[Tango-L] open and close embrace

[ceverett@ceverett.com]

Hmm, I better pop this balloon before someone mistakes it for 
something substantial.

On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 11:59:08 -0700, "Igor Polk" <ipolk at virtuar.com>
said:
> Ron, I do respect you a lot and always valued your opinions, but I have
> to disagree with you on almost all points you have made.
> 
> 1. Cultural Validity "At the milongas in Buenos Aires, essentially
> everyone is dancing tango in close embrace"

Which is a true staement if you avoid Villa Malcolm and maybe 
Sunderland and other some other milongas away from downtown.

On the other hand, check out the video of Finito on Youtube
(from the 80's I think).  Close or open?  I say close.

> I haven't been to BA, but I have seen a lot of movies and 
> documentaries and photos including old ones, and everywhere 
> open and close embrace are equally presented. Including dance 
> danced in 1910-1940 in Europe and America.

Not to nitpick, but are you avoiding bias?  Consider these 
ideas:

a. Upper-class control of the media in Argentina dictated 
   that the open embrace dance they favored was more worthy 
   of recording.

b. Your evidence is a poor sample of what's available.

Moreover, does tango 1910 to 1940 in Europe and America 
really count in terms of cultural validity?  Many would 
heartily disagree that the history of International 
Standard and American Ballroom Tango bear on the question, 
myself included.

Finally, verbal histories passed on from Famous Old Farts 
Now Dead indicate that the closeness of the embrace has 
always been a vital concern in BA.  Tomas Howlin once related
a charming explanation from one of his teachers as to why 
the cruzada enjoyed immediate popularity from the time its 
possibilities began being actively explored in the mid to 
late 30's--it seems the men enjoyed the even tighter embrace 
they could obtain with it.  Damn those cuddlers anyway!

> 2. Quality of Dance. "The close embrace is more intimate and permits
> greater sharing of emotion."
> 
> No, they are equal. Open embrace can be more intimate than close embrace.
> How? Ask me personally. Emotions are transferred by artistic abilities.

Many theories treat emotional experience as something 
built on top of our systems for physical sensation.  
For instance, we use terms like having a crush, being 
crushed, tongue-tied, breathless, flying, up or down 
to convey emotional states, all of which correlate to
actual physical sensations.

So it makes sense that the far more mammalian experience 
of close embrace might disinhibit our emotional centers 
in ways open embrace does not.

Artistic abilities are certainly more than mere technical
skills, but you need emotional content before you can 
communicate it, yes?

> 3. Dancing tango in close embrace uses simpler movements and is less
> difficult to learn.
> 
> Tango in close embrace is more difficult to learn (if you do not stick
> to absurd Naveira or Neo Tango over complicated open embrace concepts )

Good, realtime feedback is the best situation for rapid 
learning.  Close embrace far excels open in this regard.

You can slime your way through a tanda in open embrace and 
convince yourself you did great much more easily in open 
embrace.

You would have a much harder time lying to yourself about 
the quality of your close embrace dancing, because many 
times the amount of body sensation is telling you how well
or badly things are going.

So the learning curve is steeper, but you have much more
to work with, so progress should be faster.

> 4. "open embrace allows for greater outward dramatic expression"
> 
> Absolutely not: Gavito. Close embrace dancing is more dramatic and
> attracts attention of general crowd much more. (If you know how to 
> dance attractively)

Gavito with Maria Plazaola, CITA 2003 DVD, Side A, second half.  

He spends a good part of that song leading high velocity turns 
with many sacadas, lapizes, etc in open embrace.  It's not any 
less dramatic or emotional than the initial moments in close 
embrace.

What's attention getting is outstanding dancing in any embrace.
There's so very little of it.

> 5. "In open embrace separation between partners, larger movements,
> and more frequent use of conspicuous decorative elements makes
> greater demands on balance."

Nailing weight transfers over a distance of 48 inches/120cm 
requires 4 times the power and twice the precision in timing 
a 24 inch/60 cm weight transfer needs.  As movement size goes
up, physical demands quickly ramp up beyond the average human's 
physical limitations.

This is high school physics:

power = force / time
force = mass * acceleration
velocity = acceleration * time 
distance = velocity * time

Is it any wonder that ex-ballerinas and modern dancers dominate
the current crop of female stage dancers (we can discuss if 
they actually all dance high quality tango some other time)?

> Close embrace demands balance much more. Close embrace does not
> forgive mistakes easily overlooked in open embrace. 

See my response to item 3 above.  The unforgiving nature of 
close embrace is precisely what causes rapid improvement in
close embrace dancers.

> 6. Mixing close and open embrace dancers at a milonga can often
>  create conflict over space.
> 
> Absolutely not. Once can dance closely large, and open small.
> But the energy is different, yes. Some music is better to dance
> in open, some - in close. Music should dictate in what embrace
> to dance. To everyone.

Ridiculous.  You seem to say the matter is beyond choice.  Claiming 
the music dictates the embrace, much less anything else is complete 
and utter bullshit.  The music is an external circumstance, your 
reaction is what dictates your personal choices in embrace and indeed 
all other behaviors.  And your reaction is nothing more than a matter 
mental conditioning, definitely a matter of personal choice.

I can hear in my mind your defense in a personal injury case, "Your 
Honor, the facts of the case are not in dispute.  However, it's all 
the fault of the orchestra leader Osvaldo Pugliese--his music aroused 
such passion in me, that at a crucial moment in the song 'Zum', I 
had no choice but to lead my partner in a high round kick, making 
her Comme il Faut stilleto heel impacted plaintiff's breast, causing 
her implant to rupture.  Therefore I submit a motion to dismiss with 
prejudice, and invite plaintiff to join me in a class-action suit 
against Mr. Pugliese's estate."

Also, just because they can dance small in open frame (I saw Oscar 
Mandagaran do this one night at Gricel), does not mean open frame
dancers typically do.  Granted, I've never danced east of Urbana, 
Illinois or west of Denver, so I don't know for a fact that open
embrace dancers are more disciplined on the coasts, but I have a 
very hard time imagining it's markedly different.

Mind you, I'm not dissing you for your choices in embrace, but I
say you should at least take responsibility for them.

> 7. "Open embrace dancers often see close embrace dancers as blocking
> the line of dance."
> 
> Beginners block the line of dance no matter what embrace they dance 
> in. 

Agreed, while also noting this condition passes rather quickly.

There is a much larger population, "old-timers that suck" we 
should acknowledge.  A classic example is the guy that takes all 
of 2 bars to set up a gancho, and then improves the return on his 
investment of time by leading one or 2 more over the next bar, 
then wastes another entire bar disengaging.

> I agree that modern trend in close embrace shockingly promotes 
> blocking the line of dance - somebody teaches that they should not 
> progress around the floor or stop for too long. That is the flaw 
> (I hope temporary) of teaching and modern situation, not the dancing 
> position.

Another gargantuan crock of manure:

A. Open embrace dancers see close embrace dancers as blocking 
the line of dance because they seem on average inclined to take 
longer strides.

B. Just who is this somebody teaching close embrace dancers to 
block the line of dance and not progress around the floor?

C. Perhaps you confuse the notion of not being in a hurry to 
get around the floor with deliberately obstructing the line of 
dance.  Not being in a hurry would include all the mannerly 
things we should be doing, like: not passing, going all the way 
into corners, not breathing down the neck of the guy in front 
of you and so on.

D. What actually gets people around the dance floor in a hurry, 
actually has nothing to do with the embrace or stride length.  
It's the extent to which the interpretation of the music is 
shared such that couples all move forward down the line of 
dance at the same time.  Otherwise, we are forced to wait for 
the space to open up for us, which opens the space for the guy 
behind and so on until the space comes around again.  The US 
being the land of rugged individualism, I see no alternative 
to patience at hand.

E. Finally a counterexample: I once saw an open embrace dancer 
billing herself as "one of the best female leads in the country" 
block the line of dance so badly that half the room was empty 
in front of  her ... one more reason teaching at milongas deserves
the nuclear option.  Her turns sure were pretty though.

> ==========================
> Open and close embrace are equal in emotional connection and
> possibilities for musical interpretation as well as stage 
> impressions and technical complexity if one wishes so or 
> simplicity if situation demands.

The one statement I agree with entirely in the entire post.

> True that they are different, but otherwise they are equal.

Apples and oranges are different, but otherwise they are equal.

Best regards,

Christopher