[Tango-L] Brian and Jake Directional Notation Analysis

[Chris, UK]

Manuel wrote:

>> they are wasted or even an impediment to the beginner or even
>> intermediate dancers.

Agreed.

Brian disagreed:

> Well, that's not our experience.  Total beginners get parallel/crossed,
> open/closed side of the embrace, and the "three-step" framework in the 
> first or second lesson

That is sad to hear. Because it overlooks tango's true basic step (change 
of weight) and obfuscates the foundation of all steps.

For example, here's one misunderstandings it promotes:

> Doesn't seem like a big deal really, conceptually you're switching 
> weight from one foot to the other, so it affects parallel/crossed state,
> but otherwise it seems pretty trivial - you're not going anywhere,

Conceptually "not going anywhere" is not pretty trivial. It is fundamental 
to the dance. Too often class teachers generate beginners that can go 
forward, back and side, but not change weight.

Thankfully this is less of a problem hereabouts (Europe) than it might be. 
Virtually no-one (including visitors from abroad) teaches this three-step 
framework.

Chris








-------- Original Message --------

*Subject:* Re: [Tango-L] Direction: Step descriptors...
*From:* "Brian Dunn" <brian at danceoftheheart.com>
*To:* <tango-L at mit.edu>
*Date:* Wed, 22 Nov 2006 23:39:05 -0700

Hi Jake,

Thanks for starting a very interesting discussion.

You wrote:
>>>
I've found monosyllables wholly undesirable in the case you describe, 
not only because tango music has an arrastre "swing" (furrrrr-RONT)..."
<<<
Well, the problem with (furrrrr-RONT) is that, working as we are on the code
of the turn, the front-cross in the turn is a quickstep without any leading
pivot except at the end of the step. What you're describing sounds more like
a walking step instead of a turn, in which case the dynamic you describe
would be very useful.

>>>>
But because there should be a syllable to mark the follower's pivots as well

as her steps. 
<<<
Here we REALLY agree - see next point.

>>>
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."
<<<
OK, so again, in our classes we are not talking about step direction when we
say "front cross", "open", or "back cross" - shortened to
"front-side-back-side-front-side-etc." just for that code-of-the-turn
"burn-in" exercise.  We are talking about geometrical body configurations
that can be used to travel in one of an almost infinite number of possible
directions, depending on the navigational requirements of the moment (which
after all IS the context we are working in - social dance with other
couples, and moving safely and musically to the next safe spot).

Nor are we training rhythm - that's a later exercise. This is a very very
simple exercise to train those three movement configurations and the
sequence of their use in the follower's molinete/giro/turn around the
leader.

I'm assuming we share a common frame of reference here: in the code of the
follower's turn around a more or less stationary leader, there is a 180
degree pivot of the follower's hips on the frontcross-open transition, and
another 180 degree pivot on the open-backcross transition, right?  It can
take about the same length of time to do one of these 180 hip-swiveling
pivots as it does to take the step that preceded them.  But again, in the
code of the turn, the back cross-open and the open-front cross transitions
HAVE no pivot, which is why they tend to be quicksteps in typical tango
social dancing.

So at about the second lesson, we point out that the common
"slow-slow-quick-quick" description of the timing of steps in the follower's
turn is actually misleading, because the steps are in fact NOT "slow" unless
the pivot is being abandoned - pivots take time!  Instead of
"slow-slow-quick-quick", a more accurate representation might be
"quick-pivot-quick-pivot-quick-quick" - but that opens up another topic...

 
>>>
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.
<<<
Not true in our experience - she goes where she's led, with the foot she's
not standing on.  An open step can go anywhere in an almost 180 degree arc,
and still stay "open".  Sure there are differences, but in this system they
are not relevant - perhaps analogous to the difference between the follower
wearing flats or heels - that can certainly affect "form" as well.

>>>
(Sidesteps ought to be very clearly lateral, for instance, and not just some
non-crossed step or other.)
<<<
But *you're* talking about "sidesteps", not me - I'm advising against it.  I
think you're illustrating why we avoid using the term.

>>>
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.
<<<<
Uuhhh...so "direction" matters a lot in open steps (see above), and
*doesn't* matter much in crossed steps?  You lost me...

>>>
The stationary step is more radically different from "open" and "cross" 
steps though.
<<<
Doesn't seem like a big deal really, conceptually you're switching weight
from one foot to the other, so it affects parallel/crossed state, but
otherwise it seems pretty trivial - you're not going anywhere, so if she is,
she's essentially turning around you, and we kick in the code of the
follower's turn.  As I said, if you must call it a step, by this framework
it's most likely a tiny open step. Pretty straightforward.



>>>
...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.
<<<
So you're talking about the boundary condition, I get it...but how
interesting is that really?  How likely is it that you nailed EXACTLY the
"straight at her" condition anyway? How useful is it to focus on that? Not a
fraction of a degree to either side, remember, or we're back in the 99.999%
of simpler cases. 

>>>
In Luciana's (Fabian's) 3-step system, what's the word for this Neither 
step? 
<<<
"Open"

>>>
What's the word for the weight-change?
<<<
"Weight-change", but it might get interesting if you do some monstrous pivot
on top of it...

>>>
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...
<<<
You are proposing reversing the embrace, OK - so her back is now her front,
and just reverse everything accordingly - all the step logic will still work
- then when you switch back, all returns to normal. A pretty simple
transformation, really. (This "Cambio del frente" was a whole little subset
of tango, mostly for performance, in mid-century or later - Anton Gazenbeek
has done a lot of interesting historical research on this.)


>>>
Thus the 3-step system not only fudges matters by ignoring (a) the 
stationary weight-change,
<<<
So there are two possibilities:
1) The weight change is not a step...Hmmm, let's see, so you're unhappy
because the 3-step system ignores things that aren't steps?  Because, you
know it doesn't brush your teeth either...;>

Or 2) the weight change IS a step, a very small step, a very small open or
crossing step...then of course it's not ignored at all.  So I don't get your
complaint here.


>>>
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.
<<<
Well, you know, the originators spoke Spanish. "Cruce Adelante/Cruce Atras"
(Front Cross/Back Cross) isn't the same as "Cruzada" (the cross).  Maybe we
should switch to the Spanish terms.  

I'd also dispute the structural usefulness of "close embrace" vs. "open
embrace" anyway, and I don't hear serious students of structure using the
terms much - in my experience it's much more of a "style preference
indicator" than a structural distinction.  Until one starts talking about
on-axis vs. off-axis, shared weight, and/or gravity-driven connection, the
distinction is in my experience too vague to be structurally useful, even
though many people think they know what someone else means when they say it.

Thanks for an interesting and provocative discussion.  I remain persuaded of
the system's usefulness, especially after spending a month in Buenos Aires
watching the likes of Chicho come up with wacky stuff from scratch right in
front of my eyes at El Motivo that I could scarcely believe - he started
with a concept so raw and freshly minted that he and Lucia ended up on the
floor a couple times while they worked out the kinks - then within an hour,
they are pulling it off on a crowded floor with astonishing grace,
musicality and spontaneity to high-speed D'Arienzo.

Chicho, his fellow explorers Gustavo, Fabian, Luciana, and the framework
they helped foster set the bar pretty high - any replacement structural
system has its work cut out for it.  Theory games are fun, but results count
too.
 
Brian Dunn
Dance of the Heart
Boulder, Colorado USA
www.danceoftheheart.com
"Building a Better World, One Tango at a Time"


_______________________________________________
Tango-L mailing list
Tango-L at mit.edu
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/tango-l