In my experience, anyone who ends up getting themselves a bit deeper into the dance of casino, beyond the classes which they are taught at their academies, being by going to Cuban dance events, participating in online forums or social media discussions on casino, generally come across the following topic: the casino backstep.
Discussion on this subject matter can be sensitive to some people for various reasons, and can get pretty heated up among those who partake on it. So, what is all the fuss about? Well, it’s about whether or not it is correct to step back in the dance of casino, as many people have been taught to do.
Usually, those who start these types of discussions are people who advocate for the forward step; that is, the complete eradication of the backstep while dancing casino, replaced by walking forward instead on all the six counts of the dance (1,2,3…5,6,7). Their argument is that forward stepping is truer to the way casino is danced in Cuba (let us remember that casino is a Cuban dance), and that the back step was created by Cuban and non-Cuban instructors trying to teach casino outside of Cuba to a public whose background (American salsa) was based off the backstep. (In American salsa, the concept of the back break on 1 or on 2 is essential to many turn patterns done in that dance, if not most of them.) Ultimately, the forward-steppers (let’s call them that for now) argue that the backstep in casino does not exist, and that if you dance casino while stepping back, you are not dancing casino.
Now, anyone who knows me personally, or anyone who has taken workshops that I have taught, knows that I also advocate for the forward-step in casino. If you are one of this people, while reading this you may be asking yourself: why am I referring to the forward-steppers in third person plural and not including myself in it? Good question. My answer is simple, short:
I don’t work with absolutes.
You see, the moment someone says, “This is casino”, or “Casino is not danced like this.” Or, “This is Cuban dance.” I cringe. Why? For the same reason that an American from the state of Georgia would cringe upon hearing a Canadian who has just visited New York say that New York is America. Or the same reason an African-American would cringe upon hearing that hip-hop is not American music. In other words, once an absolute definition of something is created, there is going to be, more often than not, people who are going to question said definition, especially when they see that the definition did not include them, or that it left them out in some way. In thinking of other examples, one may refer to the all the socials movements which members seek to be included as also an integral part of the definition of society, to which they belong (i.e. queer movement, feminist movement, civil rights movement).
What I am trying to say is that an absolutist definition such as “It’s not casino if you are not stepping forward”, in its one-way perspective, does not account for all the complexities which it seeks to encompass.
Here, take a look at this video:
This is a rueda de casino group made out of Cubans, dancing in Cuba. Naturally, if you are a forward-stepper who argues for the forward step because it is truer to how casino is danced in the island, you are going to have mixed feelings about this video for the very good reason that, during the Dames, the girls are stepping back.
Acknowledging this, then, would destroy the very core of your argument, as a forward stepper. If Cubans indeed do not step back as you say, then what is happening here? Well, you now face the very shortcomings of your absolutist definition of casino: you found an exception that contradicts what you are saying.
Now, you can go on YouTube and find videos of casineros in Cuba stepping forward the whole time as a way of refuting the above video. But the above video is not going to go away. There is conclusive visual proof that Cubans do backstep when dancing casino, and anyone who is arguing for the back-step will have a point, if they use this video as proof.
Earlier I said that I am a forward-stepper myself, and as an instructor, I argue strongly for it during my workshops. But why would I be doing that, if the above video tells me that to dance casino forward stepping is not completely necessary?
My answer—and this is what I am arguing in this post—is that, rather than the forward step being the “Cuban way,” the “real” way of dancing casino, which is creating an absolute (and we just saw the problem with that), the forward step fits better within the structure of the dance of casino. Now, whether dancers choose to use it or not, that is their choice (as is certainly the choice of the Cuban dancers in the above video); but, theoretically, stepping forward while dancing casino should feel better because you are following the parameters of the dance, rather than going against them.
Consider this: when riding a bicycle, do you push the pedals with your hands? No, right? That’s because the bicycle, structurally, was made so that you could pedal with your feet while sitting. However, could you pedal with your hands? Sure. And would the bicycle move? Sure. But it will not be as fast, and it will feel more awkward because you are not going with the logic of its structure.
The reason I bring up structure is because casino, internally, also has a structure. And that structure is a circle. Now, I am not talking about a rueda (wheel), but, literally a circle. If you were to ask most casineros, they would tell you that casino is danced not in a line (like American salsa), but in a circle. Granted, some of them may be confusing that with the rueda, because that is the only way the know how to dance casino, but others will be thinking of dancing while going in circles with their partners. And that is what I mean: at its very core, casino is a circular dance.
With that established, I want you to consider this: if you were to draw a circle around you and then walk along the circumference of said circle, do you ever take a step back? Unless a heavy gust of wind hits you when you do that, the answer should be no. Indeed, the whole time, you are walking forward.
And that is what I am trying to say here: step forward in casino, not because it is the “Cuban way”; step forward because it goes better with the internal structure of the dance: the circle.
Again, if you do not want to, that is your choice, but choose so knowing that, in stepping back, you will be that person who is pushing the pedals of the bicycle with their hands.
P.S. Also recommended reading on this topic: Why is there an argument about stepping forward or stepping back in casino?
Son y Casino 
I’ll give the new dancer perspective again because I think it is helpful for instructors to hear. I understand why some teachers take a doctrinal approach on this issue in the studio. No matter where casino is taught, I feel like it may as well be in a conservatory. I feel there is a sense that, in the US, casino is a dance form that has to be protected and sustained by constantly replenishing the number of dancers who master not just the dance but the full history of its antecedent dance and musical references. Within that ecosystem, the technical and aesthetic issues of “forward or back” becomes a subject for litigation because the definition of what is the most historically accurate form of casino is at stake. However, as a new student, you don’t know that and it can be confusing when you study with a different teacher — and because your muscle memory is already conditioned to do one or the other! I struggled in Santiago in one of my casino classes on the first day because I didn’t back-rock. Not on purpose, but on habit. So all day, I got the same correction, “detras! detras!” It’s funny in retrospect, but at the time it was just very frustrating because students ALWAYS want to impress whoever is teaching you that day. So, my advice is whatever you teach, explain why and that the litigation is on-going. Last, outside of the studio or as I call it “in the wilds” of social dancing, no matter what I am dancing, I need the back-rock sometimes for momentum but more often for regaining balance because I don’t have the body control of better, more experienced dancers yet.
I’ve tried to explain to a cuban, who has danced Miami Casino, about the structure of MCC and the forward movement not so much the step, in a way where you also explain in your article. His side was this, ‘this is how I’ve danced, taught, and more importantly this is how they dance in Cuba.’ Now that’s something I can’t argue because I’ve never been to Cuba. I understood what he was saying because, yes, I’ve seen him dance along with a group he has taught. What he doesn’t realize this that he doesn’t even see the forward motion he was actually doing when dancing his street cuban way, at least in his Guapea step or para tí y para mí. It’s there but I wasn’t going to continue to say the same thing in so many ways. One fine example that really does set the forward step apart from Miami style is the ‘pabajo.’ He just could not grasp the idea of taking 3 steps forward. I didn’t pursue or further explain it. His idea of teaching the way he does or used to is that he could lead any lady on the dance floor no matter the style. I begged to differ but I listened. It just didn’t sound right to me. In my head I heard this: to lead every girl you’re going to push them back into a back step no matter what salsa they know, the NY and LA styles do then do casino turns that they do not know. It’s a bit silly since casino is a distinct dance that stands out from the American styles. I’ve realized that some dancers that grew up in and learned in the Miami style era, that haven’t fine their homework, will just be stuck in their ways. The only thing I see wrong is them not historically doing it right. I find it sad that me, as a black American, will care more about somebody else’s dance culture more than them. For me, it helps people see how passionate I am about the dance and the Cuban culture. : )
El Son no ha muerto!
Interesting story, Jarryd.
While he is not the only Cuban I have heard say something like this, I will advice caution when talking about casino to others in terms of MCC, which is itself an absolutist paradigm of the dance that does not account for what happens in the video above. Just my two cents. Thanks for reading!
Did this guy grow up in Cuba?
Learned to dance Casino in Cuba?
Or in Miami?
Just because he is Cuban doesn’t mean that he learned the way Cubans in Cuba dance (especially if he learned by the salsa lovers \ salsa racing methods, in Miami).
Nice article once again Daybert! Heather (not your correspondent above, but my wife Heather!) and I have been teaching Casino for nearly a year now on our own and for some time before that with Eric Turro. For us with our Salsa background, learning to step forward or, more specifically, take 3 steps forward as Jarryd rightly points out, was very hard! Now it is second nature to both of us and to most of the students here. We wonder how we ever managed the moves before – of course we didn’t manage them so well! But what you say aboutstepping forward making the dance circular is correct. It really isn’t possible/comfortable with big back-steps. This is the point for us now – we equate back-steps with Salsa rather than with Casino and Heather (above) hits the nail on the head when she accounts being to to “back-rock”. If I may digress a little, the narrative that currently works best for me to explain the differences between Casino and Salsa is this: Casino has evolved from Son to incorporate some complex turn patterns and also (but not always) be danced in tempo rather that contratempo, specifically coninciding with a time when the music in Cuba was evolving from the very strong contratempo baseline present in 1930’s Son and the Charanga groups to the bigger band format with a big brass section and the drowning out of the contratempo baseline in favour of the more tempo-oriented brass section. With the move to rock and roll music and dance in the US and the influence that that undoubtedly had on musicians and dancers in Cuba the rock-back step may have started to not only be incorporated into Casino but to dominate the dance style. Hence, in dancing terms, Salsa = Casino + Rock and Roll (to a greater or lesser extent depending on how much rock and roll had infused into the local area – obviously a LOT in the US where there was very little actual Casino but a lot of Rock and Roll). No doubt there were other swing dance influences such as Jive and Lindy Hop. It isn’t just coincidence that the linear Salsas (LA, New York and to some extent I would group “Cuban Salsa” in with these when in its more Rock-and-Roll-influenced form) are all linear – as you suggest the big back-step common in all of the “Salsas” MAKES you dance in a slot. Like you however we don’t deal in absolutes and there are times in Casino when a (usually very small) backstep is an integral part of a combination, for either leader or follower or both, but we do aim to minimise it as much as possible now and are really pleased with how that is helping our dancing… and our teaching. We have just taught two beginners/open level workshops at a local Festival weekend and were happily surprised by the acceptance of our explanation of the differences between Casino and Salsa (inspired by one of your earlier blog posts), particularly by new beginners in the class but also by those who have been dancing “Cuban Salsa” for a short time. They were really pleased to have the differences between what they have been learning in their own schools and what they have been seeing in performances and classes by local area schools such as ours and Erics over a number of years now. The hardest people to convince that there even IS a difference between the two dance styles are usually those who have been dancing and/or teaching “Cuban Salsa” for a long time and therefore have the most deeply ingrained habits according to the tuition and historical narratives surrounding the dance styles that they intially received.
Oops, 11th line should read “told to back-rock”
If we are already digressing a bit, here is some interesting info about the American “salsa” styles and their origins in American, swing family, couple dances:
https://books.google.co.il/books?id=4pmeBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA197&dq=3+stages+of+new+york+salsa+evolution&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=3%20stages%20of%20new%20york%20salsa%20evolution&f=false
Call me crazy, but maybe, just maybe, there are a number of people in Cuba and abroad who step backwards in Casino, simply because it feels better than stepping forward?!
I doubt that the dancers in the video above convened and decided to step backwards for philosophical reasons. They are dancing in the moment, and their back steps seem to be a natural reaction to music and partner.
Observing the way they handle their Enchufla movement (stepping forward) do you think there is something to that back step during a Dile that just might make sense from a mechanics standpoint.
Anyways, great article. And as with any dance, to each his own.
There is a difference to be made, I would say, between stepping back every now and then, and stepping back consistently, which the Cubans in the video do not do. More than anything, I believe the back-stepping in this video above happens because of the position in which the body falls after certain moves they are doing, which necessitates a back step to regain balance (that’d be the “mechanics standpoint”). But again, they are not backstepping the entire time; so we cannot say that they are “back-steppers” in the Miami sense, where people WERE taught to step back every single time, or at least most of the time (video below). So that distinction is important. Thanks for reading!
Well written as always.
My 2 cents, from what I have seen in videos and from Cubans (both pros and street dancers) dancing Casino, is that you can either step forward, or do VERY SMALL steps backwards, on your “1s” (if dancing “on1”), with the feet never being completely apart.
Meaning, you back step goes a little behind the other foot, maybe roughly 1/2 of its length.
This holds true for enchufla and dilequeno, which are the only basics when one might step backwards.
In vacilala, hecho, prima, engano \ paseala en frente (para abajo), exhibala \ sacala, pasea(la), you always step forwards.
This holds even more for followers if compared to leaders, BTW.
Daybert,
“And that is what I am trying to say here: step forward in casino, not because it is the “Cuban way”; step forward because it goes better with the internal structure of the dance: the circle.
Again, if you do not want to, that is your choice, but choose so knowing that, in stepping back, you will be that person who is pushing the pedals of the bicycle with their hands.”
Would you mind elaborating more on this?
I don’t know want to sound like a smart-ass, but the entire post is an elaboration of those concluding sentences. Maybe if you tell me specifically what it is you don’t get about my argument, I can help there.
Sorry. I didn’t make that clear.
You say the forward step suits the circular structure of Casino more.
One question is why do you think that? I.e In what sense is the forward step better?
A second- more basic- question is why do you think the structure the dance is circular?
Well, if you try to walk in a circle, logic dictates that you don’t step back, right? That’s why stepping forward is, at the very core, logical. Why the circle? Well, not only is the woman dancing around the guy, but also because of the rueda, which is how casino got started. A hollow circle moves when placed on top of smaller wheels that fit its circumference. Look up “caja de bolas” in Google images for a visual of what I’m saying. I hope that helped.
My thought is this. Not every movement in Casino is circular. Yes there are moves in which the lady circles the man (here it seems best for here to walk forward), but there are also many moves where men and women are not walking circularly. Don’t you think?
Hmm… can you give a few examples, please?
I’ve been dancing Casino for over a decade now, and never have I came across a movement that wasn’t circular, or at least elliptical (it is rarely a “geometrically perfect circle”, of course, as dance isn’t mathematics…) .
I think they what you see with casino is not circular walking but rather what I’d call ‘cutting’: meaning a series of forward movements with frequent changes of direction.
Let us take enchufla for example, which you might argue involves circular walking around one another. Each set of four counts does not involved curved walking for either leader or follower, but straight walking with a change of direction on the 4 or 8. E.g the leader, on 1,2,3 walks straight as he passes the lady while turning her, then cuts in to his right on the 3/4 (NB: its arguable as to which, maybe it’s both) and walks straight back to her on 5,6,7. Or something like that. The point being there was no circular walking exhibited, but 2 ‘cuts’ of straight walking.
Do you disagree?
Disagree in part. Enchufla works by walking straight only if you take very small steps. If both dancers you walk straight (starting on the one) and then changes direction on 4/5, you will be too far apart from each other. Walking forward, but in a circular motion, ensures that you keep just the rights amount of distance.
From what I learned (from 3 different and not related teachers, 2 of whom are Cubans and the 3rd one being a westerner who learned Casino and other Cuban social dances in Cuba from Cuban teachers, and has over 15 years of dance experience…), enchufla is very circular, especially for the follower.
Both partners, but especially the follower, walk forwards in arcs, never in straight lines (thus it might be anywhere from a circle to an ellipse, depending on the size of the steps, which in itself is a byproduct of the physical size of the dancers themselves), or do some of the steps in place (mostly the leader, which remains some of the time at the center of the “planetary system”, with the follower going around the leader).
As Daybert mentioned, both partners walk forward in arcs, so they thus wind up going towards each other.
P.S:
Did you learn Casino or “miami style” by “salsa lovers”, “salsa racing” or anybody based on them or based on salsa, rather than Casino, dancing?
If so, this might explain the “linear” movements that you describe, including “cutting corners”.
The arc Idea makes sense for enchufla. But the question is, is that really what casineros do, or are they cutting? Assuming the following is a good example of Casino, is he curving his walk, or doing what I’ve called cutting? I take it that if it is an arc as you say then it is subtle. Is that your view?
They’re walking is subtle arcs. But if you really want good examples of what casineros do, check out the videos from Cuba page on this blog.
I’ve looked at 6/7 videos on the link.
I still don’t see evidence of ‘arcing’ (we did say it was subtle after all!). But perhaps it is tactually evident rather than visually: meaning that you feel the arc while you’re walking rather than see it. So for that reason I’m willing to experiment and try arcing my walk to see what I think.
Assuming ‘arcing’, one question for me would be whether all (or the majority) of Casino moves (should) involve arcing. I have my doubts on this. Dile que no & Sacala (Exhibela) spring to mind.
In any case, if one does arc in the majority of Casino moves. It’s not obvious to me that this entails you should walk forward to be most efficient (or beautiful).
So (instead of me asking lots of questions) I wonder if you’d be interested in writing a post about your view on (a) where the forward, on-the-spot, and back steps should be used in some of the core casino moves, and (b) why this is most efficient/beautiful. I know you have said that the forward step suits the circular structure, but I’d like to hear more detail on this, and I think it would be of general interest for your readers.
I’ve done something along those lines already; namely, I’ve made a case about why people even consider the back step as something viable in casino when it shouldn’t be so. It’s called “Why is there an argument about stepping back in casino?” Check it out and let me know in the comment section there what you think.
“Most beautiful” is purely subjective, so I don’t think it should be brought into the discussion.
Regarding “most efficient”, if you don’t walk forwards, you can’t really make the dance circular.
You can make the dance be danced “on a spot” or in a slot, but not in a circle ellipsis.
Taking steps back naturally hinders the dancer’s ability to move forwards, or at least limits how much can they go (as you would literally be “taking a step backwards to take 2 steps forwards”… which is much less efficient than taking 2 steps forwards 🙂 ), thus making the dancers “get stuck” in their places most of the time.
Look at many Latino dancers, maybe from Peru, Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico etc.
They mostly take steps back and in place, and thus their dance comes out exactly like that… in place, on the spot.
You can switch places using straight lines, with one dancer taking the place of the other, but that would put you on a slot most of the time.
And this definitely exists in many kinds of American couple dances (=couple dances from the USA, such as “LA style” and other dances of the disco \ hustle \ swing family tree).
But none of these movement patterns will get you to dance in a circular manner, just as Casino is danced.
Regarding Dile Que No, the arcs and forwards movement mostly applies to the follower, although the leader also walks in an arc during the 2nd 4-bit measure of the move.
In Sacala \ Exhibela the follower moves in arcs on both measures, with the overall movement being more of an ellipsis than a circle.
The leader performs a footwork pattern that I have seen being called “engaño”, which is the same one used for “para abajo” \ “paseala de frente” \ “florero”.
In this pattern the leader also moves in arcs but with smaller steps, also making an ellipsis rather that a perfect circle.
As a general “rule of thumb”, the circle \ ellipsis \ arcs are much more pronounced for the follower that the leader, as the leader does step in place some of the time, while the follower almost never does.
Mike, it seems there’s a lot of stuff you want to say. Feel free to contribute to the blog with a post of your own. If you ever end up writing something that you’d like to share, send it to me at daybertlinares@yahoo.com. Cheers.
Sure thing, thanks!
Most of the topics are already well covered in your fine blog, but if I have any ideas, I will contact you by email.
I read that article Daybert. It addresses a different question; the source of the forward and back steps. At most, it could be read as saying that the forward step is better since that’s what’s most popular in Cuba. But this would not be a good argument.
As a philosophy graduate, I have to flag that Mikes claim that beauty is subjective without argument is rather slapdash. But let’s not us get into Philosophy!
Counter claim to Mikes view. Perhaps you can arc with one step back and two forward. And, also, perhaps a small step back helps to not over-travel: giving you a more natural movement: making it look better. This view is not obviously wrong to me.
Well, by addressing the source, it also addresses your question. You’re asking to know why the forward step should be considered better and more efficient; and I’m saying that this shouldn’t even be a question to begin with because the normalization of the backstep had everything to do with getting people to apply salsa dancing concepts to casino. So, if it’s clear that the constant stepping back in casino outside of Cuba is the result of a marketing strategy (and it IS clear because you videos of Cubans dancing in the island and they’re predominantly stepping forward abound), then for me there’s nothing else to explain. It’s like you’re asking me to explain to you why the taquería where all the Mexicans are hanging out is better Mexican food than the Taco Bell across the street.
But this would not be a good argument in answer to my kind of question*
Your answer tells me me that Casino originated with the forward step. How does this tell me whether that makes it better than the back step? It tells me it’s better in the sense of being more true to its origins. But it doesn’t tell me if it’s aesthetically better, or more harmonious with the natural movements of the human body, or more efficient at achieving the desired move. This is the kind of thing I have in mind with my question.
Is that any clearer? If not I’m happy to leave the topic alone.
I know what you’re asking; I just don’t know what you want to hear. We’ve mentioned this already. If you’re looking for harmony with the natural movement, then stepping forward is more harmonious given the circularity of the dancing, especially for women (remember, women do have to walk around the guy). Again, you never walk around a circle by taking a step back. It’s always walking forward. So it’s more efficient, too. Aesthetically speaking, well, that’s on the side of subjectivity. The only thing that we’re universally hardwired to consider “beautiful” is nature (http://www.npr.org/2013/04/19/174724704/what-is-beauty).
Ultimately, by asking me how the forward step is better, you’re also asking me to make a case as to why concepts from a dance that was specifically tailored for salsa dancers without regard to how it is actually danced in Cuba shouldn’t be incorporated when it comes to casino.
It’s like asking me to explain why you should go to the authentic taquería to try out Mexican food when, for you, you can try out Mexican food at the Taco Bell across the street from the taquería.
As mentioned before, regarding the issue of “beauty”, it’s in the eye of the beholder.
Meaning, some people may look at a couple dancing Casino (=using forward steps) and say that it’s most beautiful to them.
Others might compare that to a couple dancing “miami style”, which is using salsa a\o other steps from American couple dances (=using back steps), and say that to them this is the most beautiful.
My point is that there is no one objective standard for everybody to judge “beauty” by, and different people find different things beautiful.
Regarding “most efficient”, when dancing in a circular manner, the follower mostly walks on the perimeter of a circle \ ellipsis, so the most effective way to move “on” this shape is by constantly walking forwards, and not in any other way.
Think of the following situation, for the purpose of visualizing this…
You draw a circle or an ellipsis with chalk on a road, and place the leader in the centre of this circle \ ellipsis.
The follower will then be (more or less, depending on the size of the steps) moving on that perimeter marked by the chalk.
You can think of it in another way.
Think of “formula 1”, or any other race.
Often the racers will be on a (more or less) circular track, moving in one direction.
So, will it be more efficient to drive only forwards, and turn (when needed) using arcs and forward motion, or driving back or a reverse gear for a little, only then moving forwards?
Generally I like your writings, but this time I think you didn’t give enough information in this article about the WHYs, and that’s the reason Joe didn’t really get the point.
So I try to emphasize the REAL points about forward step. (Sorry for my english, I’m just learning the language)
My teachers always said, casino is a street dance. It started to emerge in clubs (street) without any official company or association behind it.
This is very important, because thanks to this there are a few reminders (REM) that can help you (I will explain them later, and I promise we will get to the point, but these are important):
REM1: EVERYTHING IS SIMPLE AND NATURAL
REM2: EVERYTHING IS COMFORTABLE
REM3: THERE IS NO SEPARATE STYLING
REM4: EVERYHTING CAN BE DONE FAST TOO
REM5: DANCE IS ABOUT YOU AND YOUR PARTNER
And there are a few RULE (RU) of thumb:
RU1: ALWAYS BEND YOUR KNEES
RU2: KEEP CLOSE THE FOLLOWER
RU3: DO THE BASIC STEP AND TURN CORRECTLY
RU4: NEVER USE ANY “POWER” OR USE ONLY AS MUCH AS NECESSARY
RU5: EVERY “BOOK” IS DIFFERENT, TRY AND USE WHAT IS COMFORTABLE FOR YOU
RU6: ORDER: STEPS (BODY DIRECTION, ARMS, SHINES)
REM1: EVERYTHING IS SIMPLE AND NATURAL
There are no complicated things. If you think or feel that something is very complicated (awkward) or opposite to your divination than maybe you do something wrong, or it is way above your level. Above intermediate level in most cases you simply do it wrong 😛
The european people (I’ve never been to the U.S) tend to overcomplicate things. Keep it simple. All steps and turns look natural, as if you would just “flow” without using any power. You can only “flow with music and partner” if the dance is comfortable and natural for you.
REM2: EVERYTHING IS COMFORTABLE
If something is not comfortable, most of the times you do it wrong. Since this is a street dance it’s designed to be comfortable. An average man wouldn’t do a move that is not comfortable for him.
The ballet is painful, and requires a lot of practice. Most of the ballet turns and postures are just “not looks naturally” let’s say “artificial moves” and needs a lot of muscle.
Everything (steps and turns) have to be comfortable in any dress in every situation on every surface.
RU4:NEVER USE ANY “POWER” OR USE ONLY AS MUCH AS NECESSARY
In casino there is no need to use any power at all. If you have to use power or muscle you do something wrong. I am man, but one time a Cuban teacher led me. It was amazing. I don’t know how, the things just happened. I could follow him without any follower experience. He didn’t use any power.
Cuban dances are “lazy”, it’s not like rock and roll or lindy hop that you use a lot of power. Only as much as necessary.
REM3: THERE IS NO SEPARATE STYLING
Correctly doing the basic things (steps and turns) automatically gives you most of the styling. I’ll explain this later. The emphasis here is on the CORRECT basic techniques.
REM4: EVERYHTING CAN BE DONE FAST TOO
You can do every step and turn for faster music too (above intermediate level). If you can only do things to slower music, but not to faster pace, maybe it is too complicated (REM1) for you or you do it wrong. Is it comfortable for a faster music?
REM5: DANCE IS ABOUT YOU AND YOUR PARTNER
You always dance with your partner to the music. You take care of your lady as if she would be your queen, so you try to make the following easier.
RU1: ALWAYS BEND YOUR KNEES
Never ever straighten your legs, and always try to “push your weight down as much as you can (comfortably)”. Main reasons for bending the knees:
– your weight (center of gravity) gets lower -> more stable and faster turns (simple physics)
– by bending you can move faster without using more power (RU4)
– as you “gets lower position”, your hip will move automatically by the basic step (REM3)
– prevents you to do big steps (the smaller the steps, the faster and more stable you can be) (REM4)
– all the moves under your follower’s arms suddenly gets easier (REM2)
– bended knees can prevent you from accidents
– bending is very important in dances like (rumba, afro, etc…)
This is also a big problem for european people, most of the times we just cannot get as low as should.
RU2: KEEP CLOSE THE FOLLOWER
In almost every situation the leader and the follower must be close to each other. Why? Because this way the moves are more comfortable, and for God’s sake this is a latin dance full of erotic and sexuality. This can be done my lowering the arms (deep down), or raising high.
This is also simple mathematics: there are two straight lines connected to each other, and an angle between them. The ends of the lines get closer each other if the angle is small between the lines (V shaped). And this continuous arm lowering or rising gives out the “famous” wavy hand movement.
But actually you don’t have to create “waves” because it’s cool, and Cuban. Because it can help you keep close to each other.
RU3: DO THE BASIC STEP AND TURN CORRECTLY
We learned the basic step this way: forward step, and at the end (on four if you are on1) SLIDE to that direction (with body) where you came from and move the weight from your right to left feet. This is very important. With the slide:
– your direction always changing and by slightly modifying the slide angle you can modify where you are heading. You always slide as much as needed (eg: 90 degrees)
– the slide is on the four beat. So you move on every beat. Makes it easier to keep the tempo.
– by sliding, your hip automatically starts moving, you don’t even realize it, it just happens, because your hip can’t do anything else but moving
– the sliding is also can be transformed to a turn easily
– if you dance on pavement or on any other “not slide compatible” surface you can even “step out” the slide (as the turns too)
– there is no such thing “I’ll turn with one big force” because it will causing you out of balance. You do the turns by stepping them with even force and rhythm.
If you bend your knees, do the sliding, while doing the montuno upper body movement, your shoulders (and eventually your hands) will start moving automatically. You don’t have to concentrate on them.
All you have to do is concentrate on body direction: which direction I want to go or turn. All the other things will happen automatically if you do the basics correctly.
But if you can’t do the basics right, you will suffer later.
RU4: NEVER USE “POWER”
You never need power. Just move “with flow” 🙂
If you need power to do a turn or something else something is not right.
RU5: EVERY “BOOK” IS DIFFERENT, TRY AND USE WHAT IS COMFORTABLE FOR YOU
Every teacher and every school’s “bible” or “book” is different. Try as much as you can, and use what is comfortable for you. Be bold to try new things! There is no such thing “this is the casino”. This is a street dance. Every street is different.
RU6: ORDER: STEPS (BODY DIRECTION, ARMS, SHINES)
In every learning process the first is stepping (I’d rather say: body direction), arms and eventually if everything is fine, you can use the shines.
—————————————————————————————–
Now back to the original topic: WHY is forward step suits better to casino:
What happens when you do a backstep?
– your arms getting straighter, so you and the follower getting away from each other (opposite to RU2)
– your weight is always move on the same direction where you step. So your weight goes backwards. Wait. On the next step you have to move your body weight forward. So you move your weight backward just to move it forward? Is it energy efficient? No. (opposite to RU4)
– in most cases if you do backstep, you straighten your knees automatically. Just try it! Stand up, bend your knees and step backward. Now forward. Now backward. The human body is designed to go forward and not backward. We CAN go backward but it is not the typical use case. (opposite to RU1)
– can you go or run backwards the same speed as forward? No you can’t. You also cannot do backsteps the same speed as forward steps. Just try it. Stand up, for 1 minute only do backsteps. Another time do for 1 minute only forward steps. (opposite to REM4)
– when you do backsteps you get tired earlier (try it if you don’t believe it to me) (opposite RU4)
– which is more comfortable and natural? Forward step or backstep? A baby learns the … steps at first. (opposite REM1)
– if you mix the forward step and backstep you always have to know which step is coming (opposite REM1)
Thank for your your in-depth reply! I am sure that people will really appreciate this more nuanced argument. 🙂
Back to Joe’s recommendations:
– one step back, and two forward: it would get you out of the tempo. And it get’s complicated compared to the simple step step step way. Keep in mind the on which beat we are on, so what is our current direction would be complicated and also not natural. (opposite REM1)
– perhaps a small step back helps to not over-travel: maybe. But unfortunately most people just simply can’t step small. Their steps are huge. But the bodyweight and arm straighten issue arises also in this case
You know what? Don’t believe us! Try it by yourself! Just experiment with it a little. And you will realise! Knock knock. Wake up Neo….
I studied MCC a little and aren’t the guapea step (both leader and follower) and the dil que no on 6 (for the follower) kind of an exeption from the rule?
Stepping forward is not a “rule,” per se. It’s more of a suggestion buttressed on actual evidence from Cubans in the island, who dance casino predominantly by stepping forward.
To answer your questions, it’s considered a back-step when your back stepping causes you to move your frame backwards. Think of it this way: stand still and think of an imaginary, vertical line running down the length of your right side. If you take a step back and fall BEHIND that imaginary line, then you have taken a back-step. If you move your foot back, but don’t move from that imaginary line, you have not. In guapea, you are not falling behind that imaginary line, your frame is not moving, so it’s not considered a back-step.
The back-step also refers to the first counts of the three-step; that is, count 1 and 5. It refers to going back at the BEGINNING of your steps. Step 6 would fall outside of this.