[Tango-L] Style "vs." technique

[Jake Spatz (TangoDC.com)]

I'm afraid I disagree with much of Nina's argument. And I'm afraid that 
means you all get to read about it. (I don't know where she's coming 
from exactly, but I offer my views for what they're worth.)

First of all, "technique" is a variety of things, only a small portion 
of which are practically fundamental. By "fundamental" I mean 
universal-- the elements most styles rely upon most of the time. If you 
do enough analysis, you soon realize that nothing is completely 
universal, and that very little indeed is commonly used by most dancers.

Secondly, "technique" does not usually match the body's natural 
movement, because it is first and foremost a *stylization* of body 
movement. If a dancer later learns to economize their movements or make 
them more comfortable, that's a refinement. And I notice that this inner 
comfort often comes at the cost of bad form and outward sloppiness-- 
which is equivalent to *bad* technique. Then it requires further work 
and refinement, and so on until the end of time.

(On a related note: "equilibrium, axis, flexibility, strength"-- these 
are Not natural properties of the body. These are acquired skills, and 
not everyone acquires them, let alone works hard to cultivate & maintain 
them.)

Thirdly, Galatea wasn't modeled in clay, but sculpted in ivory. (You're 
welcome to wear a blindfold if you wish, but I recommend removing it 
when you read.)

Fourthly, it is quite impossible to learn "cold technique" in a 
stylistic vacuum. As I said, fundamental technique is already one 
stylization of movement. And every kind of technique either "belongs" to 
a particular style or else leads to one. You cannot learn ochos, and 
then "superimpose" a style on top of it, as though these things were 
separate objects in a Photoshop layer. (More on this below.)

Lastly, "milonguero style" is just a stupid marketing label, and it's 
silly to get upset about it. It's not half as bad as "ocho cortado" 
(another Susana Miller misnomer), which is actually a "giro cortado."

Nina's argument boils down to this: "You've gotta dance well, and also 
with some flavor." That conclusion is of little help to anyone, and its 
premises are no use either. Moreover, the word "style" in a teaching 
context refers to a _group_ of  particular techniques, and using it to 
mean "personality" (etc) fudges the point. The techniques that make up a 
style, if matched with the right music, contribute flavor to the dance 
even if the dancer is short on it.

For my part, I teach what I consider to be fundamental technique(s), but 
to define that for a student, I have to teach multiplicity. There are, 
for instance, several ways to lead ochos (e.g., chest rotation vs. 
direction of walk), and there are several ways to execute them (e.g., 
body alignment vs. body dissociation vs. leg-crossing under the pelvis). 
These various methods ARE various styles. They are not contradictory 
because there is no such thing as "pure technique"-- there are only 
various options, and it's best to have as many as possible at one's 
disposal. A dancer with "good technique" (in my opinion) is one who has 
*more than one* efficient way of doing anything.

As Igor points out, style and technique are also allied with the music. 
If you dance the same way to Laurenz as to Di Sarli-- i.e., with the 
same exact technique-- you've probably learned a particular style of 
dancing without even realizing it. In fact, I'd argue that if you dance 
to the serenada of a song the same way you dance to the variacion, your 
technique is most likely limited. And I'm not talking about vocabulary; 
I'm talking about something as primary as the weight-shift.

All of this is also closely related to analysis. (Here's where 
everything comes from, in my understanding.) A teacher's favorite 
orchestra (or favorite teaching orchestra) is going to shape their 
understanding of the walk, and probably also determine what they 
consider the most basic structure of the dance. Ever notice how those 
who teach beginners "stepping together" favor D'Arienzo in their 
classes? Or how those who teach beginners "the connection" use Di Sarli? 
Or how Fabian Salas, whose analysis gives special import to the 
molinete, typically performs to a turn-favoring vals? Or how Sebastian 
Arce's elastic rebote matches the elastic bass lines in nuevo tango 
music? (And you can't really use the rebote as a primary idea with Biagi 
the way you can with Laurenz... it doesn't feel right, because the 
movement style isn't suited to the musical style.)

To reiterate: Style determines technique, and styles are ultimately 
related to musicality. Since certain orchestras played in certain clubs 
(in the days before DJs), it only makes sense that different barrios 
would develop different styles. There's a variety of ways to pivot, just 
as there are different ways of walking. If you isolate one of them and 
consider it "pure technique," you've made a de facto stylistic decision. 
If you've learned to dance under teachers who rely on a single orchestra 
or musical type, you've probably had a style imposed on you.

I teach variety to followers because it helps make the dance, with its 
variety of partners, more legible. I teach variety to leaders because it 
helps their lead become clear and improves their musical sensitivity. I 
teach variety to everyone to dispel the false notion that there are 
contradictory teachings. There are simply contrary options, due to many 
styles both of music and of dance, and none is superior unless you 
decide it's just your favorite.

Or are wearing a blindfold.

Jake Spatz
DC

=POSTSCRIPT=
I've been teaching an intermediate/technique class for 9 weeks now, in 
the same room as another class, whose music my students and I have to 
"borrow." The music chosen by my fellow teachers, for their class, 
influences what I can teach.
    For example: if a teacher is using some peppy D'Arienzo, I can't 
teach walking to the arrastre, b/c the arrastre isn't prominent (or else 
occurs in the piano, where it's a grace note instead of an accelerating 
attack). Walking the arrastre to D'Arienzo thus becomes inefficient and 
feels wrong. If a teacher is using Di Sarli, I can't teach the steppier 
walk that works for D'Arienzo's 2/4 rhythms, b/c THAT isn't there in Di 
Sarli, and again feels completely wrong. Which one is "fundamental," 
which "technique," which "style"? I live in the DJ age and like both 
orchestras: my answer is, therefore, both.
    When I'm in charge of the music, I play a variety of orchestras to 
illustrate all this crap. I always have. Only now am I understanding how 
this musical variety is identical with a variety of technique and style.
    Not being in charge of the music, on the other hand, has become an 
interesting challenge for me, and I've come to enjoy tackling it. The 
situation both restricts my options and deepens my understanding. 
Ultimately, it convinces me further of the truth that all technique has 
a notion of musicality behind it, whether the teacher dispensing the 
technique is fully cognizant of this factor or not. Certainly the pre-DJ 
dancers were, with one orchestra playing at a local club. You dance to 
that orchestra, and a style emerges from the sound. I'm happier living 
now, with DJs able to play many different styles of music; but I think 
it has made the teaching of this dance a little schizophrenic, a little 
dogmatic, and a lot ignorant of the clear relationship between sound 
texture and body technique.