[Tango-L] Choreography

[Huck Kennedy]

ACK!!  I've exceeded the byte limit (not by much, mind you),
gotten a rejection notice, and am now officially a rambler!
Splitting into two parts...

Part one:

Jake Spatz writes:
> 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?

     Yes...  Do you really think that it irrevocably
follows logically that that means I share your
posted view that the topic is simple, one that
any idiot should be able to grasp with a quick
trip to the bookshelf for a dictionary?

     I immediately dismissed the topic after "raising"
it (as a joke) because, in view of the group's having
thrashed through the subject several times before about
how dancers misuse what is originally a musician's term,
the consensus mood of the group was to bury that
particular dead horse.  That's why my pretending to
bring it up again was meant to be funny.  As a matter
of fact, I even got one private email that said the
writer was about to strangle me until he saw that I was
just joking about raising the topic again.

> 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.

     I notice you're careful not to give me any guarantees
nobody will be rambling on endlessly on cocaine.

> >> 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?

     How did whatever conceptual filter you use when you read
come up with *that* nonsense?  I'm saying first that if you
don't realize you're misusing a word, you're probably not
going to take Jake's admittedly fine advice and go running
for the dictionary because you aren't even aware you have
a problem with the word in the first place (I should hope
you at least understood that much); and secondly, once many
dancers do become aware that their conception of the word
is wrong, just looking up the word in a dictionary may not
correct the misunderstanding, because it is a technical term
in the musical field, and thus may be difficult for a dancer
to master just from reading the technical definition.  He may
need to be shown some concrete examples in the real world,
and have someone suddenly stop the music, rewind a bit, play
a snippet again and point out, "There!  Those notes are
syncopation, and here's why."  Bear in mind that many dance
students have problems with just basic rhythm, never mind
syncopation--witness how many group classes start out with
the instructor forcing everyone to clap hands to just basic
rhythms.

     Now where do you get "defending students' right to
ignorance" out of that?  And how does my pointing out that
even many instructors misuse the term translate to "attacking
teachers' lack of that right?"  As I clearly stated, it's hard
to blame students for misusing the term when so many teachers
also misuse it, in other words, when the students are being
taught wrong definition of the term.  That's all I meant.

> For my part, I 
> haven't heard a teacher misuse the term "syncopation" yet,

     You're lucky then.  I've heard many, if not most
dance teachers do so, including Argentines.  From what
I've seen, the Argentines usually pick it up after coming
over here and being erroneously informed by dancers, trying
to help them with their English, that syncopation means
"going quick-quick instead of slow," or perhaps the
slightly more exotic and mysterious, "to do something not
usually expected."  You'll hear stuff like, "In the left
basic step, the man syncopates on the salida, the woman on
the cruzada, and both on the tango close" when they just
mean "does a quick-quick."

     A classic example of movement that a musician would
label "syncopated" is the basic step in international-standard
ballroom rumba, where you step and change weight on two,
three, and four, but not one:

  Two-three-fourrr (hold and just swivel body through one)
  Two-three-fourrr (hold and just swivel body through one)

etc.  A musician would say, wow, cool, that movement is
syncopated.  But the irony is, a ballroom instructor would
almost invariably reply no, silly little musician (perhaps
patting him on the head), that's not syncopation, because
it's what's expected, it's the basic step, for crying out
loud!  Syncopation is when you do a quick-quick when it's
not expected, like to change feet to get into shadow
position in a waltz!

> 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.

     Well as one of the ones who originally brought
up the topic years ago, you won't get any complaint
out of me.  Which should give you further background
as to why my joke was meant to be funny, as in, "Oh
no, not that syncopation crap again, Huck."  (Or
Jonathan.  Or Philip Seyer--yes, he's posted here
on the subject as well.  Surprise!)

> > 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.

     Really?  I don't know about that, but it does
explain the urgency with which you tend to want to
drag people out of their lethargy and into discussion.
Which can be a good thing--every group should have at
least one Aries to make sure something new at least
gets off the ground and started from time to time.

> I just go the extra mile.

     Conceded.  Pun not intended.

> >> 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.

     Yes, as opposed to choreographed.

     Consider the following salsa article that can be found
on the internet (http://tinyurl.com/s2qfe).  It is called,
"On Learning the Passion of Salsa:  Social Dancing vs.
Choreography."  The way all the dancers in the article use
the word "choreography" coincides with my and Jonathan's
interpretation and not your vague over-generalized one.
I quote various relevant excerpts without noting skipped text:



On to Part two!

Huck