are
>all slow steps really two quick steps with a skipped quick? Or if the
>leader or follower merely think about taking a step but doesn't, is the
>step skipped? (I just thought about you taking 3 steps and you didn't;
>did you skip them then? aha! a led foot change! :-)
The short answer is...
1. If the number of weight changes to be made within the standard
rhythm unit is optional for the follower then leading a figure or
movement where the follower may choose her footwork does not
constitute a led foot change.
or
2. When the number of weight changes in a standard rhythm unit of a
dance is not optional for the follower, then foot changes can be
properly led.
> Something observable (or "feelable" by
>followers) might be a lead to take a step (which initiates visible foot
>motion) that stops before the follower can actually step (change
>weight). (or vice versa, as commonly seen in WCS where a beginner with
>a late lead pulls a follower out of her syncopation.)
In WCS use 1. above. Foot changes led inadvertently by incompetent
leaders in dances where 1. above applies hardly fit into the context
of led foot changes.
>Another observable happening might be a pattern that a majority of some
>group of people can recognize and name. "That's a weave; oh, but he
>seems to have left out the last step." This is only by convention, and
>depends on the group of people to have a common vocabulary of
>patterns. (re: previous comments about some conventions having "taps"
>and other not. some people will see a brush tap where the man used
>modified footwork; other people will see unleadable gibberish.)
We have previously set aside leading known patterns that (by syllabus
or common knowledge) contain tap, touches or brushes, as something
other than leading foot changes. Have we not?
>
>>"extension of the foot is by choice"
>
>is also a little bit metaphysical. If I lead a step that displaces the
>follower 0.6 M in two beats of foxtrot music, is she choosing to move
>her foot and not to fall on her rear end? Is she choosing not to hop 3
>times on one foot? Or is the followers foot movement that results in
>taking a the first slow step of a Intl. Foxtrot reverse turn something
>that is led? Or is it some combination of the two? (she chose to
>follow, and then the leader chose to initiate the first step of a
>reverse turn?)
"extension of the foot is by choice" is a statement made in a specific
context. It does not stand alone. I quote from the referenced
message....
> In Ron's example above the extension of the foot
>is by choice. The lead is for something else
The example I recall you using met two criteria for calling the result
"other than a led foot change" First, the number of weight changes
was optional and second the follower was not led to make a specific
number of weight changes within the rhythm unit.
In your example the follower may naturally have been prepared to step
forward due to the temporarily apparent need to do so. Instead,
before she could weight her foot, she was led in a rotation on the
standing foot.
At most (in that example) the follower was prevented from making an
anticipated weight change which momentarily did not seem optional but
in fact was optional. After all, she didn't make the weight change,
did she?
>I would say the question should be whether the extension of the foot is
>by lead, as leads are commonly understood by some community of
>dancers. And foot extensions must be leadable because it's hard to
>take certain kinds of steps (in commonly accepted good dance form in
>certain kinds of dances) without first extending the foot. Intl.
>Tango has this kind of action in even the most beginning basic
>single steps.
The above does not fit with the limited context in which "extension of
the foot is by choice" was stated.
cauce....@vo.cnchost.com
See ye here, corb...@concentric.net (Mike Corbett) crafted the following words:
>On 28 Apr 1998 17:46:32 EDT, cauce....@vo.cnchost.com wrote:
>
>>See ye here, corb...@concentric.net (Mike Corbett) crafted the following words:
>>
>>>Very well said. Leading foot changes and variations in rhythm
>>>patterns both require the use of more advanced techniques than are
>>>available to the average dancer. Evidence would be all the "I didn't
>>>know you could..." comments.
>>
>>Although the same (requires advanced techniques) is not true of following them.
>>I certainly wasn't an "advanced dancer" the first time I was led into a
>>follower's foot change in a social c/w waltz. That's what makes it clear (to
>>me) that this *is* a readily leadable move, the fact that a follower only needs
>>to know how to do her steps "within the move" and not the move itself, or
>>anything else, to be able to follow the foot change. In my case, all I needed
>>to know was how to do a single syncopated spin with a single QQ in a waltz, a
>>fairly simple move that doesn't require "advanced skills" as it's no faster than
>>the typical spin in the QQ of a 2-step. I suspect that if while waltzing, you
>>led any competent 2-step follower into what would be a common 2 step move with a
>>spin on the QQ, she would automatically do the QQ footwork and find herself on
>>the opposite foot without thinking about it.
>
>Exactly. The advanced part comes in when the follower realizes she's
>on the same footwork as the leader, thinks she's wrong and "fixes" it.
That's why I said in my first post on this subthread:
To successfully lead this foot change *socially*, the leader should then
have a move that immediately requires the "now opposite" footwork from
the follower. Then the follower will not attempt to change back as she
realizes that she is on the correct feet to follow this "same foot" move
that the leader is leading.
>Advanced followers will know the foot change was intentional and avoid
Substitute experienced with advanced and I agree. One doesn't need to be an
advanced dancer to know to stay on opposite foot, just exposed to it (either in
a lesson or by an expert leader) a few times. Once you have "experienced" the
possibility of doing a foot change and doing same foot moves, you can then do
them (and follow them) even if you aren't an advanced follower. I'm proof.
But clueless beginners may be able of doing this too. Especially in waltz, if
they haven't learned about song phrasing and regularly dance off phrase
(striding on step 1 on beat 4) anyway. To them, there isn't any thing
inherently *wrong* about coming out on the wrong foot till they get stepped on
or can't do a turn because they are on the wrong foot. You would be surprised
at how many followers aren't phased by a well led foot change in waltz...
>"fixing it". If she doesn't even realize she's changed footwork, that
>same follower may accidentally change feet without a lead. The leader
>is lucky to accomplish both the original foot change and then another
>one to get back to standard footwork with other than an advanced
>follower.
A good leader can do it, with proper planning. The best return foot change
would be in a move that ends up in closed position, follower going backwards
down LOD, in a position and foot pattern that are obviously comfortable and
right. It would also be best to only do one or two "moves" during the same foot
sequence for the first few time to be sure the follower can smoothly follow this
sequence before trying a longer same foot sequence of moves.
Using my prior example, from reversed closed, lead the follower into a 1,2,&3
spin, into sweetheart side-by-side going backwards, and finish with a skaters
turn on 4,5,6. Then *again* lead her into a 1,2,&3 spin (before she can *think*
about changing feet) back into a close position on the normal footwork again.
Properly planned, properly led, should work most of the time with all followers
who have the skills to do the 1,2,&3 spin.
>So we are talking about three levels of follower competency here. The
>clueless (with regard to the foot change) , those who don't realize
>the foot change was intentional and then fix it, and the advanced
>follower who knows what's happening and trusts the leader.
Except I *was* clueless about doing a follower's footchange the first time it
was led! I didn't know it *could* be led. I just followed, and found myself on
the other foot doing "same foot" moves.
>Your waltz example is the easiest to accomplish with the clueless
>follower. Unless she looks down she usually isn't even aware of
>either end of the foot change. With 2 Step, she has to be really
>clueless not to notice she's starting each pattern with the wrong
>foot. That's why competent leaders lead multiple quicks in the proper
>number to get the follower to come out on the correct foot and most
>often make foot changes themselves when they wish to lead a series of
>shadow footwork movements.
Yes, with non-symetrical foot pattern dances like 2-Step it's much harder as the
follower must know how to step the opposite pattern. This isn't something one
can typically expect of any but the most advanced dancers.
cauce....@vo.cnchost.com
Clarification:
AT as used here means "Argentine Tango", not American Tango, not International
Tango. I thought it was a standard abbreviation, I apologize for any confusion
this may have caused.
Ron Nicholson
Jonathan Atkinson <Walt...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Pick whichever Americn syllabus you like. NDCA (listed above), Arthur
>Murray, Fred Astaire... we could break them down, and they'd all render
>the same results: When done correctly, the figures cause you to move
>around LOD in the same zig-zaggy manner that the International figures
>do.
>
>Certainly you can point out that there are many people, teachers
>included, who ignore the basic principles of the American syllabus.
>That's their perogative. Actually, in certain social situations, it's a
>plus. But don't expect these people to do well in any competition or
>examination.
>
Which is the root of the misunderstanding. I was talking about the
real world on the typical non-closed dance floor inside the U.S.
(original topic was something about American bronze dancers blocking
LOD at a dance.)
Although there exist a community of American style competition dancers,
in most of the U.S. the great majority of people take couples dance
lessons in order to social dance (e.g. dance at weddings, etc.); and
what they take is usually a form of American style ballroom dance.
Therefore most of the American style bronze dancers that one might run
across on a random dance floor are social dancers with limited
training, where syllabus technique may have been softened in order to
make the dance more accessible to the general populace (this is a good
thing; they pay for most of the dance floors!). In other words,
American style ballroom includes, as it's largest subset, most American
social ballroom dancing. The number of competition dancers, as a
percentage of ALL American style mostly-bronze dancers, is tiny.
Although it is possible to social dance International style in the
U.S. (I do); most people, of the smaller percentage of people who take
International style ballroom dance lessons, are doing so usually for
other reasons than primarily social dancing. A higher percentage
of these dancers are interested in developing the technique necessary
(and as a side effect, the foot strength) to travel further down LOD,
even while just using basic bronze syllabus. [I didn't say all,
just more "percentagewise", IMHO.]
Thus, therefore, even though Jonathan is technically correct, that
American style bronze can be correctly taught so as to produce travel
down LOD while using very good technique, in actuality, in the U.S.,
there is a high probability that most of the road blocks one finds on
most open dance floors during a Waltz or Foxtrot are American style
dancers who haven't learned silver patterns yet (at which point, even
the purely social dancers start to travel more).
Encountering any sort of couple dancing International style is rare in
the U.S.(competitions aside), encountering one who can't travel LOD is
extremely rare. Far more likely is to find basic-bronze Intl. style
couples who crash into people because they don't know enough patterns
to STOP moving down LOD (or diagonal LOD). The opposite of blocking LOD.
If, for instance, I were to go to a practice dance where people were
warming up for syllabus events in an American style competition, I
might expect to find the opposite. (it's only happened to me maybe once
in a decade of dancing. (a lot more if I were to count pro-am, but I
don't.))
I also imagine that the situation is probably different outside the
U.S. (where American style ballroom certainly isn't likely to be the
predominant form of social couples dancing.)
FHunsicker
> cauce....@vo.cnchost.com wrote:
>Properly planned, properly led, should work most of the time with all
followers
>who have the skills to do the 1,2,&3 spin.
>Except I *was* clueless about doing a follower's footchange the first time it
>was led! I didn't know it *could* be led. I just followed, and found myself
on
>the other foot doing "same foot" moves.
You are talking about c/w waltz and might be 2step. I do not believe leading
followers footchange is done in American or International ballroom.
The way it has been described seem uncomfortable for the follower in that she
is rapidly pulled around in a underarm spin to force taking the extra step.
Footchange here mean changing followers footwork while leader maintains a
standard footwork. Is same thing done in rhythm dances?
Frank Hunsicker
James Marshall
In article <6i8n2u$dcs$1...@murrow.corp.sgi.com> r...@waltz.engr.sgi.com (Ron Nicholson) writes:
>Although there exist a community of American style competition dancers,
>in most of the U.S. the great majority of people take couples dance
>lessons in order to social dance (e.g. dance at weddings, etc.); and
>what they take is usually a form of American style ballroom dance.
I'd have to agree that generally speaking this is correct.
>Therefore most of the American style bronze dancers that one might run
>across on a random dance floor are social dancers with limited
>training, where syllabus technique may have been softened in order to
>make the dance more accessible to the general populace (this is a good
>thing; they pay for most of the dance floors!). In other words,
Good point. :) If the general populace wasn't helping to pay for the
dance floors, then dance studios or whatever could be going out of
business leaving less places for everyone, including more serious
dancers, to dance at.
>American style ballroom includes, as it's largest subset, most American
>social ballroom dancing. The number of competition dancers, as a
>percentage of ALL American style mostly-bronze dancers, is tiny.
As you mention below, this may be different outside the US, but at
least within the US, American style is sort of generally considered
the social dance style while International style is the competitions
style.
>Although it is possible to social dance International style in the
>U.S. (I do);
Yep, me too. :) Of course, it depends on a lot of things. It's
usually easy for me to find International style dancers at social
dances because I go with other members of my college club and a lot
of them do both International and American style. When we go places
with less college students though, I tend to find it a bit more
difficult to find International style dancers since most people
learn American style dancing first/for social dancing.
>most people, of the smaller percentage of people who take
>International style ballroom dance lessons, are doing so usually for
>other reasons than primarily social dancing.
And a lot of times (I think, anyway), people learn International style
in order to enter competitions. Or at least learn the techniques and
all that will help them in competitions.
>A higher percentage
>of these dancers are interested in developing the technique necessary
>(and as a side effect, the foot strength) to travel further down LOD,
>even while just using basic bronze syllabus. [I didn't say all,
>just more "percentagewise", IMHO.]
>
>Thus, therefore, even though Jonathan is technically correct, that
>American style bronze can be correctly taught so as to produce travel
>down LOD while using very good technique, in actuality, in the U.S.,
>there is a high probability that most of the road blocks one finds on
>most open dance floors during a Waltz or Foxtrot are American style
>dancers who haven't learned silver patterns yet (at which point, even
>the purely social dancers start to travel more).
Yes, that sounds about right by my experience.
>Encountering any sort of couple dancing International style is rare in
>the U.S.(competitions aside),
Well, situation dependent. As I mentioned above, our college club has
a bunch of International style dancers, so at dances we go to (sometimes
with, sometimes without other colleges) it's very common to have both
American style and International style dancers out on the dance floor
at the same time.
>encountering one who can't travel LOD is
>extremely rare. Far more likely is to find basic-bronze Intl. style
>couples who crash into people because they don't know enough patterns
>to STOP moving down LOD (or diagonal LOD). The opposite of blocking LOD.
Another good point. Which reminds me of what our dance teacher was
telling us while teaching us basic International foxtrot. She told us
that there is absolutely no way we can easily avoid collisions using
just the four steps she taught us (feather, three, natural, reverse, if
you couldn't guess :) )., so she warned us to be careful when practicing
it at social dances. She said that we should make sure we try to avoid
collisions, even if it means we have to stop for a moment or drop back
into American style moves, or whatever else you like to do to avoid
collisions. She also said that foxtrot is probably the most limiting
in its syllabus and that you really have to be up to gold level before
you have sufficient material to actually avoid collisions without
breaking style.
>I also imagine that the situation is probably different outside the
>U.S. (where American style ballroom certainly isn't likely to be the
>predominant form of social couples dancing.)
Agreed. I'm fairly certain the situation would be different in places
where they dance only International style, or at least very little
American style. I'd actually be interested in hearing about the
situation in such places, if anyone would care to write about it.
Ron Nicholson
Mike Corbett <corb...@concentric.net> allegedly wrote:
>The short answer is...
>
>1. If the number of weight changes to be made within the standard
>rhythm unit is optional for the follower then leading a figure or
>movement where the follower may choose her footwork does not
>constitute a led foot change.
>We have previously set aside leading known patterns that (by syllabus
>or common knowledge) contain tap, touches or brushes, as something
>other than leading foot changes. Have we not?
Not me. If you watch enough absolute beginners, you might note that
all follower footwork in optional (leader footwork also). Both steps
and patterns are standardized by convention and common knowledge
between dancers suitably immersed in the dance subculture. People who
haven't learned the conventions can and do make arbitrary numbers of
weight changes with respect to the rhythm units.
So I fail to see why one might distinguish steps from patterns in this
discussion, since both must be learned, and whether the standing leg
has "changed" is purely a matter of convention for a given dance. My
guess is that people forget about the skills that they learn early on
and thus can't remember thinking about any more. This initial clueless
experience is something that it's handy for a good teacher to keep in
mind.
Another possible reason for this misunderstanding is the assumption
that "leads" and "steps" have a one-to-one relationship. This assumes
that leads for fractions of a step, and/or for groups of steps (might
be called patterns), do not exist in any school of dance. I've heard
a few teachers (Skippy?) teach leads that optionally change in sub-beat
sub-step fractional intervals.
IMHO.
mark anthony balzer
I don't understand what is so difficult about this. Heck, when I hear
a bridge coming, I'll routinely accent it by seamlessly leading even
beginner partners through 16 (or more) beat _syncopated_ tap dance
sequences that would turn Fred and Ginger green with envy.
Maybe you guys just need more practice.
:-)
Mark
Mike Corbett <corb...@concentric.net> wrote:
>r...@waltz.engr.sgi.com (Ron Nicholson) wrote:
>
>>Mike Corbett <corb...@concentric.net> wrote:
>>>I think for our purposes here we are talking about a tap or touch step
>>>as a led skipped weight change for the follower. In that context,
>>>sound is irrelevant. In Ron's example above the extension of the foot
>>>is by choice. The lead is for something else. He doesn't mention a
>>>skipped weight change. Is there one?
>>
>>Skipped weight change? What's there to skip? Skipped according to
>>who? How is that different from not changing weight at all? Or are
>>all slow steps really two quick steps with a skipped quick? Or if the
>>leader or follower merely think about taking a step but doesn't, is the
>>step skipped? (I just thought about you taking 3 steps and you didn't;
>>did you skip them then? aha! a led foot change! :-)
>
>
>The short answer is...
>
>1. If the number of weight changes to be made within the standard
>rhythm unit is optional for the follower then leading a figure or
>movement where the follower may choose her footwork does not
>constitute a led foot change.
>
>or
>
>2. When the number of weight changes in a standard rhythm unit of a
>dance is not optional for the follower, then foot changes can be
>properly led.
>
>
>
>> Something observable (or "feelable" by
>>followers) might be a lead to take a step (which initiates visible foot
>>motion) that stops before the follower can actually step (change
>>weight). (or vice versa, as commonly seen in WCS where a beginner with
>>a late lead pulls a follower out of her syncopation.)
>
>In WCS use 1. above. Foot changes led inadvertently by incompetent
>leaders in dances where 1. above applies hardly fit into the context
>of led foot changes.
>
>
>>Another observable happening might be a pattern that a majority of some
>>group of people can recognize and name. "That's a weave; oh, but he
>>seems to have left out the last step." This is only by convention, and
>>depends on the group of people to have a common vocabulary of
>>patterns. (re: previous comments about some conventions having "taps"
>>and other not. some people will see a brush tap where the man used
>>modified footwork; other people will see unleadable gibberish.)
>
>We have previously set aside leading known patterns that (by syllabus
>or common knowledge) contain tap, touches or brushes, as something
>other than leading foot changes. Have we not?
>
>>
Mike Corbett
On 30 Apr 1998 19:44:28 GMT, r...@waltz.engr.sgi.com (Ron Nicholson)
wrote:
>Mike Corbett <corb...@concentric.net> allegedly wrote:
>>The short answer is...
>>
>>1. If the number of weight changes to be made within the standard
>>rhythm unit is optional for the follower then leading a figure or
>>movement where the follower may choose her footwork does not
>>constitute a led foot change.
>...
>>We have previously set aside leading known patterns that (by syllabus
>>or common knowledge) contain tap, touches or brushes, as something
>>other than leading foot changes. Have we not?
>
>Not me. If you watch enough absolute beginners, you might note that
>all follower footwork in optional (leader footwork also). Both steps
>and patterns are standardized by convention and common knowledge
>between dancers suitably immersed in the dance subculture. People who
>haven't learned the conventions can and do make arbitrary numbers of
>weight changes with respect to the rhythm units.
When one chooses to ignore all previous context, one can make any
assertion appear valid to some. The context in which foot changes has
been discussed here relates to advanced lead and follow techniques
used to place the follower on the leader's footwork in order to
accomplish movements that require them to be on the same footwork.
It has been discussed that it's easier for the leader to change his
own footwork to match the follower. Neither of these kinds of foot
changes are appropriately attempted by the "absolute beginners" you
mention above. Again, your context does not fit with the discussion
at hand. Absolute beginners do not lead absolute beginners to make
foot changes.
>So I fail to see why one might distinguish steps from patterns in this
>discussion, since both must be learned, and whether the standing leg
>has "changed" is purely a matter of convention for a given dance.
The fallacy in your statement above is born out by the well documented
fact that followers can be lead to do both steps and patterns they
have not previously seen, much less learned.
By failing to understand this distinction you clearly indicate that
your level of lead and follow skill and understanding are not yet
sufficient to fully comprehend and apply the principles being
discussed.
>
>Another possible reason for this misunderstanding is the assumption
>that "leads" and "steps" have a one-to-one relationship. This assumes
>that leads for fractions of a step, and/or for groups of steps (might
>be called patterns), do not exist in any school of dance. I've heard
>a few teachers (Skippy?) teach leads that optionally change in sub-beat
>sub-step fractional intervals.
That misunderstanding may well exist but not with me. A leader's
activity is continuous and indeed physical activity varies by the
micro-second to accomplish objectives at certain points in time.
Those points relate to beats and rhythm units while being continuous
across their space in time.
A single "lead" consists of multiple movements. Although a leader may
mentally group a set of "lead activities" for a pattern, a follower
who, while in the midst of that pattern, does the same and acts
accordingly, will no longer be following. She will be anticipating or
"interpreting signals". It is next to impossible to lead a foot
change while dancing with such a person dancing the follower's role.
Mike Corbett
On 30 Apr 1998 19:59:02 GMT, m-ba...@students.uiuc.edu (mark anthony
balzer) wrote:
>
>I don't understand what is so difficult about this. Heck, when I hear
>a bridge coming, I'll routinely accent it by seamlessly leading even
>beginner partners through 16 (or more) beat _syncopated_ tap dance
>sequences that would turn Fred and Ginger green with envy.
When I'm really tired and intoxicated I dance like that too. Does it
wake you up when you fall out of bed?
Jon Leech
In article <memo.19980430...@abroomsg.compulink.co.uk>,
Andy Broomsgrove <abroomsg@REMOVEcix..co.uk> wrote:
>Oh and we have no equivalent of the "chain" studios here.
The recent thread on Ceroc suggests otherwise.
Jon
__@/
Howard Spurr
Andy Broomsgrove <abroomsg@REMOVEcix..co.uk> wrote in article
<memo.19980430...@abroomsg.compulink.co.uk>...
> In article <6ia3ld$gt9$1...@hecate.umd.edu>, mars...@astro.umd.edu (James
> Marshall) wrote:
>
> > I'm fairly certain the situation would be different in places
> > where they dance only International style, or at least very little
> > American style. I'd actually be interested in hearing about the
> > situation in such places, if anyone would care to write about it.
> >
>
> Here in the UK virtually no-one dances American style and I've never seen
> or heard of a dance event -social or competitive- being organised for
> anything other than International Style.
Ditto
> Having said that I shouldn't give the impression that every social dance
> is up to world championship standards by any means.
I'd certainly agree on that!
<snip>
>
> In the UK (for the most part) you are either a dance enthusiast or you
are
> not. Ballroom dances are mainly organised by various dance teachers/dance
> schools and you rarely see it done outside of that kind of setting -
> pretty much never at weddings and that kind of thing.
The other place you see dancing, and the interpretation of the term
'enthusiast' may differ, is at Tea Dances.
Almost by definition, these are held during weekday afternoons so tend to
be attended mainly by the retired. They are often billed as 50/50 dances
ie half ballroom/latin and half sequence dances.
Sequence dances are choreographed 16 bar repeated patterns which everyone
performs at the same time and same direction (relative to LOD) - in theory
;-) There are dances at all rhythms from old time gavottes, through
waltzes to sambas. Andy mentioned a popular favourite, the Square Tango,
in an earlier post. In general, partly due to the age of the participants
(no flames please, I just turned 50 myself and I'm feeling old), there is
little emphasis on style. This is a shame as the dances can look good if
some effort is put into them.
There are about 40 popular dances which most people will shuffle round in,
but specialist sequence dance clubs will 'learn' 3 or 4 new ones each
month. Needless to say, these are rarely properly learnt and most are
forgotten very quickly.
To get back to the thread......
Given that everyone is dancing International style, the differences come in
the number of variations known, the length of stride and the extent to
which the correct directions were learnt or forgotten. There will
typically be a reasonable mix within these constraints but relatively few
collisions. The most common problem seems to be an almost universal
tendency to underturn a spin turn and finish the last few steps backwards
against the LOD. There does not seem to be the concept of a fast lane
around the outside and slow lane in the middle. At one extreme couples
move in a particular direction because that is the way they happen to be
facing, whilst others see a space and dance into it. A slow moving couple
may be overtaken on either side - just as they would be on a motorway ;-)
Regards
Howard
Mike Corbett
On 1 May 1998 01:38:19 GMT, r...@waltz.engr.sgi.com (Ron Nicholson)
wrote:
>Mike Corbett <corb...@concentric.net> wrote:
>>On 30 Apr 1998 19:44:28 GMT, r...@waltz.engr.sgi.com (Ron Nicholson)
>>>So I fail to see why one might distinguish steps from patterns in this
>>>discussion, since both must be learned, and whether the standing leg
>>>has "changed" is purely a matter of convention for a given dance.
>>
>>The fallacy in your statement above is born out by the well documented
>>fact that followers can be lead to do both steps and patterns they
>>have not previously seen, much less learned.
>
>The possible fallacy in the above alleged fallacy is that, depending on
>the follower, some unfamiliar steps and patterns might be leadable and
>others might not. My conjecture is that the probability of success is
>related to the degree of conformance that the new pattern has to the
>conventions of the steps or patterns that the follower already "knows"
>how to follow.
Your possible fallacy would be a fallacy if I had said all followers
can be lead in any pattern whether they have seen it or not....
I didn't. The context was simply that followers can be led.... If
some can be and many commonly are, then it is false that patterns must
first be learned by followers for followers to be lead to dance them.
That said, yes the degree of conformance that a new pattern has to the
conventions of the steps or patterns a follower already has
familiarity with is *one* of many relative factors. The less skilled
the leader and or follower the bigger a factor pattern familiarity
will be. More skill...less important.
Again. Leading foot changes is an advanced lead and follow technique
most often successful when attempted by leaders and followers who
possess the needed skill to use the techniques required.
>Most recent personal example was a nearly identical pattern that I led
>while dancing with a follower far more skilled than I in CW2S and WCS,
>but unfamiliar with NC2S and Salsa. The follower executed this pattern
>perfectly in NC2S, but failed miserably in Salsa. Why? She told me.
>She had no clue how to find the "quicks" and "slows" in Salsa music.
>No such problem with (CW style!) NC2S tempo music. It confornmed more
>closely to what she was used to following. (could a better Salsa
>dancer have done better that I. sure! but then a better CW+NC2S
>leader could also have raised the bar even higher. &etc.)
Exactly. Leading and following success are dependant upon skills and
abilities that require each partner to have a foundation in the
fundamentals of the dance at hand, in addition to the required lead
and follow skills.
Bill Sherman
In article <199804300327...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
FHunsicker <fhuns...@aol.com> wrote:
>> cauce....@vo.cnchost.com wrote:
>>Properly planned, properly led, should work most of the time with all
>followers
>>who have the skills to do the 1,2,&3 spin.
>You are talking about c/w waltz and might be 2step. I do not believe leading
>followers footchange is done in American or International ballroom.
>The way it has been described seem uncomfortable for the follower in that she
>is rapidly pulled around in a underarm spin to force taking the extra step.
Actually, I just learned a Bolero (American Style ballroom
dance very similar to International Rumba in step patterns) step which
is almost identical to the type of foot switch in question. The lady
does an under-arm turn (allemana), as she finishes the turn, the man
lowers the joined hands to waist level. As the lady takes the slow
step, the man gently presses her hand to indicate that she is supposed
to turn and take an extra step. Then they do turning basic steps in
shadow position for a while...
-- Bill Sherman
Bill Sherman
In article <6ia3ld$gt9$1...@hecate.umd.edu>,
James Marshall <mars...@astro.umd.edu> wrote:
>...Which reminds me of what our dance teacher was
>telling us while teaching us basic International foxtrot. She told us
>that there is absolutely no way we can easily avoid collisions using
>just the four steps she taught us (feather, three, natural, reverse, if
>you couldn't guess :) )., so she warned us to be careful when practicing
>it at social dances. She said that we should make sure we try to avoid
>collisions, even if it means we have to stop for a moment or drop back
>into American style moves, or whatever else you like to do to avoid
>collisions. She also said that foxtrot is probably the most limiting
>in its syllabus and that you really have to be up to gold level before
>you have sufficient material to actually avoid collisions without
>breaking style.
Actually, Fox Trot floorcraft gets much easier when you hit
silver syllabus. The gold moves are mostly flashy stuff which don't
make floorcraft much easier.
The key step to have a good mastery of to avoid collisions in
Fox Trot is the Top Spin. You can use the Top Spin after any variety
of Feather (step, finnish, ending...), including after Weaves. The
Top Spin lets you double back the way you came. If you find yourself
facing against the line of dance after one Top Spin, you can just do a
second Top Spin, and it will turn you back around. I find it makes
all the difference between colliding and not colliding, though it
takes some practice to learn to lead well.
Another useful step for floorcraft is the Outside Swivel.
This can also be done after any Feather action, and it lets you
stop cold for a few beats, and even turn a bit if needed. I happen
not to like the Swivel, since I don't think it fits Fox Trot so well
(which is probably why it's normally taught as part of a very
particular combination). In any case, you can almost always do a Top
Spin where you might want to do a Swivel, so I mostly use the Top
Spin.
Other useful steps include the Hover Telemark, the Natural
Weave and Weave from Promenade. (It's also handy to keep in mind that
you can just do Feather Step and Three Step straight down the line of
dance in a pinch.)
Once you've mastered those few steps (none Gold), you have the
tools needed to avoid most of the problems that face you on a crowded
floor.
Unfortunately, the steps which are missing from the
International Fox Trot syllabus are steps which allow you to stop
short if you are in promenade position along the line of dance or
backing LOD with your right foot free (basically, situations where I'd
use a Wing or a Reverse Corte in Waltz). If I suddenly need to avoid
a collision from one of those positions, I usually just do the
equivalent Waltz step in Fox Trot timing, and then get a bit confused
(particularly as I try to follow my Reverse Corte with a Back Whisk).
Interestingly, my followers never notice anything amiss, and wonder
why I'm suddenly so confused...
Cheers,
Bill Sherman
cauce....@vo.cnchost.com
See ye here, mars...@astro.umd.edu (James Marshall) crafted the following
words:
>Another good point. Which reminds me of what our dance teacher was
>telling us while teaching us basic International foxtrot. She told us
>that there is absolutely no way we can easily avoid collisions using
>just the four steps she taught us (feather, three, natural, reverse, if
>you couldn't guess :) )., so she warned us to be careful when practicing
>it at social dances. She said that we should make sure we try to avoid
>collisions, even if it means we have to stop for a moment or drop back
>into American style moves, or whatever else you like to do to avoid
>collisions. She also said that foxtrot is probably the most limiting
>in its syllabus and that you really have to be up to gold level before
>you have sufficient material to actually avoid collisions without
>breaking style.
"Breaking style" or "breaking from the syllabus"?
If International is a "style" one should be able to do moves that aren't in the
current sylabus without breaking style, in order to observe dancefloor
etiquette.
If, OTOH it's strictly a sylabus, and moves outside the sylabus can't be danced
with International Style, then I am quite confused. What is so critical about
the sylabus that you can't do moves other than those perscribed?
Strictly Ballroom apparently touches on this topic. I got the joke in the
movie, I would love to hear more about how it really applies in real
International Ballroom circles.
Jonathan Atkinson
Bill Sherman writes:
> Unfortunately, the steps which are missing from the
> International Fox Trot syllabus are steps which allow you to stop
> short if you are in promenade position along the line of dance or
> backing LOD with your right foot free (basically, situations where I'd
> use a Wing or a Reverse Corte in Waltz). If I suddenly need to avoid
> a collision from one of those positions, I usually just do the
> equivalent Waltz step in Fox Trot timing, and then get a bit confused
> (particularly as I try to follow my Reverse Corte with a Back Whisk).
> Interestingly, my followers never notice anything amiss, and wonder
> why I'm suddenly so confused...
I think the issue here is that you're hung up on associating certain
step patterns much too closely with the dance style from which they
originate. To borrow a pattern from another dance is a great way to add
some variety to your repetoire, as well as challenging the limits of
your partnership abilities. Variations do not take away from the
character of a dance style. Quite to the contrary, variations sprinkled
throughout the dance in a limited context can actually lend additional
character to the dance.
Watch any professional competitive routine and you will see outside
swivels in Waltz, fallaway reverses in Tango, and contra checks in the
Quickstep.
It's rarely the foot pattern itself that characterizes the dance, but
how you interpret the movement. An outside swivel is a great example.
This simple movement can be interpreted in so many ways, that it finds
its way into almost every dance.
In Tango, lead a couple of low swivels, counted Slow, Slow. Make sure
they're low, and make 'em sharp and crispy. Lady snaps her head from
closed to PP and back. Then follow them with 3 high swivels QQS. The
lady is high up on her toes, and the couple should look directly at each
other. Finish in same-foot-lunge position, and foolow with a five-step
or something.
In Foxtrot, lead the lady into a big, slow swivel. This should be full
and round, not sharp. She should sweep her free foot around on the floor
in a big, wafty motion. Her head should take a nice, slow change to PP,
much in the same way she might turn it in or out of PP in an oversway. A
cool way to finish this is with a "Reverse Promenade Pivot", and then
follow with a nice reverse wave. You just can't get any more Foxtrotty
than that. Incidentally, this is a pretty typical competitive
combination.
My advice is to stop being so rigid with your pattern associations, and
experiment more. There's nothing at all wrong with doing an occasional
closing or chasse movement in the Foxtrot. Actually, it's very cool...
it opens up many more doors for you in terms of blending movements,
precedes and follows. If you don't like the feel of a reverse corte in
Foxtrot, there's always the hover corte, which is essentially the same
thing, with feet passing. Of course, you're left in the same position
either way. And while there's absolutely nothing wrong with a back whisk
in Foxtrot, you can always follow a reverse (or hover) corte with any
one of these ideas instead:
(1) Top Spin
(2) Back Feather or Continuous Back Feather (Weave Action)
(3) Outside Swivel (my personal fave)
(4) 4-6 Waltz Basic Weave, to closed or PP
(5) Outside Spin
(6) Quickstep Back Lock
(7) Check Back on LF, with lady O.P., to just about anything that
you can think of which begins forward on your RF.
You get the idea. It all works, and it can all be just as Foxtrottish as
your basic feather action. It's all in the interpretation of the
movement, not in the movement itself.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Atkinson
cauce....@vo.cnchost.com
See ye here, corb...@concentric.net (Mike Corbett) crafted the following words:
>On 1 May 1998 01:38:19 GMT, r...@waltz.engr.sgi.com (Ron Nicholson)
>wrote:
>
>>Mike Corbett <corb...@concentric.net> wrote:
>>>On 30 Apr 1998 19:44:28 GMT, r...@waltz.engr.sgi.com (Ron Nicholson)
>>>>So I fail to see why one might distinguish steps from patterns in this
>>>>discussion, since both must be learned, and whether the standing leg
>>>>has "changed" is purely a matter of convention for a given dance.
>>>
>>>The fallacy in your statement above is born out by the well documented
>>
>>The possible fallacy in the above alleged fallacy is that, depending on
>
>Your possible fallacy would be a fallacy if I had said all followers
Fallacy this and fallacy that.
Ron, Mike knows a lot more about C/W and WCS than you do. Mike, I am pretty
sure that Ron knows a lot more about International Style Ballroom than you do
(as I have never seen you do any International styling in any of your ballroom
dances). How about meeting in person (since you live within a mile or so of
each other in Sunnyvale, CA) and learning from each other??? You are both very
good at the dances that you specialize in, you can learn a lot from each other!
Boys, take it to private email or meet and dance it out (you both know how to
follow, if an impartial follower is needed, I volunteer) but please stop this
public sniping on the newsgroup, OK?
Thanks.
jc
Ron Nicholson
In article <354e853a...@news.concentric.net>,
<cauce....@vo.cnchost.com> wrote:
>See ye here, mars...@astro.umd.edu (James Marshall) crafted the following
>words:
>
>>She also said that foxtrot is probably the most limiting
>>in its syllabus and that you really have to be up to gold level before
>>you have sufficient material to actually avoid collisions without
>>breaking style.
>
>
>If International is a "style" one should be able to do moves that aren't
>in the current sylabus without breaking style, in order to observe
>dancefloor etiquette.
Problem is that all the patterns in proper International Foxtrot style,
but outside the syllabus, are considered advanced (all the flashy
variations that the top competitors make up). So yes, it's possible,
but it usually only happens after a student has learned several dozens
or hundreds of little details well beyond the basic footwork of four or
five bronze syllabus figures.
They do actually teach a method for not bashing into people in crowded
situations, but I've heard that they call it a completely different
dance (Rhythm Dancing? which, to me, seems more similar to a stuffy
form of C/W buckle polishing than to International Foxtrot.).
IMHO. etc.
Ron Nicholson
Bill Sherman <she...@sol1.lrsm.upenn.edu> wrote:
>If I suddenly need to avoid
>a collision from one of those positions, I usually just do the
>equivalent Waltz step in Fox Trot timing, and then get a bit confused
>Interestingly, my followers never notice anything amiss, and wonder
>why I'm suddenly so confused...
I have had the nearly identical experience a few times. I think the
poor ole brain circuits hiccup a little trying to find a suitable
follow to a Waltz figure while listening to Foxtrot music. I guess
the pros who mix and match patterns from different dances are more
used to doing this.
Timothy Hunt
In article <6idj94$vm7$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>,
Bill Sherman <she...@sol1.lrsm.upenn.edu> wrote:
> Actually, I just learned a Bolero (American Style ballroom
>dance very similar to International Rumba in step patterns) step which
>is almost identical to the type of foot switch in question. The lady
>does an under-arm turn (allemana), as she finishes the turn, the man
>lowers the joined hands to waist level. As the lady takes the slow
>step, the man gently presses her hand to indicate that she is supposed
>to turn and take an extra step. Then they do turning basic steps in
>shadow position for a while...
Mike Corbett would argue (and after lots of thought I'm inclined
to agree) that that's signal and interpret, not lead and follow.
If the follower is very accomplished in the dance, yet doesn't know
that pressure means "take an extra step" there's no will in the world
that can make her take it.
Timothy
James Marshall
In article <6idlql$51h$1...@netnews.upenn.edu> she...@sol1.lrsm.upenn.edu (Bill Sherman) writes:
>In article <6ia3ld$gt9$1...@hecate.umd.edu>,
>James Marshall <mars...@astro.umd.edu> wrote:
>
>>in its syllabus and that you really have to be up to gold level before
>>you have sufficient material to actually avoid collisions without
>>breaking style.
> Actually, Fox Trot floorcraft gets much easier when you hit
>silver syllabus. The gold moves are mostly flashy stuff which don't
>make floorcraft much easier.
Well, I don't think she was implying that silver doesn't help your
floorcraft. I'm sure it does -- generally speaking, the more steps
you know, the more options you have, so it helps your floorcraft.
The impression I got from her comment was that you needed to have
a lot of material at your disposal to avoid collisions because of
the limiting nature of the syllabus. I'm sure silver helps, but
I'm guessing that adding gold helps some more, too.
[Top Spin and Outside Swivel paragraphs deleted]
> Other useful steps include the Hover Telemark, the Natural
>Weave and Weave from Promenade. (It's also handy to keep in mind that
>you can just do Feather Step and Three Step straight down the line of
>dance in a pinch.)
Yep. That's the very first thing we were taught -- Feather and Three
and that we could just repeat ad nauseum around the dance floor. :)
With the four steps we have, we only have two real combinations --
feather, three, natural and feather, reverese, three, natural. I don't
think that feather, three, feather, three... is technically allowed
since according to The Ballroom Technique the three step is supposed
to be followed by a natural move, but it still works, and I usually
do that until I position myself where I want to be for one of the other
two combinations.
> Once you've mastered those few steps (none Gold), you have the
>tools needed to avoid most of the problems that face you on a crowded
>floor.
Well, it will be a while before I get there, so for now I'll just have
to deal with it as best I can. :)
> Unfortunately, the steps which are missing from the
>International Fox Trot syllabus are steps which allow you to stop
>short if you are in promenade position along the line of dance or
>backing LOD with your right foot free (basically, situations where I'd
>use a Wing or a Reverse Corte in Waltz).
Maybe the syllabus creators thought you'd never get caught in those
positions? :) I don't really know foxtrot, but it is kind of
interesting that there aren't any options for switching out of those
two positions.
>If I suddenly need to avoid
>a collision from one of those positions, I usually just do the
>equivalent Waltz step in Fox Trot timing, and then get a bit confused
>(particularly as I try to follow my Reverse Corte with a Back Whisk).
>Interestingly, my followers never notice anything amiss, and wonder
>why I'm suddenly so confused...
If the women follow it, then I guess it works. :) Of course, I can see
why they wouldn't necessarily understand your confusion. They just followed
what you led and it worked fine, so they may not be totally aware that
you hadn't done foxtrot moves. I guess the trick is to try to get back to
the original dance as quickly as possible. :)
James Marshall
In article <354A85...@earthlink.net> Walt...@earthlink.net writes:
>It's rarely the foot pattern itself that characterizes the dance, but
>how you interpret the movement. An outside swivel is a great example.
>This simple movement can be interpreted in so many ways, that it finds
>its way into almost every dance.
I'm pretty sure this is getting a bit away from the original topic (if
we're even still on the "waltz styles" topic :) ), but this paragraph
got me wondering. Do you think that's also the reason that you see
pivots in a bunch of different dances, too? They do appear a lot, so
I was wondering if the reason they do is because of the interpretation
thing you mentioned.
James Marshall
In article <354e853a...@news.concentric.net> cauce....@vo.cnchost.com writes:
>See ye here, mars...@astro.umd.edu (James Marshall) crafted the following
>words:
>>She also said that foxtrot is probably the most limiting
>>in its syllabus and that you really have to be up to gold level before
>>you have sufficient material to actually avoid collisions without
>>breaking style.
>"Breaking style" or "breaking from the syllabus"?
>If International is a "style" one should be able to do moves that aren't in the
>current sylabus without breaking style, in order to observe dancefloor
>etiquette.
OK, I guess my interpretation of our teacher's statement was, by your
wordings, "breaking from the syllabus." The idea being that once you know
more steps in the syllabus, you can more easily avoid collisions without
having to stop or do American style moves, or whatever else.
>If, OTOH it's strictly a sylabus, and moves outside the sylabus can't be danced
>with International Style, then I am quite confused. What is so critical about
>the sylabus that you can't do moves other than those perscribed?
Well, as Jonathan I think said earlier (I just read the message and I'm not
sure of who wrote it :) *sigh*), you can borrow moves from other dances.
I don't know if that's commonly done though. Usually I only do that by
accident, like if I need to do something fast and just automatically pick
a move I'm more used to doing from another dance. Then I get confused
and have to switch back to the original dance. :)
cauce....@vo.cnchost.com
See ye here, Timothy Hunt <west-...@no.spam.timothy.oeg.uk> crafted the
following words:
I disagree.
I propose you try this little test. Get 5 leaders off somewhere away from the
rest of the followers, with a single follower to practice with, and have them
all learn to lead this move. Then have them go out to the dance floor, choose
an accomplished partner who doesn't know this move, and during the next Bolero
all lead this move. Assuming that they have learned the lead well, the results
will say if the follower can "just follow" or if the follower "needs to know"
and thus this is a signaled move rather than a led move.
As a *follower*, I suspect that this is relatively easily leadable. Adding a
step is something the follower will *automatically* do when the move calls for
it, to avoid falling over. Staying on the new step is something she will
usually automatically do if the new step is required for the move that
immediately follows. Properly led, of course and assuming she has basic skills
for the step led. (Her ability to do a quick/quick step in the move, and her
ability to do the following "new step", which is there if it is a symmetrical
dance but isn't there if it's a non-symetrical dance like c/w 2-step where the
leader's footwork isn't part of the follower's basic footwork at any point.)
Psychohist
In response to Bill Sherman:
Unfortunately, the steps which are missing from the
International Fox Trot syllabus are steps which allow
you to stop short if you are in promenade position
along the line of dance or backing LOD with your right
foot free ...
James Marshall posts:
Maybe the syllabus creators thought you'd never get
caught in those positions? :) I don't really know
foxtrot, but it is kind of interesting that there
aren't any options for switching out of those two
positions.
Actually, there are options for getting out of them, just not for stopping
short. From promenade position, you can use a curved feather; since this step
can curve anywhere from about 45 degrees to 180 degrees, it can generally be
used to get out of trouble. From backing line of dance with the right foot
free, you do the feather finish and a top spin; granted this requires six to
ten feet of warning, but then foxtrot generally takes more space than the other
standard dances.
Probably the most 'foxtrotty' ways of stopping short from those positions don't
involve borrowings, but rather open moves: the promenade check from promenade,
or the throwaway oversway from backing LOD with r.f. free.
Warren Dew
ICl...@jps.net
mars...@astro.umd.edu (James Marshall) wrote:
> generally speaking, the more steps you know, the more options you have, so
> that you needed to have a lot of material at your disposal to avoid
> collisions because of the limiting nature of the syllabus.
> If the women follow it, then I guess it works. :)
Well, yes, that's true but sometimes you have to do whatever's necessary to
protect your partner or nearby dancers:
Were were Swinging at a rather good pace on a crowded floor. A man was walking
along the edge of the floor paying no attention whatsoever to the dancers. My
lovely young partner was, oddly, bent forward at the waist and backing up.
Well, neither knew of the other so to protect them from injury I reached over
her back and grabbed her ass to prevent her from backing into him.
She looked up at me and smiled "That was an interesting move".
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Jonathan Atkinson
James Marshall wrote:
> I'm pretty sure this is getting a bit away from the original topic (if
> we're even still on the "waltz styles" topic :) ), but this paragraph
> got me wondering. Do you think that's also the reason that you see
> pivots in a bunch of different dances, too? They do appear a lot, so
> I was wondering if the reason they do is because of the interpretation
> thing you mentioned.
Yeah, pivots can be (and are) done in just about every dance, except
maybe, um, Merengue. You should see what the American Smoothies are
doing these days with the stylizing of pivots... it's awe inspiring!
Sincerely,
Jonathan Atkinson
Bill Sherman
In article <6ieq10$i...@diamond.xara.net>,
Timothy Hunt <west-...@no.spam.timothy.oeg.uk> wrote:
In article <6idj94$vm7$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>,
Bill Sherman <she...@sol1.lrsm.upenn.edu> wrote:
>>... the man gently presses her hand to indicate that she is supposed
>>to turn and take an extra step...
>Mike Corbett would argue (and after lots of thought I'm inclined
>to agree) that that's signal and interpret, not lead and follow.
>If the follower is very accomplished in the dance, yet doesn't know
>that pressure means "take an extra step" there's no will in the world
>that can make her take it.
>Timothy
I don't see why the follower can't take an extra step when she
feels an extra push. That seems like the most natural response.
Certainly it's the response I'd expect from a clueless dancer or
non-dancer.
The follower might simply step back instead of turning, but
the leader can indicate the turn by turning his frame a bit, or by
using both hands to lead a rotating motion.
Cheers,
Bill Sherman
Mike Corbett
On 4 May 1998 20:25:30 GMT, she...@sol1.lrsm.upenn.edu (Bill Sherman)
wrote:
Well, gee. If Bill is talking about two partners sufficiently framed
and or connected and the leader "presses her hand" or leads via the
connection at the hand so that she (without cognitive interpretation)
"follows" the lead to take an extra step, then he's right.
Bill now says much more than "presses her hand" and therein lies the
confusion in terminology. There is a big difference in the literal
meaning of "pressing the hand to indicate" (sounds like signal and
interpret) and "feels an extra push" along with "turning his frame a
bit or by using both hands to 'lead' a rotating motion"
You gotta say what you mean, to be understood.
Andy Broomsgrove
In article <6ibe5j$1c...@fido.asd.sgi.com>, nos...@oddhack.engr.sgi.com
(Jon Leech) wrote:
Ceroc is an attempt by it's promoters to start something like that, I
guess, but it's not anything like as widespread as some of its promoters
would have you believe.
The dance form that Ceroc teaches is widespread, Ceroc (as far as I know)
is limited to a few areas. Most teachers of that type of swing decided not
to pay the franchise fees.
I must confess I was really talking about ballroom anyway and perhaps
should have been more specific.
Andy