Belle,

That is correct. The side that is "leading" when going backwards is the side which is farther back. It is "leading" the backwards movement.

It tends to be confusing for those who assume that the "leading" side is synonymous with the "forward" side, which is not actually true.

Sincerly,
Jonathan Atkinson

A small sidebar here.

As I read through your last reply again, I noticed that you mentioned that your concept of rotation was a turning action around a fixed point. This is only true in a limited scope of circumstances, few of which actually apply to closed position ballroom dancing.

You see, rotation around a fixed point implies what is known as "spot rotation", which only occurs where the body is turning in one place on a fixed axis. With a few noted eceptions, almost all rotation in closed position ballroom is of the variety known as "progressive rotation", where both sides of the body move in the same direction but at different speeds. In other words, you're progressing, and therefore not rotating around a fixed point.

So if we broaden the scope of the concept of rotation to include that which is progressive, (and in the case of closed position ballroom, to actually *exclude* that which is not progressive), it might make it easier for you to swallow the rotation pill.

Maybe.

--Jonathan

OK then, back to topic 1 .

I am familiar with CBM and right/left side leading, except that I do have a question regarding how to verbally describe which side is leading as the lady moves backwards. I think if I understand Len's description below, the lady's right foot moves backwards and her right side "leads" backwards also? I had just not thought of it that way before (although I am, hopefully!, dancing it that way).

Len,

Realizing that this was more an issue of teaching method rather than dancing method, I had originally decided to let the topic rest. But as I kept kicking it around in my head for a while, I decided that I had a thing or two more to say about it. So here it is:

Your primary issue with my statements seemed to be not of their correctness per se, but that they might be misconstrued. (You may, of course, correct me if I'm mistaken about this). I certainly can't argue with that, but I should point out that any teaching method can be misunderstood by a student. If we were to reject a teaching method simply because it might be misinterpreted, then we would not be able to teach anything at all. Because, of course, almost anything that one person communicates to another has the possibility of being misinterpreted.

Being a teacher with some years behind me, I've probably seen almost every possible way that a student can misinterpret a concept. But that only speaks to real-life interactive situations such as private lessons. What you and I can't know is how effective these concepts might be for someone reading this on the internet. That being said, what we're really left with is nothing more than our own opinions to form an educated guess.

So this is why I continue to defend the particular method I used. It's not because I think it's superior to any that you mentioned... CBM, CBMP, right and left side leads... I use them all myself. I just feel the need to point out that it is no more fallible than any other method, and that I beleive that the criticism you have of it should apply to all methods that we have discussed thusfar.

For example, I beleive that CBM is actually one of the most misunderstood concepts in ballroom dancing. Case in point: The discussion of CBM and CBMP that took place recently in this forum. And the concept of right- and left-side leading can actually produce some of the same errors that the concept of rotation can.

So you see, any method is error-prone. Our only recourse is to explain things to the best of our ability, being thorough enough to at least minimize the possibility of misinterpretation. Beyond that, it would take a private lesson to make sure that the student is understainding you. And that is still, after all, the best possible way to learn how to dance.

Sincerely,
Jonathan Atkinson

Beleive it or not, it really is actually supposed to be rightward (clockwise) rotation, as the left side should project forward, not the right.

But I beleive James was right... since this has branched out into an entirely different topic, we should start a new thread. So for further oversway discussion, please see thread entitled: "Oversway".

Sincerely,
Jonathan

Sorry about the mistaken identity, Len & Len!

Jonathan

Hi, James:

Jonathan's explaination of " Rightward rotation " is referring to in man's perspective where man's right shoulder rotate foreward and left shoulder rotate back in counter-clock-wise direction. Therefore it is a stationary " left turn rotation " mainly the upper body.

Leftward sway then becomes clear, as man's topline sway ( tilt ) to man's left side. I hope this clear things out.

Sorry that I hi-jacked the topic.

Regards,

Keh Gough

Hi Jonathan- That's a different Len. I'm the one that you are asking about. Thank you for the message, and please give my regards to Larinda and Steve. Take Care, Len Diana

Thank you Jonathan and Draganm for your replies;

The oversway in previous post is done as following: from advance twinkle to chasse to launch to oversway.

Regards,
Keh Gough

Nothing disagreed with in your post, but I will defend the concept of rotation in the following way:

When there is to be body rotation without foot rotation (as in the example of the feather step), over-rotation can really only occur when a person rotates his or her feet. So long as the feet are kept in proper alignment and the direction of movement is in the same line as the feet are pointing, the body will not over-rotate.

For example, when I see a lady over-rotate her feather on step 2, it's because she's allowing her right foot to turn out to point against LOD (or even to DC against LOD). This takes what would have otherwise been a back step with a right side lead and turns it into a plain old side step. If, however, the lady would have kept her right foot pointing DW against LOD, the rest of her body would be limited in the amount of rotation it can achieve, and even if it reaches these limits, would not be over-rotated.

Of course, it's still possible to rotate to soon, but this did not strike me as the problem with this particular individual. If she or her partner were rotating their shoulders out of alignment with their hips, I beleive the symptoms would have been different.

Still, it doesn't hurt to mention that the timing of rotation is important: When one rotates too quickly, it will cause the shoulders to fall out of vertical alignment with the hips. To solve this problem, one should always remember to keep both sides of the body progressing in the same direction, even though one side is progressing faster than the other.

Sincerely,
Jonathan Atkinson

PS -- Are you Len Diana, Larinda's student? You might be amused to know that Stephen and Larinda are staying with us right now while they're in L.A. I'd have them say hello, but they're both fast asleep right now.