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?