Top 10 Ways to Improve Your Dancing: Part 1

For my final two weeks of classes in Boston, I figured I would go all out and strike at the issues I see as most critical for dancers in our community. As an observer in the scene, I find the same problems persisting on the social and competitive floors, and as an instructor, I find myself repeatedly teaching the same things in private lessons and group classes: fundamentals that make the difference between poor execution and a higher quality of movement.

So I sat down, wrote a list of the top 10 problems I see with people's dancing and then came up with 10 things that I believe make the difference between okay dancing and higher-level dancing. They aren't mutually exclusive, and in fact there's a lot of overlap. Not everyone has all of these issues, but most people have at least some. Here's the first half of what I came up with (the second half will be my next post!):

1. Posture. This is a big one - bigger than most realize. Partner dancing is only successful with good communication, and good communication is only possible with good connection. Good connection is created by good movement, and good movement is only possible with good posture. Posture determines balance and stability as well as how one moves. Too often I see people leaning back or with arched backs, which means poor movement, poor connection, and thus poor partnership."Good" posture is the vertical alignment that reduces strain on your body and positions it for efficient movement. In this case, that means standing tall and with forward pitch.

2. Frame. You all have felt bad frame: tight arms, jerky leads, follows who pull. I'm not sure how other teachers handle this subject, but my point is always that your arms don't matter. Frame is not a prescribed shape of the arms or tension in the arms, shoulders, or elbows. Frame is in the back and torso - how you connect your arms to your core - and connection is created by movement of the centers, not through engaging the arms. Don't worry about the arms; focusing on the arms unintentionally puts tension there. To establish good frame, all you have to do is stand tall and lengthen your neck. In doing that, you'll engage all the right muscles - in the back - that you need to establish proper frame.

3. Basic hand hold. In open position, we connect through the hands. Somehow this becomes an awkward and difficult thing for people. Maybe it's how we teach pistol grip, or the fact that we often fail to sufficiently address problems with hand holds as students progress (or as they hurt us on the social dance floor). Still, there it is: the thumb on the back of the follower's hand, or the leader grabbing the follower around the wrist (what's wrong with her hand?), or the follower who straightens her fingers, or worse, the follower whose grip is so tight the leader's fingertips are white. I know this sounds like an oversimplification, but really, truly, you're only holding hands. Seriously, just as if you were going to walk down the street together, you're holding hands. The leader should offer his fingers for the follower (leader's palm facing sideways, not up or down) and she should curl her fingers around it, both partners engaging their fingertips - and not their palms - to mold to each other. The connection here should be comfortable, solid, and flexible (meaning you can enter, exit, and change this connection with ease). No thumbs, no engaging the palms or wrists, no straight or stiff fingers.

4. Closed Position. I often remind students that nearly everything you need to know about your dance with someone you can tell in the first 4 beats of the music, and this is because you can tell a lot about someone's abilities by how they connect and move in closed position. Maybe it's because the dance is mostly in open, but there isn't a lot of emphasis on connecting in closed, despite the fact that it involves a lot of the fundamentals of the dance itself. In any case, the primary point of connection in closed is where the leader's right hand is on the follower's back, since it is the closest point of contact to the center. The follower should not lean back into this, but should back up until she cannot back up any further. She should not reach for the leader's shoulder (as so many do) but rather connect in the back first, and then casually lay her left arm along his right, letting the hand lay wherever is comfortable (often not the shoulder). Leaders should hold the follower's shoulder blade, not with the fingertips but as if he was going to hug her. As noted above, there is no tension in the arm, just the connection of her shoulder blade in the hand. Both partners should settle away from one another, to fill out the space between them and get a better connection. I could go on and on here, but let's leave it at that.

5. Moving from the center. I've written before about the need to move from the center first, and it is the most critical issue on this list, largely because this is at the root of all other issues. I see lots of followers moving forward feet first and leaders moving backwards shoulders first and both are dramatically affecting their balance, timing, and connection. I see leaders who move their arms instead of their centers, creating arm leads. I see followers who turn from their feet - and arms! - rather than with their centers, creating imbalance, instability, and poor timing. The ability to move from your center first into every step you take is critical to good dancing.


Rather than exhaust you further with the full list, I'll save the other half for next time.... So stay tuned!

Words, words, words

Hi all - Sorry for the long silence, though as many of you already know, I recently relocated from Boston to the San Francisco Bay Area. This post is one I've been meaning to finish up, but my next one - as promised to my students in Boston - will discuss the material I presented in my last classes at Arlington. Appropriately enough, I'm posting this Tuesday night, when I would normally be teaching... I hope you enjoy this blog, and please share it with other dancers! Thanks, Eric

The role of a teacher is not simply to share information, but to ensure that the information is absorbed, processed, and acted upon in the right way. Teaching, then, is all about communication - conveying a message in the appropriate manner so that the audience not only receives the message but understands it as it was intended.

A big part of communications is picking the right language to package and transmit the message. Good teachers know that students are coming into class with a preexisting understanding of the world, with preassigned meanings to certain words or concepts. For instance, students have a preconceived notion of what good posture is, what the word "connection" means, and even what it means to dance. To effectively teach the student, you must first understand what the student knows - and how s/he knows it. This is difficult for experienced dancers, given that they have the curse of knowledge.

Nevertheless, teachers throw around words like "frame" and "posture" and "step" without ever clearly defining what these terms mean in dance. It is particularly important to define terms for which the students may already have a preconceived notion or definition. When you ask a beginner student what he thinks of when he hears the word "frame," odds are he will think of something like a hard, stiff, outside border. Unfortunately, this is contrary to what the student is aiming to achieve in dance - relaxed, soft arms.

Even worse, I've seen great dancers and admired teachers use words like "pull" and "push" to describe how to lead. Not surprisingly, I see the leaders in class use their arms to pull and push their followers through patterns. It's not what the teacher meant, but because he used the words "pull" and "push," and because the students already had their own meaning of what those words meant, the students interpreted the teacher in their own way. The result? Arms leads and an uncomfortable follower.

The trouble is that in dance we use certain words or phrases that have a meaning outside of dance, and if the two conflict, it is up to the teacher to help the student understand the meaning in dance - and how it differs from the standard definition. This is critical to the student's ability to succeed, since how we understand the dance determines what we set out to achieve.


What words or phrases did you struggle with while learning to dance? What terms does your instructor use now that you don't fully understand? Teachers, how do you ensure that your students understand what you say the way you meant it? What terms do you think teachers should do a better job of explaining to ensure the student learns properly?

The Power of Music

It probably doesn't come as any surprise, but (hang on to your hats!) music is important to dance. After all, dance is the expression of music through rhythmic, bodily movements. The whole idea behind musicality is trying to express the music as much and as accurately as possible.

In fact, dances are born and created in large part because of new forms of music. For instance, swing dancing itself took shape to a new musical form known as jazz, and mambo and cha-cha came about as musicians in the Caribbean began merging American jazz with Afro-Cuban rhythms. Throughout history, dancers have created new dance forms in response to new musical forms.

We sometimes forget, too, that dances change and evolve in response to music. This may be especially true of dances like West Coast Swing, which is danced to a wide range of musical genres and receives a constant flow of new music. If you watch videos of West Coast Swing dancing twenty or even ten years ago compared with today, you'll certainly notice the difference in the music (perhaps with a bit of nostalgia, perhaps with fear) but you'll also notice a difference in the dancing. This makes sense, of course: as the music changes, so should the dancing since, after all, the dancing should reflect the music.

Curiously, although dance is ultimately the physical expression of music, there are many forces operating in a social dance world that may have a greater influence on the dance than the music. For instance, how instructors teach the dance can have a significant impact on the dance - both how it's done and our collective understanding of it. And, of course, as people with knowledge of different dances come into the community, they bring their knowledge of other dance forms with them. Certainly over the past few years the West Coast Swing community has seen Hustle, Hand Dancing, and Carolina Shag - among others - shape the dance. Moreover, dancers with a background in classical forms of dance or who have studied kinesiology (study of movement) and related fields also contribute to our collective understanding of the dance and of dancing as a whole. Particular individuals can also set new trends in patterns, stylings, or even the music we choose to dance to. These trendsetters may influence others either through social dancing or through choreography and competitive dancing. Competition itself can often drive changes in the social dance scene, as the winning dance will set the standard for what "good" dancing is (another discussion for another post... or two or ten!).

So just how much does the music really influence the dance? There are some in the community who are not happy with the current trend in music - the dance/urban/hip-hop genres of music that are predominated by heavy and repetitive rhythms. Some of them argue that the move away from faster, swung rhythms (found in a lot of blues and swing songs) and towards slower, "contemporary" music has led to the loss of the anchor in the dance, and that West Coast Swing has lost its "swing" element. Others argue that the loss of connection and related technique stems not from the music, but rather from a lack of proper instruction and from the misguided emulation of talented dancers by those less skilled. (Personally, I agree with the notion that the music certainly influences the dance, but I think in this particular argument I would side with the latter argument. Then again, I would argue that one can anchor at slow speeds and without a swung rhythm. But again, another post for another day...)

I have had the pleasure of speaking with a particular experienced and respected instructor about this topic, and he advised me to think about what music I play when teaching my students. Am I playing "contemporary" music with straight time or blues music with swung rhythms? Am I playing repetitive songs or songs with variation? Are they really slow, medium tempo, or fast? The idea is that the music we learn to dance to can greatly influence how we dance - as well as our understanding of what the dance is.

Ironically, in some way, the influence of the music is circular, since the dancers - sometimes a select set of trendsetters, instructors, and DJs - are choosing the music to which we dance. In the case of West Coast Swing, dancers are taking the music they hear on the radio that they like and then playing it at dances where they adapt the dance appropriately. So the influence of the music becomes a (sort of) chicken-and-the-egg type debate: does the music influence the dance, or do the dancers influence the dance by way of the music?

What do you think? Has the change in music been the main reason for the change in the dance? Have you witnessed any evidence that suggests the music has directly changed how we dance West Coast Swing? Or do you think social factors like instruction, trendsetters, competition, and the influences of other dances has driven the evolution of the dance? What kind of music do you hear in lessons and has that influenced your understanding of how to do this dance? Instructors, what kind of music do you play in lessons and why?

So how do I know if I'm hijacking?

In an earlier post, I put forth my definition of "hijacking" and explained why I think it's a bad thing - disruptive, disrespectful, and just not nice. When we touched upon this subject in my classes last week, the followers understood that hijacking is a bad thing, but a question remained: how does a follower avoid hijacking? If the follower can - and is even expected to - participate in the dance, what is the difference between hijacking and playing or otherwise participating?

For me, it comes down to one thing: leader's intent. What was the leader indicating at the time the follower interrupted? Which end of the slot was he sending you to and which way were you turning? To ignore the leader's intent and change the nature of the pattern/movement is to hijack.

Think of the airplane hijacking analogy: If a pilot was headed southwest from New York towards Los Angeles, then redirecting the flight to London or even Boston would be hijacking. However, heading towards Los Angeles but "taking the scenic route" - a different and perhaps longer route that nevertheless heads in the same direction towards the same destination - would be playing.

Okay, so now you want to know what this means in practical terms. Let's say you interrupt a tuck (left side pass or sugar) on count 3 or 4 of the pattern. By this point the leader has raised your hand to signal an outside or right turn, and his body should be signaling which end of the slot he wants you to head towards. You can interrupt, play, extend, etc., but hopefully you will respect the leader's intent: you'll still finish with an outside turn towards the suggested end of the slot. To me, to do an inside turn or go to the other end of the slot (other than the one he intended) is to hijack.

Of course, that sounds somewhat conservative (even to me, now that I reread it!). But there are three things to keep in mind here. One, when you agree to dance with someone, you agree to take on assigned roles: one of you will be the leader, the other the follower. And it is understood that the leader will do much of choreography and that the follower for the most part will follow his choreography. That said, the second thing to keep in mind is that a good leader should and will select choreography that invites or encourages a response or participation from the follower. In an ideal world, she, in turn, might do something that provokes a response, and the two partners spend the whole dance working off one another in what is truly a conversation or dialogue. (All of this conversation, naturally, would revolve around the music.) The third thing to keep in mind - and perhaps the most important thing - is that there are always exceptions to the rule.

I have danced with followers who have hijacked and I have danced with those who broke the rule of not hijacking. There is sometimes a fine line between hijacking and not not hijacking, and I'll be the first to admit that leaders will vary greatly in their perception of what is or is not hijacking.

But being the intellectual nerd that I am, I've found that there are three criteria that make not not hijacking acceptable to me:

1. What she does must be musical (so that it makes sense, has purpose, and is clear to me); 
2. What she does must be effectively communicated to me (so I am prepared and not lost); and
3. What she does must be really damn cool (in other words, worth it to interrupt what I was doing to do her thing). 

Ideally, what she does also involves me or engages me in some way (other than asking me to catch her when she suddenly drops) but if she wants to take a moment to herself I really don't have a problem with that as long as it meets the criteria above.(For the record, this isn't impossible - a few advanced followers who are good communicators have not not hijacked while dancing with me.)

Again, I admit that hijacking and what is acceptable and what is not are subjective and vary from dancer to dancer. Maybe I'm really conservative in my viewpoint (though I believe there are others far more conservative than me), but I can say that I love a follower who participates and plays and dances when I'm leading. Honestly, I bore myself easily and I like the back-and-forth, having something to work with and play off of; it can be really stimulating and inspiring. That said, I do hate it when a follower repeatedly ignores what I lead to do whatever she wants. I think it's fair to say that any dancer would agree with me when I say that I am not a tool to be used for one's selfish means but a partner to be respected, acknowledged, and listened to.

In my classes I teach followers to push the envelope a little bit - to walk that fine line between hijacking and not hijacking. I do this mainly to teach followers the proper communications tools but also to encourage them to push the envelope a little bit (given that most followers don't play at all or very little). However, I remind followers that there is a line, and for me, it is defined by leader's intent.

How do you distinguish between hijacking and not hijacking? Followers, what guidelines do you use when following? Leaders, do you really care if she hijacks? Am I the crazy one here laying out rules or do you agree that there's a limit to the follower's playing? What is that limit? And teachers, what do you teach your students about playing and hijacking?

Followers, learn to speak up

Hi all - I've created a Facebook group for Naked Basics where we can all gather to connect with others who read or post to this blog. Start putting faces to names and getting to know others who share a love of dance - and an intellectual discussion of dance. And please spread the word about this blog and the Facebook group to anyone you think would be interested. Thanks! - Eric

Two weeks ago, I began this discussion about communication between the partners, and last week I picked on the leaders for overleading (which, perhaps not surprisingly, was rather well-received by followers).

Yes, a large part of the problem in partner communication is the failure of the leaders to not listen and to not provide the opportunity for the follower to participate. However, another big problem is the failure of the followers to properly communicate with the leaders.

In my experience and observations, I've noticed that often when followers try to participate in the dance (e.g. play, extend patterns, change speed, etc.), they end up tightening up their frame, or else pushing or pulling the leader. And this happens suddenly, without warning, as the follower interrupts the leader to express herself. Sometimes it disrupts what the leader is trying to accomplish, either ignoring what he was trying to lead or ignoring him altogether. To use the conversation analogy, it's as if the leader is talking and mid-sentence the follower suddenly yells something out loud - sort of a dancing version of Tourette's syndrome.

Let's face it, followers: You don't like it when leaders throw things at you suddenly. You don't like it when they tighten or use their arms to communicate with you. And you don't like when they ignore you or interrupt what you're trying to do. So why is it okay for you to do the same to the leader? Bottom line: it's not.

The truth is that while leading and following are different and distinct roles with their own rules of engagement, communication - and the means of communication - are the same for both partners. There's no double standard here: leaders can't do one thing while followers do another. Just as it is in our every day lives, there are proper and appropriate ways of communicating, regardless of who is involved in what roles.

For followers, I would propose that there are three basic principles for you to keep in mind when trying to communicate with the leader - the same principles that hopefully guide how leaders lead:

• Use your body - not your arms. I think it's fair to say that arm leads stink. Well, so do arm follows. There's no need to tighten up or squeeze or pull or push to tell me something (unless we're about to bump into someone and it's a defensive move, and even then, do it as nicely as possible). Your arms are a means of transmitting information, but the message should originate with your body. Again, it's the conversational difference between talking and yelling.
• Give advanced notice before you do something. You know those leaders - the ones whose leads seem to happen at the last second, if not late? You know how those sudden signals throw you off balance, both physically and mentally? Same is true for leaders when followers suddenly do something unexpected, especially if they're still actively leading. Just as a good leader gives you a prep or starts leading a little in advance so that you are prepared and can successfully execute a movement on time, good followers who are properly communicating will signal their intent to the leader in advance. This is the driving equivalent of signaling before changing lanes and the conversational equivalent of saying "excuse me" to interrupt the speaker before speaking yourself.
• Make sure you use clear signals, which means getting your partner's attention, usually by doing something different. Leaders give signals to tell you what they're leading, but these signals are only effective if they are clear enough for you to read them. As followers, you not only have to be clear, but you have the added challenge of overcoming the standard dynamic (that he speaks and you listen) and getting him to listen (or at least stop talking). There are several different signals you can use to get his attention (all relating to changes in connection), but these signals need to be clear and used consistently.

Communication is key for any relationship, including a partnership in dance. Good followers know how to properly - and thus effectively - communicate with their leaders. I find that too often the conversation in dance classes is about the content of what the follower does (the footwork variations, the body styling, etc.) and not about how to communicate what the follower does to her partner. What results is a bunch of followers unsuccessfully participating in the dance because they do not know how to communicate what they're doing to their leaders - or even that they're trying to do something at all!

Followers, how do you try to communicate with your leaders? Leaders, what do followers do that get your attention and let you know what they're doing? Teachers, how much do instruct followers on how to communicate to their leaders when teaching a variation for followers, especially one that changes the timing or execution of the pattern? How important do you think this idea of communication is for followers to learn and at what stage in their development should they start learning these skills?

Less is More

Last week, I wrote about how the expectations of leaders and followers tend to create a dynamic where the leader talks without listening and the follower listens without talking - usually leading to a disconnect between the partners. In the group class I taught this week, I returned to this topic with my students in an effort to change this dynamic and demonstrate what can happen when we do.

For me, there are two main issues to deal with: 1) leaders who "overlead" - giving too many signals for too much of the time; and 2) followers who don't actively participate - either because they are too busy defending themselves from bad leads (defense mode), are awestruck by good leads (awe mode), or don't know how or what to communicate ("I don't know what to do" mode).

It seems to me that there is a philosophical schism in the West Coast Swing community with regards to how much a leader leads: the "constant lead" camp vs. the "lead-and-release" camp. I don't like the implication of either label: "constant lead" suggests there's no room for following while "lead-and-release" sounds like you get the follower going and then let go completely (and it sounds creepily like the fishing term "catch and release"). I'll pass on commenting further on these two philosophies (for now) but I will mention that while these two are the dominant philosophies, there are other possible variants on the spectrum between the two.

Still, I focused the first half of the class dealing with the first issue: overleading. Overleading primarily results from two things: bad leads and nonstop leading. Bad leads are any leads that create too much force - a force that makes it difficult for the follower to stay balanced and comfortable - usually created by arm leads but sometimes by giving two or more leads at once (another topic for another time). Nonstop leading, or what I affectionately refer to as "Energizer Bunny" leading, is when leaders just keep leading move after move after move without any break - or any relief - for the follower. Of course, nonstop leading goes hand-in-hand with the problem of not listening, but what is there to listen to if you're always talking?

At the beginning of class, I put on music and told the leaders to lead minimally - give only the leads that are really necessary. Naturally, some leaders just stopped leading altogether, and I had to clarify: only lead as much as you have to in order to get the move done - and nothing more. And then we talked about what happened.

First I asked the leaders how they changed their dancing (if they changed it) and - though the leaders were at first silent - there was general agreement that they the main thing they did was relax. A couple also noted that they moved around less and one or two more consciously tried to lead with their bodies.

Then I asked the follower about their experience: what did it feel like when the leaders minimized their leads? Their responses? "I felt more in control." "I felt comfortable." "I didn't feel any arm leads." "I felt like I could participate and do more."

This, of course, comes as no surprise. There's a difference between yelling nonstop at someone (overleading) and talking with someone in a way that makes the other person feel comfortable and opens the possibility of dialogue (minimal leading). The leaders in class were able to achieve the latter by limiting their leading to body leads and only the movement that was necessary.

Is overleading a problem where you dance? Followers, how do you handle it? What do you prefer and why? Leaders, have you noticed followers responding differently to different degrees of leading? And teachers, what kind of dynamic are you encouraging when you teach leaders?

Great Expectations?

Hi all - My apologies for the two-month hiatus, but unfortunately other priorities in life meant I had to step away from this blog for a bit. That said, weekly posts are back on! Please read, enjoy, post your comments, and spread the word to other dancers! Thanks - Eric

I taught a class this week on how to communicate with a partner. The idea is that communication works both ways, regardless of whether you are a leader or follower. However, while the tools and methods are the same, the context and use of these tools may differ greatly. We had a brief conversation in class about the expectations followers have of leaders and vice versa, and it was one of the most interesting I've had in any class.

The leaders in general expected followers to, well, follow - to pay attention, to follow momentum, and to follow through. The followers in general expected leaders to make them feel comfortable - no arms leads, dance at the appropriate skill level, and adjust to the follower's physical capabilities.

What's most interesting to me is how these expectations reinforce a certain dynamic: leaders speak, while followers listen. Leaders say, "I'll tell you what to do, you just have to do it." Followers say, "Tell me nicely, and I'll do it." Unfortunately, in my opinion, this often means that partners detach from one another: leaders don't pay attention to followers and followers only pay attention when they want to (or have to). Except I don't think this is how we want it to be, or how we think it should be.

Effective leaders are excellent listeners, responsive to the needs and interests of those they lead. And effective followers aren't just passive bystanders, but proactive and vocal participants. Imagine what this dance would look like if leaders expected followers to participate more actively, and if followers expected leaders to listen and pay more attention to them? What would the dance look like if leaders listened and gave more opportunities for followers to participate and if followers proactively communicated and engaged their leaders?

What are your expectations for the opposite role? And what do you think expectations should be in order to create the ideal dance?

Fade to Black

I admit it: I'm a music snob.

That comes as no surprise to those of you who know me. I like some music and other music, I just don't like. I admit it, I realize some people may not like it, but I don't see anything wrong with it. In fact, it's sort of a rite of passage for some - when you pass from loving any song you can dance to to being selective about which songs you want to dance to and which you find completely uninspiring, either because you've been around long enough to hear them one too many times or because you've developed a sense of taste that reflects your personal preference and dance style.

Anyway, there's a whole Pandora's box to be explored concerning music, and for the moment, I'd like to pick just one item: cross-fading.

Cross-fading, as any user of iTunes knows, is when the end of one song overlaps with the beginning of the next - one fades out as one fades in. Personally, I really, really dislike it.

As a dancer, I like a beginning and an ending to my songs - a complete story to my dance - and cross-fading deprives me of both of those. Plus, I like time to finish with one partner, thank her and escort her off the floor, and ask another partner and guide her onto the floor before I've missed too much of the next song.

Honestly, I don't know who thought or still thinks cross-fading is a good idea, but every now and then there's a DJ who does it, and it irks me to no end. (Of course, waiting more than a second or two between songs irks me as well - where's the music? why are you letting the energy die?)

So am I alone? Anyone else out there snobbish enough to care about things like cross-fading? Anyone have a personal preference for song transitions? (Song selection? Another topic for another time...) Anyone out there a DJ and have an opinion on this?

The Only One

Part of the joy of dancing is discovering how it relates to the random things that you come across in your everyday life. As someone in nonprofit communications, I read a lot of literature on how to communicate effectively and I never cease to be amazed at how appropriate the principles apply to dancing.

The latest gem actually comes from a book about successful people in the workplace. The author states that the difference between a "good" leader and a "great" leader is not just the ability to listen, but listening to people as if they are the only person in the room at the time. (Bill Clinton is apparently an excellent example of this - part of his charm as well as his ability to manage a presidential administration.)

I always teach that any good leader is also a good follower: one who responds to his partner, allows her to express herself and finish her intentions. But I'm curious by this idea of a great leader being one who dances with his partner as if she's the only one in the room.

When I used to dance lindy hop, there was a certain leader who made every follower swoon. After noticing his magical charm on all the women, I asked some of the followers, "What is it about this guy?" And they all said the same thing: "He dances with you as if you're the only one in the room." They all knew that he did this with all the women, working his way around the room with equal flirtation for them all. Still, they loved dancing with him because for those few minutes, they experienced that feeling for themselves.

Then I think about competitive swing dancing, which is so much about showing off yourself, flirting with the audience, acknowledging that your partner is just one of many in the room. Most competitors win with this outward audience-focused energy, while few can draw people in with a partnership-focused energy. Angel and Debbie Figueroa's "Sometimes" routine is an excellent example of how two partners can be so into each other, as if they were the only two in the room, that to watch is so captivating. In fact, it's almost uncomfortable, as if you shouldn't be watching such an intimate dance between two people. Personally, I think that kind of dancing is a real art, but few can master it, and few try.

But what about the social dance floor? How often do we really invest all of our attention and focus into our partner? How often do we treat our partner like he or she is the only person in the room? How easily are we distracted by our own issues, our dance "homework" and the many people around us? And if connecting with a partner is the ultimate goal, shouldn't every dance have some of that partnership-focused intimacy?

Have you ever experienced the feeling of a partner treating you like you were the only person in the room? What was it like? And how do you think we we create that more often? Would you rather see an intimate routine or an audience-mugging one? Which would you say is "better" dancing?

Contradiction in terms

It happens more often than it should, to the detriment of the student, that two conflicting pieces of information are presented by two different teachers. This presents the student with a dilemma: in the pursuit of the "right" or "best" way of doing things, which one to choose?

I would argue that these types of conflicts are really simple misunderstandings. Contradictions are often either 1) two different ways of approaching the same fundamental idea, or 2) complementary rather than contradictory, usually a difference between technique and style.

For example, consider the notion of two centers. Skippy Blair is a prominent instructor who has done more than anyone else to create effective teaching tools for important technique and mechanics. Personally, I think she's fantastic, and I think she has a gift for being able to communicate complex topics into easy-to-apply exercises (though I should note that I don't always agree with the technique or ideas she teaches).

Skippy teaches that there are two centers: the Center of Mass (CM), located somewhere around the hips, and the Center Point of Balance (CPB), the point from which we move, located higher near the diaphragm. Like any good teacher, she helps the student to understand these concepts through practical exercises.

On the other hand, Mario Robau, an amazing dancer and an incredible teacher with a real gift for breaking things down into information people can readily digest, argues that there's only one center, since, after all, it's the center, which logically means there's only one.

So who's right?

I would argue that they both are. Mario is technically right: there is only one center to a given object, human or otherwise. And it is from this center that we move. However, we move from our center with forward pitch, meaning that our upper body is set slightly in front of our lower body (this is true both forwards and backwards). Thus, the two center explanation has great value as a teaching tool for people to mentally understand proper posture and pitch and translate it into a physical response. One teacher gave the straight truth, the other gave advice to produce a specific desired outcome. Both are being effective teachers in their own way.

Another seeming contradiction: heel first or toe first when walking forward. From a strictly mechanical perspective, as far as I'm concerned, this is a no-brainer: heel first. Why? Because that is how your body naturally moves, was designed to move, and how your body facilitates forward movement by rolling through the foot.

So why would someone teach toe-first? Simple: styling. Some people think it makes a nicer line to have a straight leg, others may think the music calls for it. The truth is that as long as you're moving from your center and your feet are underneath you when you transfer weight, it doesn't really matter whether you go heel first or toe first. They aren't contradicting - it's just two different ways of moving, one being the basic mechanics of walking and the other a stylization.

What other contradictions have you come across while learning to dance? Where does there seem to be a contradiction that is really two ways of approaching the same thing? Where does there seem to be a contradiction that is really the difference between fundamental technique and advanced style? Teachers, how do you reconcile the difference when asked about contradictions?

Level of difficulty

I never thought I'd say this, but figure skating as peaked my interest. The recent win of Evan Lysacek, the 24-year-old figure skater from Illinois, over reigning champion Yevgeny Plushenko, 27-year-old Russian who came out of retirement for these Olympic Games, has stirred a lot of buzz - not only because it's the first time an American has taken the gold since Brian Boitano in 1988, but because it raised questions about how skating is judged.

For those of you who missed it, Lysacek performed brilliantly - no earth-shattering figures but it was nearly flawless. Plushenko nailed the quadruple toe loop - the new challenging figure all the best skaters are daring to try - but he had some errors on the jumps that followed. Both men received the exact same scores for artistry; Lysacek pulled in two more points for technical performance.

Some of you know that much of this has to do with math and the new scoring system (jumps performed in the latter half of the long program received 10% more points) but the bigger argument has centered around remarks made by Plushenko after the competition. Plushenko and his coach have both commented that male skaters who did not attempt the quad are basically wimps. "If the Olympic champion doesn't know how to jump a quad, I don't know," Plushenko said. "Now it's not men's figure skating. It's dancing. Maybe figure skating needs a new name."

The insinuation is that figure skating is about technical difficulty - pushing the envelope with respect to skill, not choreography and artistry. So who gave the better performance: Plushenko with his less perfect but more challenging routine or Lysacek with his cleaner, less difficult routine?

We see this drama play out frequently in the dance world. Sometimes the couple pulling out the big moves and getting cheers wins, and other times the simpler, smoother couple gets top placement. Depends on the judges, depends on the dancers, and depends on how much "bad" technique will be tolerated in exchange for difficulty and showmanship.

Dancing - especially competitive dancing - can be as much about showmanship and level of difficulty as it is about mastery of fundamental technique and partnership. To what extent should the former be valued over the latter? How much are we willing to sacrifice fundamentals for the "wow" factor? What separates great showmanship from "flash and trash"? And how might the factors we reward in competitive dancing be shifting what we see on the social dance floor?

Looks aren't everything... right?

Ever notice how good looking people tend to become better dancers faster? Or maybe it's that better dancers are just better looking?

Could be just me, but it seems like young, attractive people move up the ranks pretty quickly - more quickly than others, sometimes more quickly than perhaps they should. Sure, there happen to be a lot of young, attractive dancers with a lot of talent, but it still raises some questions about how someone gets better and at what rate.

One could argue that attractive people get better faster because more people ask them to dance. Or maybe they have more confidence and thus are willing to take risks and try new things and become more expressive. Maybe they gain more confidence as they improve, and their confidence is what makes them seem more attractive. Or maybe as they get better they adopt the fashion trends and dress themselves better. Or maybe they just look better or our eyes are drawn to watching them simply because they are more attractive.

The flip side is that people who are better dancers may just be more attractive. A study was done demonstrating just that, and how dancing can be used as a demonstration of genetic fitness, helping us to choose a mate. So maybe the better you are, the more attractive you seem. The pros all seem to be pretty good looking, but maybe we just think that because of their dancing. Would the pros be as attractive if it weren't for the way they can move?

In competition, looks can certainly play a factor: how you dress, how you present yourself, your attitude, your level of confidence - all of which can also make you more or less attractive. Studies have shown that the part of the brain that ultimately makes decisions is the primitive brain, the part that makes decisions based on primal needs related to survival. We know that while judging is based on certain criteria, there is also a high degree of intuition and emotion that goes into deciding what's good dancing and what's not. So despite our rational thoughts about technique and artistry, are judges letting their primal interests sway their judgment? Are judges ultimately making decisions based on their primal desire to procreate? The pretty ones get chosen because we would like to mate with them? What about judges who are the same sex as those they are judging? Are they also judging based on primal instincts, but making decisions not out of a desire to procreate but based on a fear of competition? The pretty ones are competition for mates, so they should be punished/eliminated? And if both forces are at work, shouldn't they balance out so that attractive people do no better or worse than less attractive people?

Thinking about the last competition I went to, it's probably just an illusion. If physical attractiveness were objectively measured, there's probably just as many unattractive people in any division as attractive ones. Still, in a world as social as that of the social dances, attractiveness is likely to play as strong a role as it does in the rest of society. The "halo effect" is a cognitive bias whereby the perception of some positive quality (like attractiveness) gives rise to the perception of similar positive qualities. In this case, people who are attractive may be perceived to be "better" or more qualified than they actually are. Is this same principle being applied to dance? To what extent? What can or should be done about it, or is this just part of the world we live and dance in?

The mystery of frame

(Hi all - Apologies for the silence these past few weeks. My day job was eating up a lot of my time and I had to put this aside. However, I am now back and will post new entries more frequently, at least once or twice a week. Thanks for reading and responding! - Eric)

How many times have you heard an instructor use the word "frame" in a dance class? No doubt, plenty of times.

And how many times have you been told to "maintain your frame" or "don't break frame" by an instructor? We all have at some time or another.

Now how many times have you heard a dance instructor actually give a definition of the word "frame" in a dance class? Think carefully. My guess is, for most of you, the answer is: never.

Think about what "frame" means to you, then post your best definitions here on this blog. What is the definition you know? What is the definition you use to dance? What is the definition of frame you use to teach? Share your answers here!

A whole other animal entirely...

I've been (and remain) a firm believer that good dancing is grounded in good technique and good partnership. When I've taught students, training them to be better dancers, I've always emphasized these two points. And when it came time to helping these students compete, I still emphasized good technique and good partnership skills, striving to create a clean, comfortable dance with any and every partner.

That works fine for the lower levels of competition - newcomer and novice - but it isn't always cutting it at - or even required for - higher levels. These days, showmanship and musical interpretation (extreme forms of which are known as "flash and trash") is getting rewarded more and more in competition. While I agree that these two elements are some of the marks of better competitors and, yes, better dancers overall, we are treading in dangerous waters when we start rewarding these elements in lieu of good technique and partnership, rather than in addition to good technique and partnership.

I now find myself asking students in private lessons if they wish to be better social dancers or better competitive dancers, as their answers will dictate not my suggestions, but the priority for those suggestions. For instance, students can get away with minor problems in posture or not fully anchoring in competition if they can demonstrate advanced musicality. Would I still recommend fixing one's posture and anchor? You bet, but it's not as much of a priority if the changes are minor and winning is the goal. (Of course, I make all of this transparent to the student so they understand what should be priority and why.) For me as a teacher, I will always put the emphasis on being a better social dancer, but to be a better teacher, I also need to consider the wishes of my student, right? (Another topic for another blog post!)

Admittedly, even as a judge, I will place a couple with great musicality but less than perfect technique over a couple with great technique but little or no musicality. This is, after all, dancing, which by definition is the physical representation of music. Dancing is not the same as moving, and not even the same as lead-follow. Musical interpretation counts for something. Yet I will happily place a really clean couple that is really connected with great partnership over the sloppy, musical couple. Maybe I'm the odd man out, but that's what I value most.

Every now and then, I get to see truly great dancing rewarded: a clean, smooth dance that is musical and that is focused on the partnership - not the audience. At the Mahoneys' New Year's Dancin' Eve this year, some of the first place couples were the crowd-pleasers, but often the second and third place couples were the cleanest dancers with the best partnerships. Nice to see that getting rewarded from time to time (especially as I am admittedly not a flashy dancer, even though I'd like to know how to be...)

Competition is a beast unto itself. As more people compete, and the skill level of each division gets higher, the importance of showmanship and musicality over technique and partnership not only increases but is seeping into the lower divisions. How do you all feel about this? Do you see good social dancing and good competitive dancing as one and the same? What makes them different and why? What are you doing to be good at one or the other (or both)? What do you want to be rewarded in competition and what do you think should be rewarded? And teachers, how do you navigate this world of social and competitive dancing?

New Year's Resolutions

It's that time of year: time to think about what we hope to achieve by this time next year.

I've had dance resolutions before, some I've met and others I haven't. They are all personal goals and they are all personal goals related to competition: making finals in my division, placing in the top three, moving out of a division, etc.

When making New Year's resolutions, it helps to have "SMART" goals: specific, measurable, attainable, realistic, and time-bound. I mean, I can say I want to be a world champion in three months, but odds are that's a foolish resolution that will not be achieved. So we strive to set some goals for ourselves that can be met, that can be measured, and that can be achieved within a year's time.

Which is why, I suppose, I set my goals based on competition. It's hard for me to say, "I'll be better at whips" or "Add more level changes to my dancing." I suppose I could find an objective way to measure that (tape my dancing and record the number of "good" whips or level changes) but in many ways these goals remain subjective and/or difficult to measure. Competition, however, provides concrete measurements of my progress. Or does it?

Competition itself is subjective, and there's a danger in judging our own dancing based on such an arena. Competition is another animal altogether, separate from social dancing, with a particular required skill set and its own set of values, all based solely on how you look. Does it provide some benchmarks? Sure. Do we aspire to be better competitors? Perhaps. Should competition be our only goals? I hope not.

Some people set specific goals like, "Be able to do 3 finger spins in a row," which is specific, measurable, and perhaps realistic. But do these skills alone capture what we hope to be as dancers? I mean, what about feeling good? What about making our partners feel good? What about being better leaders or followers or being better at covering mistakes and making the dance work? What about being nicer, on the floor and off? What about fostering a greater sense of community, helping newcomers and reaching out to people we don't know?

I offer this challenge: make resolutions for 2010, but keep in mind what kind of dancer you want to be and what kind of dance you want to create.

For me, sure, I want to be more expressive, I want to dance more through my patterns, I want to play with level changes, I'd like to discover some new "wow" moves, and, for goodness' sake, I want to make finals in California some day. But I also want to dance with someone new (or someone I haven't danced with in the last month) every time I go out, I want to dance with more newcomers, I want to dance with more people from different cities when I'm at events, and I want to make my partner smile at least once during each and every dance.

What are your dance resolutions for 2010?