Conversations

[phoenix13]

Sometimes people come into your life only for a reason or a season. (I forget the whole quote.)  Not everyone can be forever. *hug*

oh, you can keep the person - its the dance partner I miss

but hug appreciated nonetheless... and it does seem like people come and go for a reason - though sometimes you have to be the cause of both.  DP* leaving meant that I went back to studying dancing - your actual dance training is much more limited when you are in an AM partnership.

* DP - Dear Partner - BTW there is a list of abbreviations in the Announcements board but if you need to add any you have to let me know

Interesting. Limited by the goals of the partnership? 

[elisedance]

Limited by the fact that there are two of you in the lesson and 80% of the teaching focuses on the lead.  The lead then feels superior and that he has the right to teach you during your practices.  This results in, er, shall we say 'disagreements' and you try to get training for your follower role in the next lesson - which you get for a few minutes before they go back to teaching the lead.

Contrast that to a pro-am lesson.  You start and he teaches you till you stop.

[phoenix13]

Limited by the fact that there are two of you in the lesson and 80% of the teaching focuses on the lead.  The lead then feels superior and that he has the right to teach you during your practices.  This results in, er, shall we say 'disagreements' and you try to get training for your follower role in the next lesson - which you get for a few minutes before they go back to teaching the lead.

Contrast that to a pro-am lesson.  You start and he teaches you till you stop.

There ya go.  I'm convinced.

Aside:  This explains why almost all the people I know who are strong proponents for am/am are men.

[elisedance]

Limited by the fact that there are two of you in the lesson and 80% of the teaching focuses on the lead.  The lead then feels superior and that he has the right to teach you during your practices.  This results in, er, shall we say 'disagreements' and you try to get training for your follower role in the next lesson - which you get for a few minutes before they go back to teaching the lead.

Contrast that to a pro-am lesson.  You start and he teaches you till you stop.

There ya go.  I'm convinced.

Aside:  This explains why almost all the people I know who are strong proponents for am/am are men.

YOU"VE GOT IT.  They like to get their lessons sponsored. 

[phoenix13]

You've gotta admit it's a brilliant strategy...  made even better if you can keep conversation to a minimum, so your partner can't' complain.   

[elisedance]

I think we need a guy to chip in here, they are really taking a beating...

[millitiz]

Limited by the fact that there are two of you in the lesson and 80% of the teaching focuses on the lead.  The lead then feels superior and that he has the right to teach you during your practices.  This results in, er, shall we say 'disagreements' and you try to get training for your follower role in the next lesson - which you get for a few minutes before they go back to teaching the lead.

Contrast that to a pro-am lesson.  You start and he teaches you till you stop.

I think that also depends on the coaches, the days, and the couples. My standard coach(es) certainly is pretty good at making sure that the split is around half and half. And I certainly have lessons where all the attention is given to the follow - and at the end of the lesson, my partner felt quite guilty that she paid the whole lesson (very nice of her - I did suggest that we could share the cost. It really isn't a big deal).

As for the teaching within the partner...I think who ever is teaching should realize that that is a bad form. If you are a beginner, wth are you teaching your partner? If you pass beginner stage, then you should know better...

And here is a bit suggestion for those that wishes to get 95% of the attention within an am partnership - go dance Latin . I felt that I could be replaced by a pole and no one is gonna notice the difference. j.k.

[elisedance]

Limited by the fact that there are two of you in the lesson and 80% of the teaching focuses on the lead.  The lead then feels superior and that he has the right to teach you during your practices.  This results in, er, shall we say 'disagreements' and you try to get training for your follower role in the next lesson - which you get for a few minutes before they go back to teaching the lead.

Contrast that to a pro-am lesson.  You start and he teaches you till you stop.

I think that also depends on the coaches, the days, and the couples. My standard coach(es) certainly is pretty good at making sure that the split is around half and half. And I certainly have lessons where all the attention is given to the follow - and at the end of the lesson, my partner felt quite guilty that she paid the whole lesson (very nice of her - I did suggest that we could share the cost. It really isn't a big deal).

As for the teaching within the partner...I think who ever is teaching should realize that that is a bad form. If you are a beginner, wth are you teaching your partner? If you pass beginner stage, then you should know better...

And here is a bit suggestion for those that wishes to get 95% of the attention within an am partnership - go dance Latin . I felt that I could be replaced by a pole and no one is gonna notice the difference. j.k.

thanks for chipping in there MZ - we girld need a lead to show us where to go   Great to hear that your coaches are so tuned in.  Just out of curiosity, do you notice any difference between male and female coaches?  Where I've had more attention iit has been, perhaps predictably, with a female coach.  Otherwise the male ones tend to just want to get you to the point where the lead can dance unimpeded. 

[millitiz]

thanks for chipping in there MZ - we girld need a lead to show us where to go   Great to hear that your coaches are so tuned in.  Just out of curiosity, do you notice any difference between male and female coaches?  Where I've had more attention iit has been, perhaps predictably, with a female coach.  Otherwise the male ones tend to just want to get you to the point where the lead can dance unimpeded. 

I don't know if girls need a lead to show you where to go...my ex partner certainly didn't . There were a few social dances where I will let her go/loosen the connection (she is very expressive, and sometimes I thought it is nice to let her express, and take up the "leading role" a bit), and she just jumped and hopped and danced right across the floor, I don't know the technical names, but those done in the ballet. I quickly realized my mistake and I had to RAN across the floor to catch on her - certainly I could not allow her to figure out that she only needs herself to tango; I mean, I still needed a partner, after all . And let me be clear, I found that being quite fun.

Interesting. I don't see any correlations whatsoever in my experience, albeit I only have about 5~6 data points. Basically all of them have a pretty even split between the gender - although all of them have moments when they focused on one of us only for a longer period of time.

Although I do wonder if your male coaches are, well, male. So they see problems on guys first (and that is the part they know the best anyway), therefore will work on them first - I know I certainly do. Same is true for female coaches. Although I have also heard the theory that it is easier to train a female dancer or something like that.

This actually bring a question. Do you feel depressed/frustrated if your coach focuses on your partner? I mean, beside the money part. So here is the reason I asked. My last Latin coach will call out you and pointed out your mistakes/commented on your dancing in group lesson. It was a close group lesson where everyone knows everyone. I found it to be really nice...until he stopped pointed me out. Then I wondered whether I was just way too awful that he founded me being hopeless. I found myself wondering the same thing in my lessons with him. Was I just too atrocious/hopeless that you don't want to put too much effort on me? Or maybe I should just get over it?

[elisedance]

"Although I have also heard the theory that it is easier to train a female dancer or something like that."

EEEK!

I think we had a topic on this once and the consensus was that its not easier nor harder but just different.  I'd take it a bit further and say that it IS easier to train a female dancer for the early stage of learning (say syllabus up to silver) - that is because its a lot about steps at that stage and the lead has to learn them and their combinations to get round the floor.  I think this is what establishes the teaching norm that the guy needs more attention.  However, championship dancing for the lead is to a large extent just more of the same - it is not for the follow for as the lead learns more steps, the follow has to learn not only how to do respond to each one but also how to differentiate them.  For example if you know 10 steps and learn one more thats 11 for the lead.  However, if the follow knows 10 steps and learns one more she has to differentiate that new step from all the previous ten  - which in essence means learning 11 new combinations.  

I've probably made more of that than it deserves, but I think you get the point.  I had no idea of the depth of learning that was necessary to go from being a pre-championship dancer to being a truly rounded follow (still a ways to go!).

[millitiz]

Interesting point. Imho, guys are like the frame of a picture. If he looks good, the whole picture couldn't go way wrong - where as the reverse might not be true (I am thinking of pro-ams at lower level. Male pro+female student just looks much nicer than the reverse in the lower level, with a few exceptions). I think at around gold/open is where it becomes a fair fight (this is totally my opinion without any support of evidence).

Also, as I noted before, in Latin, it seems to be quite the reverse.

Obviously I am not an expert on this - but I think the follows could/should learn steps, or at least, different actions (which could sometimes equate to steps). Not only what signals mean what, but also being a bit more active.

[elisedance]

Obviously I am not an expert on this - but I think the follows could/should learn steps, or at least, different actions (which could sometimes equate to steps). Not only what signals mean what, but also being a bit more active.

I agree entirely - the follow has to learn what to do once the intent of the lead has been interpreted - this should be automatic in her.  The think the best way to learn this (see all the body school topics) is training on what the body should do followed by actual dancing with the lead.  Gradually my brain is learning what sort of leads I may experience and it is being trained as to what sort of responses are ideal both for the lead to fulfil his intent and for me to express my interpretation.  Dance goes best if both parthers can express - but also when there are no surprises - its no good if the lead leads a throwaway and I go into a whisk cause I feel like it!  OTOH he may lead a throwaway and I may feel particularly well balanced and able to generate a particularly lovely extension.  That kind of respons should only make him pleased to have initiated it, not scared that he might loose control.

Thus, learning of steps (for the follow) is to me 2% or dancing - how your body should move is an additional 60% and then how you can express is the rest.  Initiating a step is totally taboo.