[Tango-L] Style "vs." technique

[Nina Pesochinsky]

Hi, Jake, and everyone,

Here, I quote Voltaire:

"I disagree with everything you say, and to the death I will defend 
your right to say it."

Jake, basically you are right.  An unfinished piece of ivory (or 
clay, since I prefer it) running around the world of myths an fables 
can be a pretty ugly thing.  And focusing too much on the sculpting 
material often makes people miss the whole point of the artwork.

Professional dancers who have studies ballet, modern, etc. know the 
difference between style and technique and can recognize them as two 
separate entities wherever they see it.  Social dancers who have 
never bothered to take a classical dance class or learn about the 
movement of the body through some other methods, such as yoga, 
gyrotonics, etc., are frauds as teachers of dance because they do not 
understand that thing that they think they are teaching.

Dancers who have the technique have no problem with "economizing" 
their movement or make it more precise and efficient.  They do it in 
a split second and it is done as soon as their attention is pointed 
to it.  They also have no problem interpreting DiSarli or Donato in a 
technically and stylistically appropriate way.  They do not have to 
spend years in group classes and private lessons struggling to put 
movement to the music.  The style becomes effortless when a dancer 
knows how to move his or her body in accordance with the requirements 
of the dance.

One of the legendary dancers and teachers in Buenos Aires once said 
that there is a difference between tango teachers who make dancers 
and those who make dance students.

Please carry on with your discussion!

Kindest regards,

Nina




At 02:38 PM 11/4/2006, you wrote:
>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.
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Tango-L mailing list
>Tango-L at mit.edu
>http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/tango-l