[Tango-L] Direction: Theorem #1

[Jake Spatz (TangoDC.com)]

Hi Jay,

Please see my in-line comments below.

Jay Rabe wrote:
> Jake, regarding your comment: "I'm asking if we can find something with More worth [than open-cross step definitions.] So how will you know when it has 
> more worth?
When it has more than one definition. As has been pointed out, there is 
something _readily identifiable_ as a "cross-step," and called such; and 
meanwhile everything NOT a cross-step is lumped in the "open step" 
category, which I find insufficient. Calling a head-on step "open" has 
no practical or notational value. (E.g., there is no room-- no opening-- 
for a clean sacada.) I find this is a shortcoming of that analysis; it 
is also a logical fallacy, properly speaking; and whether there are 
three or three hundred votes against me, I'll still say that it fudges 
things, because (a) it DOES fudge things, and (b) as analysis it remains 
incomplete.

Furthermore, I've added (to the discussion here, at least; unless it was 
in a private message) that the front cross crosses the embrace AND the 
dancer's own body, while the back cross crosses the body only (which I 
imagine was among the original observations made by FaGuChi). But this 
apparent difference in configuration isn't of much practical value 
either, because if you reverse the direction of any such step without 
altering the embrace (as in simple changes of direction, aka 
arrepentidas) you clearly cross the embrace either coming or going. 
This, to me, is actually useful practical knowledge. (Especially for 
more complicated stuff in close embrace.)

And to correct an earlier inaccuracy (not mine): It is _certainly_ 
possible to do a "cross-step" stationary weight change, to the same 
extent that you can do an open one, and for the same reasons-- the 
relationship of the torso with respect to the hips, the direction of the 
lead (or "intention"), and the position and orientation of the other 
person. All these things are involved in the "regular" steps. To call a 
stationary step a non-traveling sidestep doesn't make any more sense 
than calling it a non-traveling forward or backward step. It can seem to 
represent any of the three, because there's more involved than can be 
explained by a lone definition ("cross-step or not").

Not that I'm satisfied calling it anything but a stationary weight 
shift. There are reasons not to call it anything else.
> What do you value?
Accuracy of concepts and of description, here. I'm largely an intuitive 
thinker, and analysis helps me make sense of what's going on. It helps 
me find new possibilities. It alienates me from the familiar, and 
encourages me to tackle it afresh, to learn something more about it, to 
make it more my own.
> What do you want to DO with the definitions/analysis?
>   
Whatever I can. My initial stated purpose, when I asked if anyone had a 
tip for transcending the left-right thing, was to arrive at an improved 
notational model so I could write down fancy shit that comes up in 
practice sessions. The shop-talk tangential to that pursuit has been 
stimulating in its own right, of course, and has gotten me trying out 
unfamiliar things on the floor. What do I want to DO, then? Make shit 
up, write shit down, dance shit through.
> For example, while it is curious to me and can be entertaining in a left-brain sort of way to debate various definitions of when a step is open or crossed or neither, what's the point?
It's not enough that it's both curious and entertaining? Well, there's 
always the "increase of knowledge" thing, for any who give a damn. As 
for the poor left brain-- why does it always get such a bad rap? And are 
we semi-/ambidextrous people the only ones who consider that whole 
pop-psych dichotomy to be bullshit? Can't we use the entire organ?
> I'd love for someone to give me an example of how it can be helpful in learning, teaching, or dancing (which are the things I value) to know whether a given step is "open" or "crossed."
>   
Well, to stick with sacadas, you've got very different consequences 
depending on whether the trailing leg is open, behind your partner, or 
in front of your partner (and crossing the embrace). And depending on 
which of those steps you're entering with. If you're in a modified 
embrace, it saves you a lot of trouble to have worked through these, no? 
And if two men are dancing, or two women, these concepts can illuminate. 
So long, that is, as you actually examine and _test_ things like 
"Theorem #1," instead of lying down sheep-like before everything with 
the superficial appearance of a "rule."

On the very practical level of this particular concept: If you're using 
change-of-direction to set up a gancho, knowing whether your partner is 
"in" a cross-step or not (and thus holding a high degree of torsion 
that's about to be unleashed) can save you (or not) a kick in the nuts. 
Conversely, knowing whether or not You're "in" an open step can save you 
from hurting her foot against your knee.

As regards teaching, I prefer teaching concepts (such as this one) 
instead of sequences, because a sequence is easily forgotten (and is 
choreography besides), whereas a concept is far more easily retained and 
useful for improv and that sort of mischief.
> If the whole point is to use words to describe a step or sequence of steps (ie without doing a demonstration or drawing a picture), and you might want to say something like, "leader takes a right forward open step," then the 
> real measure of worth IMO is whether that description is superior in any way to a definition based on for example Jeff Gaynor's proposal, which might describe the same step by saying, "leader takes a right step to 12:00." My 
> personal opinion: it is not. I find Jeff's system completely adequate and unambiguous.
>   
First off, notation isn't the only or even ultimate point of analysis. 
Secondly, I don't imagine a single method (verbal) could be wholly 
sufficient and have not even argued on behalf of verbal description 
(unless I'm mistaken). Thirdly, I don't find Jeff's system completely 
adequate for the couple, because one dancer has to read the clock 
upside-down, and that's not fair (my original issue). (It also comprises 
coordinates instead of analysis.) Fourthly, I do like Jeff's tabulature 
for the individual student note-taker (insofar as they're notating 
sequences)-- although I don't see any point myself for noting rhythm 
there, and would actually discourage the practice.

I have one student who writes notes on a steno pad, reserving one side 
for the follower and the other for the leader. I like that idea too.
> In addition, I really liked Jeff's analysis of possible ways of stepping, and the need to describe the differences between pivoting on one foot vs. twisting on two, and between stepping by lifting-placing vs. sliding the 
> foot.
I'm going out on a limb here, but I do believe that 90% of "two-foot 
twisting" is, or at least results in, bad form. If you don't collect as 
a leader, you probably aren't leading your partner to collect either. If 
she's really sensitive to your lead, she'll twist on two feet with you, 
because certain moves (I don't like them very much, personally, but they 
exist) require that. So unless you're trying to lead that stuff, the 
only dancers you'll be able to lead successfully (from your perspective 
as a leader) are the ones who aren't good enough to follow you.

Arguments to the contrary?

I feel I should re-reiterate here that I'm getting a lot out of this 
discussion, even if others have ceased to; that I don't care if it's not 
useful in a class; that I don't ask analysis to replace teaching or 
practice (or talent), but that I do ask it to be accurate and 
consistent. And I'm very happy that I stumbled upon the diachronic 
(hours:minutes) notation mentioned in an earlier post, because I think 
THAT is actually very useful. At least for leaders, who are often 
dancing diachronically (leading in one direction while moving in another).

And if any of this junk leads to a real live _good_ system of 
choreographic notation for tango, that'll be a definite advance on 
current knowledge. Perhaps no one on this list would have use of such a 
creature; but there are plenty of people who might.

Jake Spatz
DC

> I'd struggled with that too, and his is the first time I've seen it addressed  (Thanks, Jeff).
>
>             J
>             www.TangoMoments.com
>