[Tango-L] Direction: Theorem #1

[Jake Spatz (TangoDC.com)]

Hi Huck,

I don't think my position here is quite understood. I already use the 
open-cross step definitions for what they're worth. I'm asking if we can 
find something with More worth. My objections to the "open step" 
definition of 8CB #1 deal with the "default to open" problem... Just 
because a step isn't crossed, I'm arguing, doesn't mean it must 
therefore be open.

Also, I know the "face each other" test thing is just a test. My point 
is that it tests (and tells us about) a modified position, not the 
actual step taken by the dancers.

As for Theorem #1... Any sacada (front or back) of the follower's 
sidestep, starting from parallel system (in a normal embrace), has the 
follower taking an open step and the leader in a crossed step. If the 
move commences from cross-system, both partners are taking open steps 
during the leader's front sacada.

You got a Theorem #2?

Jake Spatz
DC

p.s. Thanks for picking this discussion up again!


Huck Kennedy wrote:
> Martin Nussbaum writes:
>   
>> Jake, what you are calling a "neither" step, ie a straight back step for
>> leader in "normal" (parallel)leader steps back with right, follower steps
>> forward with left, or leader steps back with left and follower matches with
>> forward step with right and vice versa, is an open step, for both, under
>> Gustavo/Chicho/Fabian system, (GCF ? )
>>     
>
>      That's three votes, counting Brian!
>
> Jake Spatz writes:
>
>   
>> 2. The "salida"
>> Yes, you're using the Spanish term more correctly. I'm using it to mean 
>> 8-count basic,
>>     
>
>      Okay, that's what I thought.
>
>   
>> which I take to be entirely in parallel system,
>>     
>
>      Well the so-called "right basic" is, but the
> so-called "left basic" switches back and forth
> between the parallel and crossed.
>
>   
>> and will henceforth switch to the abbreviation 8CB or "basic 8"
>> when referring to that particular thing.
>>     
>
>      Many thanks!
>
>   
>> 3. "Open steps"
>> Well, if I have to stop, pivot, and alter the position, then what the 
>> hell kind of system is that? And what does it call those moves? And is 
>> this where that moronic two-foot colgada came from?
>>     
>
>      No, maybe I didn't make myself clear enough--the
> stopping and pivoting isn't for real-life dancing--it's
> just a test you can interrupt yourself with to do during
> analysis in a practica to help you determine if you just
> took an open step or a closed step.
>
>   
>> An "open" step should be one that brings one or both dancers into a 
>> position that is clearly described by the word "open." If my partner is 
>> directly in front of me, and walks directly at me while I walk directly 
>> backward, and we're in parallel system, then we're already facing each 
>> other. (8CB #1, to put it simply.)
>>     
>
>      As a brief aside, thanks for calling it the 8CB,
> and now thanks for finally clearing up in my mind
> your numbering system.  While most Argentines I've met
> who actually teach the 8CB do number the steps that way,
> many teachers don't.
>
>   
>> If I pause the step mid-weight-shift, 
>> then we have to do a colgada in order to "face each other," as that 
>> analysis would have it. Sure, _then_ it looks like an "open step" all 
>> right, but it's not the step we took, and we had to do all these extra 
>> moves to get there.
>>     
>
>      You've lost me.  Let me just say that for your
> Step #1 of the 8CB, it's just an open step under the
> GFC system.  As Brian mentioned, any step that isn't
> a crossed step defaults to being an open step, which
> means that when you and your partner are directly
> facing each other, your thighs are not crossed (note
> that hers might be, in which case she just took
> a closed step as opposed to your open).  And as for
> the little test I mentioned, for Step #1 of the 8CB,
> you're already facing each other, so there's no need
> to pivot to face each other.  Your thighs aren't crossed,
> so you just took an open step.
>
>   
>> This kind of analysis distorts all data until the data
>> matches its cute little reductive cubby-holes.
>>     
>
>      Well this kind of analysis is exactly what
> Gustavo, Fabian, and Chicho use to explain what
> they mean by an "open step" and a "crossed step."
> I didn't make up that little test, they did (or
> one of them did).
>
>   
>> And if an analysis can't tell the difference between #1 and #2 in the 
>> 8CB, I'm sorry, but it's a fairly worthless analysis.
>>
>> No?
>>     
>
>      I guess you must hate topology then, which
> can't tell the difference between a coffee cup
> and a doughnut.   :)   I do agree with you that
> you need to know a lot more than open/closed to
> notate precise choreography.
>
>      Actually, the whole GFC open/crossed thing
> is very much like a topological concept, when you
> think about it.  When you do the little test where
> you and your partner stop for a moment and pivot on
> both feet to directly face each other to see if
> your thighs are open or crossed, that is very much
> like topological deformation.
>
>      Now for some fun:  Let's try on some theorems
> for size!
>
>      Theorem #1:  If you're in the parallel system
> and both you and your partner take a step, either
> you'll both be taking an open step, or you both
> will be taking a closed step.  Likewise, if you're
> in the crossed system and you both take a step,
> one of you will be taking an open step while the
> other will be taking a closed step.
>
> Huck
> _______________________________________________
> Tango-L mailing list
> Tango-L at mit.edu
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/tango-l
>
>
>
>