[Tango-L] musicality & technique

[Jake Spatz (TangoDC.com)]

Trini,

I write this without having read the subsequent posts, perhaps to my 
peril. See below.

Trini y Sean (PATangoS) wrote:
> Hi Jake,
>    
>   Trini, here.  I think we need to clarify how we do ochos.  It sounds as if you do ochos by disassociating at the waist and using the impetus from the hip to make the pivot.
I don't do that when I follow, and I seldom lead that way unless I want 
my partner to NOT pivot her hips and to cross her thighs just below the 
pelvis, which is perhaps a 1% variation, which I teach anyway (just in 
case my students run into it, or into poor leading).

I otherwise don't lead a pivot with "impetus." If I lead a pivot in one 
direction, there's no telling what comes next. I could very well lead a 
pivot in the opposite direction. Or pause. Or whatever.

That is what I mean when I argue that a pivot is distinct from a step, 
and from all the parts of a step. As from a pause, jump, or pose-- and 
that rather exhausts the possibilities of movement in this dance.
> In this scenario, your analysis of the pivot being separate from a "step" would be correct.
Rather, in the 1% scenario aforementioned, there is no pivot, and there 
is (perforce) no differentiation from the step. Picture a drastic step 
diagonally, in an "ocho" direction, very sharp, no time to pivot. It 
fits the music from time to time, which is why I include it when 
discussing pivoting technique. But I always introduce this as a rare 
option, because it's quite uncomfortable to follow unless the lead 
demands it (and because if you do it all the time, regardless of the 
lead, it is, in a word, SLOP dancing). (I call it such because, while 
temporarily convenient, it limits one as a dancer. A full half of the 
shit I can lead, easily, in close embrace, is unavailable-- considering 
HER comfort-- if my partner uses that BAD technique as a default. That 
is why it is bad.)
> (Do you, per chance, dance mostly open, which often uses this type of ocho?)
>   
No.

I love dancing open and finding new shit, but only with people who can 
handle that, and mostly (nowadays) not on the social floor. Nor do I 
think there's much distinction b/w the varieties of ocho one does in an 
open vs. a close (even apilado) embrace; all the types remain available 
to those who can tell the difference.

I wrote a prior post on 3 kinds of ochos, some months ago, related to 
this same point.
> We prefer to treat ochos differently, using torsion from high up in the back to direct the leg.
I teach my students to pivot their waist, not their hips. Or, to 
elaborate: since I teach close embrace first, I teach them to pivot from 
the connection (follower's sternum) down, which amounts to what you 
describe.

I think...

Whether the pivot, thereafter, SEEMS to occur in the hips or in the 
spine depends on whether the leader permits any rotation in the 
follower's torso. But willy-nilly, the pivot must occur in the spine, 
there being ZERO joints anywhere else that would effect such a lateral 
turn way down there in the shoe.

Except at the hip socket, which I've discussed above, and which, 
overdone, is hazardous to one's health.

Your familiarity with Alexander Technique there in Pittsburgh should've 
clarified all this a long time ago.
> In effect, the leg becomes a direct extension of the spine.  It's direction is determined by the torsion through the upper body, rather than a separate pivoting of the hips, unless additional pivoting is needed (e.g., overturned ochos).
"In effect," my partner's leg is an extension of my grounded foot (and 
the ostinato upbeat, if present), for that matter. I think you're 
fudging anatomy here: there is no possible pivot of the hips without a 
pivot of the spine, unless you do pivots the Whole Body way (i.e., no 
dissociation, i.e., Fabian Salas style, at least 2 years ago).

Overturned pivots don't present any difference in this regard. They're a 
matter of degree, not kind. 180 degrees is an arbitrary spot, as is 90, 
as is 45. Such numbers are good for training and for cultivating 
technical exactitude, but they are meant to be surpassed.
> As each vertebrae spirals, it creates potential energy stored in the spine which is released after one changes weight.
It need not. Joint flexion is not necessarily stored energy, nor does a 
weight change necessarily signal anything but a change of weight.
> The result is a natural unraveling of the spine back to its normal position, which turns the hips back to the partner.
Perhaps. But this all depends on body tone as well. It is perfectly 
possible to let the energy escape or "die" (or even hold) while the 
spine is thus spiraled. Good (honest) boleos even _depend_ on the energy 
escaping completely at the "peak" of the pivot. (Except in the case of a 
freeze at the peak, in which case it might well be "stored" for a moment.)

I hope you understand where I'm coming from, based on the above remarks. 
Technique, to me, ought to be something that _liberates_ us into 
possibilities, not something that loads the dice.
> So, with regard to ochos, the pivot does become a part of the step, although I am using the term loosely here to include torsion.
What you are talking about is what I have called a "legato" aesthetic-- 
motions blurred into one another. I dance that way frequently. But for 
all that it remains a choice. And the choice is to BLEND. But you must 
know what is being blended, or else you're dancing your way into a box.

Furthermore, to have one "way" of doing anything is tantamount to 
choreography, in the restrictive sense of that word.
> After all, before I can ocho I need to know where my partner wants me to end up, right?
>   
No.

Neither on the first "step" of an ocho nor on the second. The pivot is 
its own element-- and this I argue AGAINST the common perspective of 
"leaders." (Cf. my quick-quick vs. slow-slow attitude in a recent post.) 
You might do well, additionally, as a follower, to treat your dance as 
something with more integrity and pride.
> For women who dance close-embrace, this torsion gives a more sensual experience to your partner.
"Sensual" is not always the lead (of the leader, of the music), in close 
embrace or otherwise. In fact, I find this "torsion," as a default, 
quite fucking annoying. I prefer partners with more imagination and 
sensitivity.
> And it will tell the man exactly where you will end up, so he can adjust his lead as necessary.
Above you argued that this way of pivoting follows the lead more 
accurately ("I need to know where he wants me to end up.") But now he 
needs to adjust because you can't tell, while he allegedly can. So, is 
it that clarity has been sacrificed to the "sensual," or that clarity 
isn't worth the trouble?

I hasten to add that clarity, in adventurous open-embrace dancing, can 
be the difference between a follower's sacada and a Comme il Faut in the 
nuts.

Not exactly a splitting of hairs, in my opinion.
> It also keeps the woman from overturning her ocho (a common occurrence in beginning women taught to disassociate).
>   
I can't say I've ever seen this. Nor do I think it would be hard to 
correct, compared to women who do "shortcut" pivots (i.e., non-pivots) 
routinely, to their own hip sockets' chagrin, and to their leaders' dismay.

I'm sorry, Trini, but I have to conclude from your write-up that you're 
shortchanging yourself with this "our way" of doing ochos (pivots). And 
I do believe the wrinkle is not distinguishing pivots from walking 
steps-- an issue ubiquitous, I've noticed, among dancers in the "let's 
go organic" US, although less frequently so among those who have learned 
in Europe or the "other" America. I'm ignorant of Canada, the Far East, 
Africa, and Australia.

That said, the information in your post in certainly valuable (to some, 
I'm sure), and I hope no one condemns it unthinkingly in light of my 
very particular criticism. My perspective is all I can offer; and I do 
hope it's worth something to someone.

Spatz
DC