Following through with leads

Anyone who's ever learned to play baseball or softball has been told that when throwing the ball, you need to "follow through" with your arm. You wind up, move your body, move your arm, release the ball, and then follow through. Following through directs the ball where you want it to go and provides a clearer, more effective trajectory.

Leading requires the same follow-through - with your center. Leaders often get the follower going and use their arms to follow through, rather than their bodies. The result is that their bodies are telling the follower one thing while the arms are telling her another - in other words: an arm lead.

The basic mechanics of leading tell us that where you point your center is where the follower will end up. This is simply a function of lead-follow: move your center, which moves your arms, which moves your hand, which moves the follower. Your arms will follow your center, and the follower will, well, follow your arms.

So when you lead a move and you want the follower to go somewhere other than right in front of you, your center needs to move or rotate through the pattern. If it doesn't move or rotate and she somehow still moves to where you wanted her, either you gave her an arm lead or she went ahead and did something independent of your lead, because your body told her to stay in front of you.

Pointing your center where you want the follower to end up not only gives you a clearer body lead, it also reduces any arm leads, helps you to stay smoother, and ultimately makes it easier to dance at different tempos (because your body is in position at all times).

Leaders, pay attention to what your body/center is telling the follower, specifically about where she should go, and see if your arm is consistent with that. Teachers, how do you get your students to think about their centers - not just when starting a pattern but through the pattern?

The Curse of Knowledge

I recently picked up "Made To Stick" by Chip and Dan Heath. The book explores why and how certain ideas "stick" and others don't. One of the obstacles they cite to creating simple, sticky messages is the Curse of Knowledge: "Once we know something, we find it hard to imagine what it was like not to know it.... And it becomes difficult for us to share our knowledge with others, because we can't readily re-create our listeners' state of mind."

I vaguely remember being a non-dancer (it was about a decade ago). I have this faint memory of watching people dancing in a swing class and thinking, "Wow, that's awesome! I wish I could do that!" but I had no idea what exactly they were doing. I remember too the first time I watched top dancers and could actually identify what they were dancing: a whip variation, a tuck variation, etc. My perspective would never be the same again.

Oftentimes during my dance career I have taken pause - either out of frustration with my own dancing or the scene as a whole - and tried to recall why it is I started doing this crazy dance thing in the first place. I wanted to have fun, to express music with my body, and my objective with each dance was simply to make the follower smile. Ah, those were the days. Of course, with time, my knowledge changed, and with it, my perspective and my objectives. Nothing wrong with that - it's part of the natural learning curve and evolution of any dancer - but now I have the Curse of Knowledge.

I've seen many teachers - usually fantastic dancers who don't teach regularly but others too - who teach well beyond the level of comprehension of their students: a symptom of the Curse of Knowledge. They are so knowledgeable that they fail to see things from a beginner's perspective, and they don't speak in a manner appropriate for beginners. They assume their students have the same knowledge and understanding of the dance that they do and they miss the simple, basic points that the students need to hear and learn most.

We all have the Curse of Knowledge - and the curse cannot be undone: I cannot unlearn something I've already learned. Can you remember what it was like to be a beginner? What were your perceptions? What was difficult for you to understand? What do you think are the key ideas and messages teachers should be focusing on for beginners?

Teachers, are you really looking at your lessons from the perspective of your students? Do you get trapped by the Curse of Knowledge? (Don't we all, sometimes?) How can you reshape your lessons to focus on just one or two simple, key messages in each class?

Arm lead vs. arm use

It's pretty much instinct for us as humans to move things by using our arms. Enjoying a drink, picking up a book, moving a chair. When it comes to moving followers, leaders tend to go with their instincts and use their arms.

Of course, the difference between moving an inanimate object and moving a follower is that the follower can move herself. In fact, it's a misconception that the leader moves the follower: leaders, in fact, simply lead. In other words, leaders present a speed and a direction and the follower moves herself in accordance - hopefully.

And hopefully this movement is initiated by the leader's body (the center, to be precise) without using the arms. The arms are simply a way to communicate a lead from one's center to the center of the follower, but all movement happens from and by the center. Body leads are smoother, clearer, and cleaner than arm leads, which are often jerky, disproportionate (too strong), and disruptive to the follower's stability, movement, and timing. However, there are times when the leader must use his arm. Leading a turn, for instance, the leader must lift his arm, which engages the muscles of the arm.

I distinguish this "arm use" - using the arm to shape the follower's movement - from an "arm lead" - using the arm to initiate the follower's movement. A follower should be initiated or redirected using the body (body lead), but once she is in motion, that movement may be shaped by using the arms (arm use). That said, an arm "use" that significantly changes the followers momentum then becomes an arm "lead." So an arm use should not conflict with the original body lead at the start of the pattern, and any changes in momentum should be made by the leader's center.

The idea here is to make sure that leaders use body leads, not arm leads, and that any arm use is used simply to shape the follower's movement, not change it. Changes of momentum should be done with the body and the body alone.

Annie Get Your Gun

I'm pretty sure no one ever came home one day to say, "Wow! I had a great day! I was carjacked!" And I doubt anyone ever said, "That flight was fantastic! We were hijacked!" You know why? Because hijacking is bad.

Hijacking is stealing by stopping and coercing someone. If this doesn't sound very nice, it's because it isn't. Whether it's hijacking a car at gunpoint, hijacking a plane with the threat of explosives, or hijacking a lead during a dance. Doesn't matter. Not nice.

In terms of dancing, "hijacking" is when the follower either ignores a lead or else completely changes it from its original intention. It isn't nice. It's telling the leader, "Sorry, I don't care what you want to talk about, because we're going to talk about this." If someone were to say, "Hi, how was your day?" it would be rude to ignore the question and say, "I'm going to eat some chocolate."

A question was posed recently to a dear friend of mine, Maria Blackwell, a fantastic dancer and teacher who gives more of herself to her dance community in St. Louis than anyone else I've ever seen. Her student asked if a follower went to play, wasn't she taking over the lead? Maria smartly answered that there are rude and polite ways of interjecting - and sometimes it's a fine line which is which.

I could write a whole treatise here on partner dynamics, but suffice it to say that the way to avoid hijacking is to acknowledge the lead and follow it through, even if you give it your own spin. Taking the lead and playing with it is expressive following. Ignoring the lead and doing what you want - even if the music "calls for it" - is hijacking. And that's just rude.

Raising the bar

I read a quote recently by Pixar co-founder and chief creative officer, John Lasster: "Oftentimes, it feels like Hollywood thinks of the audience as the lowest common denominator," says Lasseter. "We [Pixar] always think that the audience is so smart they'll be there for you - especially kids."

This made me think about the way we teach dance. I find that many teachers - myself included at one time - teach to the lowest common denominator, oftentimes underestimating the interests and abilities of the students. They lower expectations, lower the bar, and lower the meaning of successful dancing. They say, "Oh, they don't want technique" or "They won't get it, but oh well" or "It's okay if they don't do it right, as long as they have fun."

Naturally, your first thought is, "Well, but it's just as bad to go to the other extreme, to raise the bar impossibly high or have unrealistic expectations." And you would be right. Teachers who teach above the level of the student, who expect students to achieve goals inappropriate for their level, who get lost in technique, or who ignore the needs and interests of the student are just as dangerous. They either don't care about the student's progress or else don't care about the student's feelings - this is, after all, a hobby for most of us and it should be fun and emotionally rewarding.

What I am advocating is to raise the bar enough to challenge the students and then help them get there. To not teach to the lowest common denominator and abandon the others. To not doubt the ability of the student to do a move properly if shown how to do it. To not assume that the student will not like technique or will not care about doing a pattern correctly. (This last one is a huge one for me: students can understand and feel the difference in doing something correctly, if only you take the time to show them.)

We face many challenges as dance teachers, one of which is often teaching to a wide variety of skill levels in any given class. It is up to the teacher to assess the skill level of the class and determine the appropriate level of class content. In some cases, teachers may have to inform students that they are not yet ready for the given class. (I've done this on several occasions, and I have only received "thank you"s for being honest and helpful.) Yet if we as teachers hope to raise the level of dancing in our communities, we need to raise the bar a little and then help our students reach it.

Teachers, do you teach to the lowest common denominator? Do you teach at a level beyond your students?

And students, does your teacher challenge you? Does your teacher help you understand the dance or does your teacher speak way over your head? Does your teacher not seem to care about helping you do the dance properly? What do you want from a teacher, dance or otherwise?

Following through

I worked with a student recently who had difficulty following. She, like many followers, often "missed" leads but recognized the disconnect between the lead and her movement. She just couldn't figure out what was going wrong and how to fix it.

The problem is this: she was not following through. In other words, the leader initiated her into a given movement, but she didn't finish it, and by not finishing it to its end, she did not establish the proper connection to get a clear lead into the next movement.

Followers, something to keep in mind: everything you do should end in compression or extension. If you don't feel either of these, you haven't finished the movement you started. You need to continue moving in the same direction until you feel either compression or extension. Once you have compression or extension, you'll be able to more easily feel what the next lead is. And remember: your job is to finish the movement that the leader started; it is not to worry about the next pattern.

Proactive following

There are lots of followers who move when leaders move them. Literally. They get pulled, pushed, and dragged around the floor as a result of someone else moving their bodies from one place to the next. These followers are active, in that they are moving, but they are reactive, not proactive.

"What's wrong with being reactive?" you ask. Sure, being "reactive" is part of following: the leader provides an impulse and you react to it. One assumes that reaction is a basic expectation of followers, a necessary function of following, a precondition and part of the definition of "following" itself. Not reacting at all implies ignoring the lead or simply disconnecting, neither of which is considered following. (Would it be called "anti-following"?) So yes, followers to some extent should - no, need to be reactive.

Yet I would argue that followers should really be more than reactive - they should be proactive. Rather than simply allow themselves to be moved in response to a lead, they should proactively move themselves.

The usual assumption is that the leader moves the follower, but this is a misunderstanding: the leader - get this - leads the follower. What does this mean? Well, if you were in a tour group, would the tour guide literally pull you from one place to the next? Of course not. The guide provides a direction of movement and where to stop and you move yourself in response. Following should be the same way. The leader initiates your movement in a given direction, and you move yourself in accordance with that lead. Plus, the follower doesn't just follow, she follows through: she continues moving herself in that direction until otherwise redirected. In this way, the follower creates more stability for herself, smoother movement, more flow in the dance, less need for the leader to constantly lead, and overall improved connection.

Followers, don't just react. Be proactive, and feel the difference.

Wheels powering the engine?

Dancing is all about movement of the center. Our most basic form of movement - walking - demonstrates how movement of the center drives all other functions: footwork, posture, timing, balance, and stability.

Yet most dance teachers emphasize footwork. They comment on where to put your foot, which part of the foot you should use, and the size of your steps. When these teachers mention the center, it is often in reference to your feet - as in "get your center over your foot" - or in reference to your partner - as in "point your center at your partner." Admittedly, I used to teach that way, and when it comes to brand new beginners, it helps to direct the students' feet to provide some framework for the dance.

But I have found that by repeatedly putting the focus on moving the center, rather than on footwork, the student gets the desired results with less effort. This is because, again, movement of the center drives all sorts of other functions, including the feet. If the student can get the center to move first, it helps to fix posture, balance, and stability by aligning the center directly over the foot on each step. And by moving from the center, it creates more continuous movement, cleaner body flight, and provides more flow in the dance.

The center is the engine. The feet are just the wheels.

Knowledge vs. Understanding

Lots of people know how to dance. They know patterns and where to put their feet. They know syncopations and "styling." They know how it all should look.

But few understand how to dance. Few understand the mechanics of the dance or the fundamentals of movement. Few understand connection or the dynamics of partnership. Few understand how to express the music through movement.

Knowledge is having information and awareness. Understanding is comprehending the how and why of information, and having the capacity to apply that information.

If you want to be a great dancer, you need more than knowledge - you need understanding.