[Tango-L] Direction: Step descriptors...

Wed Nov 22 16:53:00 EST 2006

(I'm splintering this thread so we can pursue the various topics that 
have arisen, most of which are worth pursuing in detail. Thanks to all 
for the energetic responses so far!)

Brian,

Regarding the 3-step system and teaching turns: I understand what you're 
saying, but I think it's a classic case of the leader's mistaken 
perspective on the follower's dance.

I've found monosyllables wholly undesirable in the case you describe, 
not only because tango music has an arrastre "swing" (furrrrr-RONT), but 
because there should be a syllable to mark the follower's pivots as well 
as her steps. You might clarify matters rhythmically for ALL your 
students by using "front," "side," and "back" to denote the direction 
not of the step, but of the pivot; and then proceed thus:
    "Front-step-Side-step-Back-step-etc."
(Although, in all honesty, I'd scrap "step" in favor of something that 
matches the music better, like "vrrrROOM.")

My leaders & followers both learn, in this way, to acknowledge the pivot 
as the expressive equivalent of any step; and this lets them more 
consciously & effectively vary their rate of movement from the get-go.

As for the 6-steps or 3-steps debate... I find that the 3-step catalog 
is more useful sounding than actually useful. For one, there's a big 
difference to both partners whether the follower's "open step" is 
towards the leader, away from him, or lateral; and to the follower, it 
inaugurates Bad Form if these differences are ignored. (Sidesteps ought 
to be very clearly lateral, for instance, and not just some non-crossed 
step or other.)

Furthermore, the front- and back-cross steps are not that distinct from 
each other: it's just a matter of which direction you're moving in. The 
stationary step is more radically different from "open" and "cross" 
steps though, and needs more work for all students; so any system of 
steps that marginalizes it presents, in my opinion, a glaring flaw.

As for the cross-steps in themselves... Usually the "cross" is taken to 
mean that the dancer crosses his or her own body (or standing leg). But 
this depends on the orientation of the partners and also on torso-hip 
dissociation. Step #1 of the salida can be executed without variation by 
the follower, but if I (leading) step to my left instead of straight 
back, she's open; if I dodge right, she's crossed. If I do step straight 
back, she's NEITHER.

In Luciana's (Fabian's) 3-step system, what's the word for this Neither 
step? What's the word for the weight-change?

And let's say I lead my follower to take the salida #2 step _to my 
right_, after pivoting her so that her back is facing me. To her, it's 
an "open step"? But to me, it's a "cross step," because it has crossed 
the central line of the embrace-- i.e., her step has crossed MY body...

Moreover, if you introduce counterpoint walking, then it's possible that 
a follower's step extends as an "open" one and collects as a "crossed" 
one, because the leader has changed position in the meantime. So these 
steps of the follower are really determined, again, by the leader's 
perspective. So much for basing things on her. (Sorry for deconstructing 
this, and exposing its leader-centrism, in case anyone out there was 
attached to it.)

Thus the 3-step system not only fudges matters by ignoring (a) the 
stationary weight-change, and (b) the "neither" step (perhaps the most 
common one in the dance?), but it (c) falls apart as soon as we get into 
an old-fashioned embrace, such as we may find in two consecutive 
"promenade" steps.

Furthermore, "open" already refers to a kind of embrace; "cross" is 
already the name of a step (or more accurately, a kind of collection 
AFTER a step). A new system ought not to duplicate terms like this, 
which is one of the major complaints about it, whether you use it or not.

Not that the 6-step system has unique terms, or can handle what I've 
described above either... but at least it preserves the difference 
between one side of the embrace and the other. Which, given the 
asymmetry of the embrace, is rather important.

So, we still have no answers. But I do hope I'm making a better case for 
seeking them out.

Jake Spatz
DC

Brian Dunn wrote:
> J, you wrote:
>   
> * I think in terms of there being 6 possible "basic steps" from any given 
> position: front, back, side, in-place, front cross (ocho), back cross (ocho)
> <<<
> We used to teach that way too, for years - then at one point after some
> fundamentals classes with Luciana, we realized that using the clarified
> 3-step definition, "front", "back" and "side" steps generally reduce to
> "open steps in different directions", geometrically similar in terms of the
> couple.  On the other hand, "front cross" and "back cross" represent truly
> distinct cases geometrically, according to the definition in my original
> message.  Unless we make this distinction, we might as well add a
> "half-front-half-side" step to split the directional difference between
> "front" and "side", the same way "side" is used to split the directional
> difference between "front" and "back". 
>
> These days, in our classes we use "front", "side" and "back" as shorthand
> monosyllabic synonyms for "front cross", "open" and "back cross", which we
> introduce first and clarify as I did above.  That way, we can use the
> monosyllables to train the code of the turn in a group, saying half as many
> syllables in a musical phrase ;>.
>
> Looked at in this way, an "in-place step" becomes a step of zero (or
> minimal) length, actually usually a tiny "open step" - although
> theoretically you could shift weight in the follower's cross position,
> creating a tiny front-cross or back-cross step instead.  
>
> Similarly, by this frame of reference, "ocho" becomes a figure, composed of
> two front cross steps or two back cross steps, but the front cross stands
> conceptually on its own, without reference to an "eight-shaped" figure.
>
> All the best,
> Brian Dunn
> Dance of the Heart
> Boulder, Colorado USA
> www.danceoftheheart.com
> "Building a Better World, One Tango at a Time"
>
>    
>
>
>
>
> * Regarding the 8CB and numbering of the steps: I have heard instructors use
>
> the numbers more to refer to the position of the feet than the actual steps 
> needed to get there. So if I am standing with my feet together, and my 
> follower has her left crossed in front of her right, we are in position #5, 
> regardless of what steps we just did to get to this position. Note that with
>
> this interpretation, positions 1, 4, and 6 are all substantially identical, 
> as are 2 and 7.
>
>           J
>           www.TangoMoments.com
>
>
>
> ----Original Message Follows----
> From: "Jake Spatz (TangoDC.com)" <spatz at tangoDC.com>
>
> Hi all,
>
> I'm wondering if anyone out there has found a more useful way to
> describe direction in tango, since "left-right" and "forward-backward"
> easily become confusing when two dancers are facing each other in the
> embrace.
>
> I've heard one teacher use (on occasion) the terms "open-side" and
> "closed-side," to refer to those respective sides of the embrace. Those
> terms, however, are already used to describe the distance between the
> dancers, so they're not that suitable. I've thought of using "hand-side"
> and "body-side," but that takes a moment of calculation, and I'd like
> something better.
>
> I've also tried using the old salida numbers from time to time-- 2 and
> 7, for instance, describe consecutive sidesteps-- but they have a very
> limited application, and only to parallel-system at that. (There being,
> to my knowledge, no cross-system salida.)
>
> Compass points such as North and South don't really work, because each
> partner is tempted to consider themselves facing North. Same goes for
> the clockface system (which is already used for rotation anyway). (The
> compass system may come in handy for describing the couple in relation
> to the room, but that's another matter.)
>
> Ideally, I'd like a set of terms that can explain *to both partners
> simultaneously* what direction everything's going-- relative to the
> couple, but not oriented according to either partner-- during complex or
> asymmetrical movements (e.g., overturned back ochos) as well as in
> simple ones. I've considered using Spanish terms as well as English, but
> that just creates a translation issue and complicates matters for
> bilinguals.
>
> Any suggestions appreciated, unless you're one of the schmucks who was
> in charge of naming quarks.
>
> Jake Spatz
> DC
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tango-L mailing list
> Tango-L at mit.edu
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/tango-l
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Talk now to your Hotmail contacts with Windows Live Messenger. 
> http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwme0020000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://get
> .live.com/messenger/overview
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tango-L mailing list
> Tango-L at mit.edu
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/tango-l
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tango-L mailing list
> Tango-L at mit.edu
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/tango-l
>
>
>
>   