[Tango-L] Choreography

[TangoDC.com]

Hi Huck,

Thanks for keeping the ball in the air on these topics. You've really 
moved things forward, I gotta hand it to you. (More below!)

Huck Kennedy wrote:
> "TangoDC.com" <spatz at tangoDC.com> writes:
>   
>> Er, guys... ?
>>
>> What's the big deal about syncopation? It's a rather simple
>> affair of superimposed patterns...
>>     
> Many dancers struggle with this concept from
> the musician's world.  If they don't already feel
> a bit chagrined about that, no doubt your
> dismissively informing them it's just "a rather
> simple affair" will hammer it home for them.
>   
Wasn't it you who dismissed the topic in the act of raising it? Maybe my 
memory's off... Anyway, we've actually been having an informative 
discussion about music, for once, while you were off doing something 
else. You should join us next time, if the topic appeals to you. It's 
just like chatting at a cocktail party, except there aren't any drunk 
stupid people who butt in.
>> Hasn't everyone cultivated the habit of looking 
>> up words and ideas they're not clear about?
>>     
> Three points:  First of all, many dancers don't
> even realize they need to look up the word, because
> misusage in the dance world is so rife that they
> don't even suspect they're using the word wrong in
> the first place.  Heck, many instructors misuse it,
> so how can the students be blamed?  Secondly, even
> when they do become aware that there's a problem,
> without a musical background, the concept can be
> difficult to grasp from just reading a dictionary
> definition.
>   
Wait a second here... I'm confused. Are you defending students' right to 
ignorance, or attacking teachers' lack of that right? For my part, I 
haven't heard a teacher misuse the term "syncopation" yet, although I've 
heard a few dancers do so from time to time. On hearing a correction 
start up, they all admit that they've got the term wrong. Perhaps you 
know other people, but that's what I've seen.

But far more serious than these misuses, to me, is the fact that I 
seldom hear anyone talking about this stuff, correct in their 
particulars or not. We ought to be talking about it all the time. On the 
level Sebastian is, actually, if we're going to call tango an art form.

If anyone out there is still Really confused, perhaps this page can help...
http://www.lovemusiclovedance.com/syncopat.htm
>> Given that everyone reading this has Internet access: can't
>> you start today?
>>     
> And thirdly, you can really be an insufferable
> pompous ass at times.  Maybe this plays real well
> in person, but at this point, it's already starting
> to wear a little thin in print.
>   
Dude, every Aries is a pompous ass. I just go the extra mile.
>> As for your usage of "choreography," Trini, you're perfectly correct. 
>>     
> Which is why we hear social tango dancers talking
> about their choreography all the time.  Not.  At least other
> than in a derogatory fashion.  As in a practica, "let's
> mix some variation into this so I can tell you're
> really following my lead and not just doing choreography."
>   
>> The word, as a technical term in dance, has both the meaning you've been using (general selection of elements) and the one more commonly thought correct by some members of this list (premeditated, rehearsed, and executed program). A quick look at Answers.com or Wikipedia will verify this, 
>>     
> It most certainly will not.  The first four entries
> of answers.com, to wit, American Heritage, Houghton Mifflin,
> Word Tutor espindle, and WordNet, do not mention Trini's
> usage at all.  And even the fifth and last entry, Wikipedia,
> is a far stretch at best ("the art of making structures in
> which movement occurs"--that's vague enough that one could
> label almost anything "choreography," including building
> a basketball arena, and is thus a garbage definition).
>   
Definition 1., a., at Answers.com, for "choreography," reads: "The art 
of creating and arranging dances or ballets." Now, in Argentine tango, 
excepting most _stage_ performance, that "creation" is allegedly 
impromptu and improvised. That part of a dance which can be written in 
dance notation (before or after the dance) is commonly called 
choreography by people who (a) can use dance notation, and (b) write 
critically of dance. That social dancers almost never do either is 
hardly a commandment forbidding that usage by me, Trini, or anyone else 
who wants it.

Furthermore, the _short_ bibliography at the end of the Wikipedia entry 
refers to a title called: "Choreography: A Basic Approach Using 
Improvisation." This leads me to believe that there IS such a thing, 
commonly known among dancers (at least beyond the tango community), as 
"improvised choreography." It might even be worth reading. If anyone has 
it, please let me know how it is.
>> as will browsing just about any (gasp) book on dance as an art form.
>>     
> Do comic books count?
>   
I really can't pin down whether you're being a snob or a philistine in 
this comment-- care to set me on course? Or are you just razzing me 
because I'm a sometime cartoonist? or because I've published newspaper 
reviews of comic books? HAVE you got a point? What are most comics 
packed with, if not choreography?

Others interested in this tangent: Isn't Dave Sim's art in "Jaka's 
Story" (Cerebus, vol. 5) quite good at capturing the iconic appeal of 
dance? The reactions in those scenes of the onlooking peanut gallery 
(rapture) may be comic relief, but they're insightfully in keeping with 
Paglia's observations on how fully and intensely audiences react to 
dance as an art form.

If this is too heady for anyone out there, skip it. It won't be on the test.
> Could you possibly be more of a condescending,
> annoying, sophomoric twit?  Why yes, I suppose you
> could go back to reciting fresh bon mots from Oscar
> Wilde with each posting.  Oh my God, what have I just
> done.
>   
Sure. Let me start by attributing to myself your post, that used 
"syncopation" to joke-butt those who have trouble understanding it. That 
was plenty condescending, you big teddy bear, you.
>> I really do advise everyone
>>     
> Do you now, laddie?
>   
>> to look this garbage up Before they start 
>> pontificating about "respecting words" and all that.
>>     
> Okay, part of that is my bad.  I'd already
> responded on the subject of choreography, and the sole
> purpose of my responding to Igor's posting about
> respecting words was to make the joke about syncopation
> (a subject previously fretted over in this forum several
> times in the past, but of course you had no way of
> knowing that); but on re-reading that post, I see now
> that it could easily be misconstrued (well, by the
> shallow reader, anyway) to look like I was actually
> pontificating ("Take that, Trini, you ignorant slut!")
> instead of just using Igor's line as a straight line
> with which to lead into my joke.
It was so funny too. But to clarify my "pontification" remark: I wasn't 
intending to target you. That, Huck, is why I quoted, er, IGOR's diction.

As for the content of your prior post on choreography, here's an 
excerpt, halved:

(HALF ONE): "... I think it's more realistic to think of the allowable improvisational building blocks to be a bit more than a single step."

I personally disagree with you on this. I believe every step (to confine 
ourselves to the step as a unit) is the result of several other 
improvised (or not) factors, determining or describing its particular 
qualities. And I believe that full improvisation requires the dancers to 
actively choose those qualities, crafting every single of them, so that 
the outcome step is uniquely carved into space. I believe this, I strive 
to do it in my dance, and I try to teach aspects of it to my students.

That is: I believe we must improvise More than our choreography. We must 
improvise our entire dance.

I'm curious about what others think, however, because I like the free 
exchange of ideas, and I'm always open to rethinking and revision. I'm 
also interested in non-improv choreography, but that seems to be 
universally hated here, except by the few people who've actually tried 
it. But silly me for imagining this is the place for open talk. I should 
really find a forum somewhere.

{HALF TWO): "If after determining it should be perfectly safe to do so, a leader decides to lead a simple little right-turn giro in place, should he be accused of doing choreography? I don't think so."

I absolutely do. I accuse myself of it all the time. This dance, in my 
opinion, is best when it's rich and complex at every instant. And I'm 
after the best, slowly though I plod. If you're not, that's perfectly 
fine. Not everyone will be-- certainly not all of my students will be. 
I'm trying to better understand to what extent "choreography" is okay 
for such talents, and to what extent I ought to push them to develop a 
more profound capacity for art.

So far, most of them seem to want that capacity. They're hungry for it. 
I'll tell them, Huck, that you think it's okay if they stick to routine, 
but I can't guarantee they'll care for it much longer. Not with such an 
insufferable, pompous, condescending, annoying, sophomoric, oafish twit 
like me cheering them on.

Have a nice day,

Spatz