[Tango-L] Directional notation

[Jake Spatz (TangoDC.com)]

Respondents:

Let me try to be a little clearer. Forgive my terseness in spots. 
(Caveat: the further you read, the complicateder it gets.)

A. I'm trying to get BEYOND "left" and "right," as well as "forward" and 
"backward," since these words have opposite meanings to dancers in an 
_en face_ embrace. Front sacadas notwithstanding: Both dancers are 
moving "forward" in that case, yes; and also both clockwise (or vice 
versa); but there is this big minute-hand called "the extended human 
arm" which the follower is moving AWAY from and which the leader is 
moving TOWARDS (or vice versa), and that is the index of actual motion, 
which anyone who has both led and followed a front sacada is certainly 
aware of.

B. I'm not after a set of cardinal directions relative to the room (as 
specified). I'm after something that can be cardinal with respect to the 
embrace, yet not oriented by one dancer (to the other's confusion).

C. My name is Jake (Jacob), not Jack (John).

D. The 8-count salida, in standard or default form, as I know it, is 
entirely in parallel system. I can put all of it, or part of it, into 
cross-system just like anyone else; but when I refer to steps 2 and 7, 
most dancers are going to understand I mean back-n-forth sidesteps in 
parallel system. Denoting all the basic steps in parallel-system walking 
is the only real use of that salida in the first place. (See Postscript 
below for more on this.)

I've spent about an hour toying around with various attempts at a real 
"cross system salida," and I've come up short. Just for the sake of 
analysis. If anyone out there has coined one, which is not just the 
normal salida with an extra weight change here & there, please let me 
know about it. My experience led me to believe it would have to involve 
a lot of curves & circularity, as opposed to the clean linearity of the 
standard salida. (For a better idea of what I was after with That sally, 
again, please see the Postscript.)

Perhaps I should have noted earlier that I'm looking for a new language 
here, so that complex open-embrace maneuvers don't require such 
cumbersome , two-part descriptions. I'm looking for something that, as I 
noted, can clearly describe an over-turned back ocho. In that case, the 
whole couple is moving "back" (i.e., to the leader's aft-side, unlike 
typical back ochos, which travel "horizontally" or else to the leader's 
fore.) (And "horizontally" is incorrect too, for that matter.) Of 
course, if the pivot is Really over-turned, and involves a soltada or 
crosses the leader's body, then the couple is traveling to the leader's 
fore-side again; and yet the leader will have to move much differently, 
not only to travel with the follower, but to lead that 270+ degree 
pivot. Here, "left" and "right" are as hopelessly inadequate as 
"derecho" and "atras." Well, then what IS the better way to notate these 
things?

I ask this knowing there might not be an answer.

Also, I'm not necessarily interested in developing a new system of 
description & notation for _teaching_ purposes, because I don't really 
teach advanced choreography (in the loose sense of that term: 
"sequential vocabulary"). If I arrive at a new terminology, and it 
clarifies things for my students, that will be a nice side-effect. I'm 
doing this (a) for the sake of a more comprehensive analysis; (b) so I 
can record any weird shit my partners and I develop during practicas, in 
case we want to work on (or better understand) those bits again later; 
and (c) so that the List has something more interesting to talk about 
than certain members not having anything interesting to talk about.

The systems of non-tango dance notation I've looked at (Labanotation 
being one of them) are extensive and curious, but they refer to 
individual movement only, and they still use left & right, forward & 
backward. I want to erase the individual from the directions, and insert 
the _en face_ couple. Why? I'd like to be able to describe over-rotated, 
or counter-turning, or soltada positions & movements more clearly. The 
couple's original orientation seems like a good way to do it, because 
usually there's only one partner who's at variance from the embrace, 
while the other keeps things "at home." If both partners run errant, 
it's even more important to have a *unified* sense of where they're going.

Likewise: if Sergio and I are dancing together, the direction of salida 
step #2 is going to vary depending on which one of us has his left arm 
out.* "My left," "his left," and such terms are silly. It should be 
"_our_ [something]." I want a descriptive system free of these damn 
possessive pronouns.

* Provided we don't dip into deliberate backleading, which is a 
possibility I mentioned in my much-abhorred little "Prologue" of a few 
months back, and here ignore, because it doesn't make a difference 
unless we base the directions on the leader or follower exclusively.

I've considered using "port" and "starboard," which construes the couple 
as a ship relative to the ronda; but that's really more of the same. It 
also doesn't make sense, because on a crew team, the coxswain (usually a 
chick) is facing fore, while the men are facing aft; meanwhile, the man 
is typically (too typically) facing fore in the ronda, while the chick 
is facing aft.

Well prior to finding myself as a dancer, I began a short parable about 
a young monk who goes mad trying to imagine the apple of Eden from all 
sides at once. My present effort is starting to remind me of him.

Jake
DC

=POSTSCRIPT: About the 8-count salida=
I don't know the full history of this thing's use, but I've always 
encountered it with every step in parallel system. I.e., the leader 
walks to the follower's cross, and changes his weight WITH her (#5 being 
a step in place). In group classes, I revive this thing for the express 
purpose of introducing cross-system variations, or mirroring the whole 
thing, or getting the guy (or the girl) to do every step with the same 
foot while their partner proceeds as usual, or reversing all the steps 
so that the leader leads himself into his own cross, etc.
    That said...
    The salida is much-hated nowadays, but has its purpose. It presents 
all the possible parallel-system steps (not including counterpointed 
steps), except it has a wrinkle.
    DIGRESSION:
       If we consider that a step may be (1) sideways, (2) forward, (3) 
backward, or (4) in place; and that a step may be taken with either the 
left or the right leg, then we have 8 possible basic steps. (END)
    Steps #4 and #6, because of the stationary weight change done at the 
cross (and because of the cross), are identical, if we disregard the 
alignment issue. Thus, there must be one basic step missing from the 
8-count salida, if one step is done twice.
    The missing step pops in and out at #8. If you do #8 as a step in 
place, you're missing the (leader's) backward step with his left foot. 
If you do #8 as a backward step (making the salida one big cadena, or 
continuous figure), then you're missing the weight-shift onto the 
leader's left foot.
    I've tried modifying the salida to include every possible step in 
one iteration, but it wasn't simple enough for my tastes, or clear as a 
teaching instrument. Basically, I turned #6 into the leader's back step 
(the follower's front ocho opening). It's useful for pattern-breaking in 
followers, since it's only "half an ocho," but it's otherwise ugly and 
not very useful.
    What I was looking for in the cross-system salida (which I failed to 
find) was a similar "catalog" of walking, which would include every 
basic cross-system step in a not-too-unmemorable pattern. As I explored 
the matter, there were just too many pivots (and possible directions) 
for me to make it work.
    I may have stumbled on something similar to such a pattern at a 
recent leader's workshop I led. It was the typical cross-system walk 
(out of alignment), only with the leader alternating back and forward 
crosses, thus replicating the molinete while the follower does back 
ochos. This easily spills into the follower's molinete, once the leader 
establishes a fulcrum and stops traveling. It can be done to either side.
   I've heard this "linear molinete" (as done by the follower) described 
as the "original grapevine," and also as what the walk looked like in 
canyengue. I can't verify either statement myself. I'd welcome anyone 
who can.

=POST-POSTSCRIPT=
    Backup argument for the 8-count salida in parallel:
    Every odd-numbered step is taken onto the leader's right leg 
(follower's left); every even step is onto the leader's left (follower's 
right). The cross does not change this, because both partners take a 
step in place.
    The most shocking mental breakthrough I've had in my tango study 
(and perhaps this is the real, subjective reason behind my assertion) 
was around my fourth or fifth outing, in Brooklyn. I asked my teacher 
(Jose Fluk, for those who care) to show me how to improvise and 
navigate. He wanted to teach me something else. I refused. He conceded.
    He partnered me with his girlfriend of the time (I haven't seen 
either of them in years; I presume perhaps erroneously they're still 
together), and started calling out random numbers between 1 and 8 
(inclusive). I did that salida step. They were all out of order. After 
about three minutes of this, I was free.
    To my recollection, he continued calling out numbers for another 10 
seconds, and then saved his breath as I moved around the floor freely. 
We drank beer for the rest of the lesson-time, and I paid him in full.
    Until I figured out that the odd & even steps alternate feet, I 
thought that Jose was either a computational genius or had a secret 
trick for deciding which number to call out. (This shit was rapid-fire; 
maybe 8 steps every 10 seconds.) Now I know what his trick was: he 
simply alternated even and odd. Working out the cross was my problem; if 
she crossed, yippee; if not, we did a stationary weight-shift together 
anyway. No big deal.
    I haven't used this method with a student myself, because no one has 
ever come to me and demanded a definite topic before. But if I ever have 
a leader who's as stubborn as I am, and who wants that particular 
breakthrough, well, I'm prepared.