4242 On Axis, Off Axis
Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 18:15:30 -0700
From: "Evan Wallace" <evan@tangoing.com>
Subject: [Tango-L] On Axis, Off Axis
To: <tango-l@mit.edu>
Cc: dnovitz@lavidacondeby.com
<200605060115.k461FVLK006766@pacific-carrier-annex.mit.edu>
Hi Deby,
Glad to hear you are feeling better! Robert must be feeling better too if he
is back to teaching.
In a recent posting, you said that both dancers should maintain their axis
100% of the time. Depending on what you mean by this, I am not sure I agree.
By "maintain axis," do you mean that a) each dancer should maintain a
consistent shape of the body (i.e., not getting all bendy and wiggly), or b)
that each dancer should maintain their *individual* balance 100% of the
time, or both?
I of course agree with the first proposition, but not the second. There are
many cases when both dancers are off of their individual balances, but the
couple as a whole is balanced. Consider a colgata, for example. In a
colgata, both dancers can be way off their individual balance, as evidenced
by the fact that if the dancers were to suddenly let go off each other, both
would falter and fall away from each other.
To put it in physics terminology, any time the imaginary vertical line
through the center of mass of a freestanding object falls outside of the
area described by its "footprint", the body is out of balance and will fall
over. This happens all the time in the close embrace, to some degree or
another. An obvious and extreme example would be something like Gavito's
signature apilado lean, where both lead and follow are not even close to
being on their individual balance, but the couple is balanced-indeed, rock
solid.
In fact, any time the close embrace is danced with even slight compression,
the center of mass of one or both dancers (depending on their relative
weight, and, I suppose, the size of their feet) is likely to be forward of
their footprint, and hence out of balance. You can test this as follows with
somebody who is willing to experiment with you. Dance around for a bit and
then suddenly freeze at some arbitrary point. Then have one of you, say the
lead, drop the embrace and step away suddenly. If the follow falters and
pitches forward so that she has to take a step to regain her balance, then
she was not on her individual balance at that point.
(Indeed, no biped can ever move unless it is off balance a good fraction of
the time. By definition, the act of walking is the act of continually
causing your center of mass to be forward of your supporting foot so that
you start to fall. The step you take is how you regain your balance. This
process repeats itself with each subsequent step. The same principal applies
to dancing.)
Every instructor I have ever talked to about this says exactly what you
said: that dancers should 100% of the time be "on their axis" or "on their
own balance." I asked Tete specifically about this when I was there, and he
said just what you said. He also said he dances with no compression between
the bodies, which would imply that both dancers could indeed always on their
individual balance. But I just simply can't believe that this must be true
as a general rule (I'm not even sure if it is actually true all the time for
Tete, but I've never danced with him, so I don't know). I, for example,
really like to dance close with a fairly strong forward compression, which
means that, in some cases, neither my partner nor I are *ever* on our own
individual balance in the course of a song. I'm not saying this is the right
way dance or the only way to dance, but rather that it is possible, and can
be extraordinarily comfortable and even relaxing. There are, in fact, many
things that can be done *only* when the individual dancers are out of
balance, the colgata and apilado lean being just two obvious examples.
So, if you meant only a) and not b) above, then I will quote Gilda Radner's
character, Rosanna Rosannadana, on the old Saturday Night Live skit, and say
simply, "Oh.never mind." If you meant a) and b), then I'd like to start a
lively discussion on the topic of balance and the use (or over use) of
compression, especially in the close embrace.
Again, glad you are feeling better.
Evan Wallace
Seattle, Wa
Tangoing.com
Date: Sat, 06 May 2006 17:16:50 +0000
From: "Jay Rabe" <jayrabe@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Tango-L] On Axis, Off Axis
To: tango-l@mit.edu
Cc: jay@tangomoments.com
Some points of observation/analysis on Evan's thread of maintaining axis in
close-embrace...
As always, the simple expression "on-axis" can be interpreted in a lot of
different ways.
If I stand flat-footed, with my center of mass directly over the center of
my foot. I am clearly on-axis, in the most literal sense. If I lean forward,
putting my center of mass above the ball of my foot. I am still on my axis,
in the sense of fully supporting my own weight, but now my chest has moved
about 4" forward (a maximum of 1/2 the length of my foot, per Even's
analysis of center of mass not extending beyond the edge of the
"foot-print"). Mechanically, moving my chest forward is equivalent to moving
my feet back. If my follower does the same, the consequence is that now
there is more space between our feet, and we can dance without knocking
knees. Note that, in this position (call this "position-1"), it is not
necessary that either dancer be exerting any forward pressure on their
partner.
Teaching this concept (weight on balls of feet) can be challenging. One
device used by a lot of instructors is to have the dancers apply forward
pressure to their partner. Alex uses the expression "2 pounds of force." In
order to apply forward pressure, a person must push with their feet, which
has the consequence of putting their center of mass/force over the balls of
their feet. One note: It is highly important that the force vector be in a
direction parallel to the ground, that is, directly forward into their
partner, with no downward component. In this position (call this
"position-2"), let's say that the individual dancers are still "on their
axis" in the strictest sense of being able to maintain their position
without falling if their partner steps back.
Now consider the extreme ("position-3"), in which the dancers put so much
forward pressure on their partner that, if one were to step back, the other
would fall (I've heard the term "apilado" used to describe this type of
embrace). But even with this much force, per Even's analysis, the PAIR is
still "on axis" (but now it's a shared axis), because they can, as a couple
in an embrace, stand motionless without falling, because the leader fully
receives and returns (balances) the force back to the follower.
Note there is a continuum of possibilities between positions 2 & 3 in the
amount of force given & received. IMO it isn't so important how much
pressure is given. The important things are: no downward force; weight on
balls of feet (= space between the feet); and energy directed into their
partner for a good "tango connection."
One interesting thing about position 3 is that the extra force sent by one
and fully balanced by the other seems to create a coiled-spring-like effect,
storing energy, so that when I do a lead, it is possible to release that
energy into very fast/large/dramatic moves.
Finally, all of these principles apply to open embrace as well as close
embrace. In close embrace, the forward force is applied with the chest,
while in open embrace it is applied with the points of contact in the
hands/arms.
J
www.TangoMoments.com
Date: Sat, 6 May 2006 10:54:41 -0700
From: "Igor Polk" <ipolk@virtuar.com>
Subject: Re: [Tango-L] On Axis, Off Axis
To: <tango-l@mit.edu>
Continuing Jay's:
Another important thing about axis.
( am sure you know that, but just for the sake of completeness, someone has
to put it down here.. )
Essentially everyone who is standing and not falling is on their axis if you
take "verticality" as the main property of an axis.
But "Axis" means an imagery line to rotate around. Say a woman is standing
on a ball of her foot. If a man rotates her around it, two things happen:
she might rotate nicely as a one piece, it is very easy to rotate her, and
with high speed, and it is very pleasant. Or she is not slipping on the ball
of her foot: she is so soft that all energy is dissipated in her body, and
the movement becomes a mess. It might be impossible to lead her in any
rotational movement.
She does not have an axis, even though she stands vertically. She has to
have some tension in her body to keep her vertical and not twisting like her
upper part and low part does not have physical connection. It is easy to fix
for an experiment: ask her to put free foot behind the standing foot
crossing, and press them together. Some powder help. And she will obtain the
axis! Her imagery line become a real one! And her eyes become big!
Igor Polk
Date: Sat, 6 May 2006 14:39:58 -0500
From: "Michael Figart II" <michaelfigart@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [Tango-L] On Axis, Off Axis
To: "Tango-L" <tango-l@mit.edu>
If I may add my views? Please comment!
Just the term "on axis" can be misleading. What does it really mean? The
earth is on it's axis, but it's tilted. On axis in relation to what? I
think; Each dancer should "maintain" a single, straight, reliable axis
whether or not that axis is "in balance" or not (I guess which we can
define as vertical to earth's center?). Axis and balance are totally
different things. A pig on a spit over a fire is "on axis", but it sure
isn't on it's own balance. Then there is always a third axis, the one
about which the dancers move. Even in a "single-axis" turn, such as a
colgada, there are the axes of the dancers, revolving about a central
axis, but the three axes are just really close together.
Balance is a completely separate issue. Bottom line, to me, in all
styles of tango, balance can be individual, or it can be shared. What's
cool is when two bodies start reacting instinctually to the needs of
each to maintain the balance of each. At it's best, it is such a dynamic
thing that balance may change from shared, to individual, and back to
shared again, etc, in milliseconds.
Just my take....
Michael
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Saturday, May 06, 2006 12:17 PM
To: tango-l@mit.edu
Cc: jay@tangomoments.com
Subject: Re: [Tango-L] On Axis, Off Axis
Some points of observation/analysis on Evan's thread of maintaining axis
in
close-embrace...
As always, the simple expression "on-axis" can be interpreted in a lot
of
different ways.
If I stand flat-footed, with my center of mass directly over the center
of
my foot. I am clearly on-axis, in the most literal sense. If I lean
forward,
putting my center of mass above the ball of my foot. I am still on my
axis,
in the sense of fully supporting my own weight, but now my chest has
moved
about 4" forward (a maximum of 1/2 the length of my foot, per Even's
analysis of center of mass not extending beyond the edge of the
"foot-print"). Mechanically, moving my chest forward is equivalent to
moving
my feet back. If my follower does the same, the consequence is that now
there is more space between our feet, and we can dance without knocking
knees. Note that, in this position (call this "position-1"), it is not
necessary that either dancer be exerting any forward pressure on their
partner.
Teaching this concept (weight on balls of feet) can be challenging. One
device used by a lot of instructors is to have the dancers apply forward
pressure to their partner. Alex uses the expression "2 pounds of force."
In
order to apply forward pressure, a person must push with their feet,
which
has the consequence of putting their center of mass/force over the balls
of
their feet. One note: It is highly important that the force vector be in
a
direction parallel to the ground, that is, directly forward into their
partner, with no downward component. In this position (call this
"position-2"), let's say that the individual dancers are still "on their
axis" in the strictest sense of being able to maintain their position
without falling if their partner steps back.
Now consider the extreme ("position-3"), in which the dancers put so
much
forward pressure on their partner that, if one were to step back, the
other
would fall (I've heard the term "apilado" used to describe this type of
embrace). But even with this much force, per Even's analysis, the PAIR
is
still "on axis" (but now it's a shared axis), because they can, as a
couple
in an embrace, stand motionless without falling, because the leader
fully
receives and returns (balances) the force back to the follower.
Note there is a continuum of possibilities between positions 2 & 3 in
the
amount of force given & received. IMO it isn't so important how much
pressure is given. The important things are: no downward force; weight
on
balls of feet (= space between the feet); and energy directed into their
partner for a good "tango connection."
One interesting thing about position 3 is that the extra force sent by
one
and fully balanced by the other seems to create a coiled-spring-like
effect,
storing energy, so that when I do a lead, it is possible to release that
energy into very fast/large/dramatic moves.
Finally, all of these principles apply to open embrace as well as close
embrace. In close embrace, the forward force is applied with the chest,
while in open embrace it is applied with the points of contact in the
hands/arms.
J
www.TangoMoments.com
Date: Sat, 6 May 2006 16:18:23 EDT
From: Mallpasso@aol.com
Subject: Re: [Tango-L] On Axis, Off Axis
To: jayrabe@hotmail.com, tango-l@mit.edu
Cc: jay@tangomoments.com
Dear All:
According to the Oxford dictionary (gotta go back to the real source of
English, right?), axis is defined as:
"an imaginary line about which an body rotates"; or "line that divides a
regular figure symmetrically"; the former describes a body in motion the latter
describes a body physically with respect to it's shape but says nothing
about movement or motion. None of the above describes a body in static, i.e.,
standing still as when a dancer pauses. So it appears the usage of the word is
can be applied when a dancer is in rotational motion only. A better word
would be "balance" for when a dancer is not in motion or just standing still.
I'm guessing the first dance who used the word "axis" in application to
dancing wasn't a physicist... ;-)
My 2 cents.
El Bandido de Tango
In a message dated 5/6/2006 10:17:19 Pacific Daylight Time,
jayrabe@hotmail.com writes:
Some points of observation/analysis on Evan's thread of maintaining axis in
close-embrace...
As always, the simple expression "on-axis" can be interpreted in a lot of
different ways.
If I stand flat-footed, with my center of mass directly over the center of
my foot. I am clearly on-axis, in the most literal sense. If I lean forward,
putting my center of mass above the ball of my foot. I am still on my axis,
in the sense of fully supporting my own weight, but now my chest has moved
about 4" forward (a maximum of 1/2 the length of my foot, per Even's
analysis of center of mass not extending beyond the edge of the
"foot-print"). Mechanically, moving my chest forward is equivalent to moving
my feet back. If my follower does the same, the consequence is that now
there is more space between our feet, and we can dance without knocking
knees. Note that, in this position (call this "position-1"), it is not
necessary that either dancer be exerting any forward pressure on their
partner.
Teaching this concept (weight on balls of feet) can be challenging. One
device used by a lot of instructors is to have the dancers apply forward
pressure to their partner. Alex uses the expression "2 pounds of force." In
order to apply forward pressure, a person must push with their feet, which
has the consequence of putting their center of mass/force over the balls of
their feet. One note: It is highly important that the force vector be in a
direction parallel to the ground, that is, directly forward into their
partner, with no downward component. In this position (call this
"position-2"), let's say that the individual dancers are still "on their
axis" in the strictest sense of being able to maintain their position
without falling if their partner steps back.
Now consider the extreme ("position-3"), in which the dancers put so much
forward pressure on their partner that, if one were to step back, the other
would fall (I've heard the term "apilado" used to describe this type of
embrace). But even with this much force, per Even's analysis, the PAIR is
still "on axis" (but now it's a shared axis), because they can, as a couple
in an embrace, stand motionless without falling, because the leader fully
receives and returns (balances) the force back to the follower.
Note there is a continuum of possibilities between positions 2 & 3 in the
amount of force given & received. IMO it isn't so important how much
pressure is given. The important things are: no downward force; weight on
balls of feet (= space between the feet); and energy directed into their
partner for a good "tango connection."
One interesting thing about position 3 is that the extra force sent by one
and fully balanced by the other seems to create a coiled-spring-like effect,
storing energy, so that when I do a lead, it is possible to release that
energy into very fast/large/dramatic moves.
Finally, all of these principles apply to open embrace as well as close
embrace. In close embrace, the forward force is applied with the chest,
while in open embrace it is applied with the points of contact in the
hands/arms.
J
www.TangoMoments.com
Tango-L mailing list
Date: Sat, 6 May 2006 14:40:34 -0600
From: Tom Stermitz <stermitz@tango.org>
Subject: Re: [Tango-L] On Axis, Off Axis
To: tango-l@mit.edu
I like what Igor pointed out about how easily and smoothly the woman
pivots when her axis if vertical. Also, that if she loses core
support, the axis caves in and dissipates the energy.
I personally prefer the more vertical posture, as it makes her
movements very efficient and my life very easy. I can stop thinking
about holding her up, and just channel the music.
Core support or inner-tone makes her much lighter, even if she is
leaning. Slumping onto me or bending at the waist makes her feel very
heavy and sluggish.
On May 6, 2006, at 11:16 AM, Jay Rabe wrote:
> ...If I stand flat-footed, with my center of mass directly over the
> center of
> my foot. I am clearly on-axis, in the most literal sense. If I lean
> forward,
> putting my center of mass above the ball of my foot. I am still on
> my axis,
> in the sense of fully supporting my own weight, but now my chest
> has moved
> about 4" forward (a maximum of 1/2 the length of my foot, per Even's
> analysis of center of mass not extending beyond the edge of the
> "foot-print"). Mechanically, moving my chest forward is equivalent
> to moving
> my feet back. If my follower does the same, the consequence is that
> now
> there is more space between our feet, and we can dance without
> knocking
> knees...
Not really,
POINTING YOUR HEEL DOWN.
Bumping knees means that the knee is bent. Commonly, this happens
when the woman's heel comes up. Pointing the (moving leg's) heel
downward, and stretching the achilles causes the leg to straighten,
immediately solving the knee-bumping problem.
You could just say straighten your leg, but that often causes stiff
legs and hips.
You could say move your feet back or get your legs out of the way,
but I really prefer her legs moving with slower and closer connection
to my chest. There is something very nestled and tango-esque about
thighs almost touching.
You could argue that when the woman wears high heeled shoes her heels
are up by definition, but I would still suggest that she should point
her heels downward.
It isn't just about the moving leg. The sensation of "heels downward"
has a big consequence for the supporting hip and the balance.
Settling into the hip and the earth creates a very different feeling
than being up on the toes and up on the hips.
(Also, pointing the heel downward lengthens the psoas, causing a
softer, less-rigid line in the lower body. This makes spiraling much
smoother. So many beneficial results from one single idea!)
(Leading with the toes to create a long line is a different issue,
about style and appearance, not internal/intrinsic movement. This
extrinsic issue becomes more important on stage, but in social tango,
men are taking moderate-length strides and all that detail of long,
reaching steps causes problems.)
> Teaching this concept (weight on balls of feet) can be challenging.
> One
> device used by a lot of instructors is to have the dancers apply
> forward
> pressure to their partner. Alex uses the expression "2 pounds of
> force." In
> order to apply forward pressure, a person must push with their
> feet, which
> has the consequence of putting their center of mass/force over the
> balls of
> their feet. ...
Yes.
THREE POINTS OF LEVERAGE.
Pressing into the earth with the feet gives the leader one "point of
leverage". He feels that the follower has completed her step, a pre-
requisite for taking the next step.
Second point of leverage is the connection or "presence" (yes, a
little pressure) on his chest.
Third point of leverage is the internal connection in the lower
abdominal muscles, the "dan tien" if you wish. This is achieved by
engaging the internal muscles. Helpful language from pilates is "pull
your belly-button toward the back bone", but it is really a bit
lower. This makes sense if you think about how the lower ab muscles
solidify the skeletal framework where the backbone and pelvis meet.
Any yoga or martial arts or athlete will be aware of this.
The same three points of leverage apply for the man. Engaging these
leverage points and using internal power makes his movements powerful
and confident. The inevitable force.
> ...
> Finally, all of these principles apply to open embrace as well as
> close
> embrace. In close embrace, the forward force is applied with the
> chest,
> while in open embrace it is applied with the points of contact in the
> hands/arms.
>
> J
> www.TangoMoments.com
Date: Sat, 6 May 2006 17:40:17 EDT
From: Euroking@aol.com
Subject: Re: [Tango-L] On Axis, Off Axis
To: Mallpasso@aol.com, jayrabe@hotmail.com, tango-l@mit.edu
Cc: jay@tangomoments.com
El Bandito,
I agree that one needs to go to basics and the OED is an great source, but I
would argue it is not always exclusive. Webster's has an additional line to
the definition: 'a straight line about which a body or a geometric figure
rotates or may be supposed to rotate'. Thus I don't think only using the word
balance will be adequate IMHO.
It is the this later line that describes a dancer or anyone who is
stationary and in balance. If a dancer is out of balance (off of their own axis) they
will need, either to move to regain balance (a dynamic act) or will share
their axis (statically or dynamically) with something ( it may be a wall, a
pole or if you fall, the floor) or someone. This later is the case when two
dancers are using each other to maintain balance. If their center of mass is
forward of the vertical axis they need each other to stay vertical. This shared
axis creates a mutual balance point. The amount of sharing by the dancers
determine the amount of comfort. If I have to support my partner and move,
then I am carrying my partner and that is not fun. But if we are in a state of
dynamic balance then we share the axis and it is much easier to move.
It is my understanding that your axis is always perpendicular to the floor (
assuming the floor is level) the question is where are your legs in relation
to that point? In open embrace, you are individually trying to keep that
relationship (legs under you). In close embrace, you would normally share the
responsibility to maintain balance over a common point. These are general
points and their are exceptions.
Just some thoughts,
Bill in Seattle
Date: Sat, 6 May 2006 14:55:34 -0700
From: "Igor Polk" <ipolk@virtuar.com>
Subject: Re: [Tango-L] On Axis, Off Axis
To: <tango-l@mit.edu>
Just a little note for those who try leaning, since I feel myself pretty
comfortable in it.
Going from leaning to not leaning is similar to going from close to open
embrace. It is not easy. And done wrong it is wrong. ( I can not do it )
If you lean - stay leaning. Usually everyone has been taught during a move
to the next step to transfer the weight over a ball of the feet during a
fast transfer ( like on step 4 of basic? ). That creates moving from leaning
to not leaning and back to leaning. It does not feel good. To stay leaning a
woman should step 2-3 inches ( 5-8 sm ) away from the usual. A man can do
the same but it is better when a woman does it.
Since lean is very small (usually) ( 2 pounds? ) to rotate her is as easy as
when she is perfectly vertical. But connection is different. And when you
rotate her - you rotate her around the vertical axis ( another one, not
tilted axis of her body). This axis is beyond her head if she leans on you
and you go around her. Guiding star: pressure created by the lean should be
constant (Ex:Calesita).
The position of vertical axis to rotate her around when she leans vary. If
we do a molinete the axis can be right through our head, right men? That is
the axis ( usually vertical :) ) of a couple as a union, but in lean it
becomes her own personal axis of rotation too ( Just like Bill said ).
How she rotates around her own tilted axis when in lean, I can not explain.
It looks too complex for me now, and I am not a mechanic.
If you do not have that "Core support or inner-tone" ( thank you, Tom!) ,
you'd better work on that before going to lean.
Does it sound too over the head?
Jay:".. apply forward pressure to their partner. Alex uses the expression "2
pounds of force." In order to apply forward pressure, a person must push
with their feet, which has the consequence of putting their center of
mass/force over the balls of their feet."
And beyond, Jay, and beyond. There is no reason to be afraid to put
projection of your center of gravity closer to your partner then the center
of the ball of the foot. And in fact I suspect most are doing it. Then,
there is no reason to push too hard - gravity does it for you, but "forward
pressure to their partner" is important since it creates that "Core support
or inner-tone" - that is the key, thank you!
Bending a standing leg a little makes sense, since it makes the couple more
stable. It is like that bend %\ thing which holds the front wheel of a bike:
it is for stability.
These are just my thoughts I share.
Igor.
And still, what is compression?
Date: Sun, 7 May 2006 18:51:31 -0700
From: "Evan Wallace" <evan@tangoing.com>
Subject: [Tango-L] Definition of Axis (was: On Axis, Off Axis)
To: <tango-l@mit.edu>
<200605080151.k481pXcT009601@pacific-carrier-annex.mit.edu>
In reading these responses, it has become clear to me that a large part of
the problem is in our imprecise use of the words ?balance? and ?axis.? This
is not merely a semantic argument--there is a huge conceptual difference
between the two terms, and it has lead to a great deal of muddled teaching.
My purpose in this posting is to suggest a precise use for the concept of
"axis," using principles and nomenclature from physics. I apologize in
advance for the length.
First of all, an "axis" is not a property of an object in the same way that
mass or color or shape is. An axis is an imaginary construct used to
describe the space in which objects reside. Axes (plural of axis) may be
assigned freely to aid in the physical analysis of objects and their
movement through space.
For example, when discussing the rotation of the Earth, it is convenient to
assign an axis that is an imaginary straight line through the Earth?s poles,
about which it rotates, and which moves along with the Earth as travels
through space. The Earth really doesn?t "have" an axis; it is an imaginary
construct of the space in which the Earth resides. Assigning this axis to
the Earth, however, provides a convenient frame of reference in which to
analyze its rotation, and it is convenient to colloquially call this the
"Earth?s axis." In physics, we call these types of coordinate axes "body
coordinates," because they stay assigned to the body in a consistent way as
the body moves through space.
All objects, including dancers, can be assigned one or more axes about which
their rotation can be described. Indeed, all objects can be assigned three
mutually perpendicular axes about which three independent types of rotation
can be described. (In sailing and aeronautics, these are often referred to
as yaw, pitch, and roll.) Again, these axes are not unique, nor are they
properties of the body. They can be assigned in any number of ways, some
more convenient than others, to provide a frame of reference in which to
analyze a body?s rotation.
In the case of a dancer, the most common type of rotation (unless, perhaps,
you work for Cirque de Soleil) is that which takes place around an imaginary
line through the long dimension of the body, as in a pirouette. A convenient
choice of axis with which to analyze this motion is the axis which extends
through the ball of the pivoting foot up through the dancer?s body and out
through the top of the head. So, one often hears people refer to this as
"the dancer?s axis."
But this axis is not a property of the dancer. It is not something that the
dancer "has," in the same way that a dancer has a particular weight, or
posture, or hair color. It is a transitory construct that aids in the
analysis of the dancer?s rotation at the moment the dancer is rotating. One
can talk about the axis of rotation of a ballet dancer doing a double
pirouette in the air, a Tango dancer pivoting during an ocho, or a break
dancer doing one of the those wild spins where they are upside down tucked
in sort of a fetal position (how do they do that!). But there is nothing
about the word axis that necessarily implies anything about posture,
verticality, connection, balance, or even consistency of shape or frame.
Indeed, during rotations, the shape of the dancer?s body may change
dramatically: think of an ice skater doing one of those incredible spins
where they start in a sitting position crouched forward and end up standing
and bending backwards.
So it makes no sense to talk about "being on your axis," or even to talk
about axis, when there is no rotation involved. Michael Figart made a
similar point.
I think that when teachers say "dancers need to be on their own axis," they
actually mean a m?lange of several different concepts, something like this:
"You need to be on your own balance (this is debatable, by the way, but that
is for another discussion), and you will find this easier if the shape of
your body stays consistent, firm yet relaxed, with an upright posture that
is vertical or close to vertical."
Now, if you are on your own balance, with consistent shape and upright
posture, it is indeed easier to rotate or to be led in a rotation, as Igor
Polk also pointed out. It can be very difficult to rotate when off balance,
as any follow who has ever been yanked off her balance in the middle of
pivoting during an ocho will attest, or as any lead can attest who as ever
tried to lead a limp, bendy follow through an ocho. So, you could argue that
it is correct to say, as a form of shorthand, that "dancers need to be on
their own axis during rotations."
Yet even this more limited concept is not always true. In a colgata, both
dancers are very much off of their individual balance, yet both are pivoting
quite nicely around individual axes of rotation, which correspond roughly to
the centerline of their bodies, and which are very much tilted from the
vertical; and the couple is very much in balance and rotating quite nicely
about a yet another axis that is vertical and extends through the shared
pivot point, roughly where their two supporting feet are trying to share the
same piece of real estate.
So, I think we need to be very careful about the use of the word "axis,"
because most of the time that it is uttered in a class, it is utterly
meaningless. The same argument can be made with the term "energy," which is
used all the time in dancing in ways that are so vague as to be, at best,
completely useless, or, at worst, misleading. I will argue that we should
drop all uses of the word axis except as it pertains specifically to
describing the rotation of dancers in the act of rotating or pivoting.
I want to come back to the concept of balance or lack thereof (both
individual and shared), and connection (strong vs. weak, tension vs.
compression), in a later post.
Evan Wallace
Seattle, WA
evan@tangoing.com
www.tangoing.com
Date: Sun, 7 May 2006 22:11:41 -0700
From: "Igor Polk" <ipolk@virtuar.com>
Subject: Re: [Tango-L] On Axis, Off Axis
To: <tango-l@mit.edu>
It seems to me that many open embrace teachers pay very special attention to
verticality of the axis ( of possible and real rotation, Evan ), especially
women's. I am dancing mostly in close, I like lean, so can someone
experienced, someone from Tango Nuevo give good explanation why you consider
verticality of the axis very important?
It is possible to dance molinete when individual axis is not vertical (
tilted toward the center ), so why verticality is important?
Igor Polk
Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 00:14:24 -0700
From: "Neeraj Korde" <nkorde@GMAIL.COM>
Subject: Re: [Tango-L] On Axis, Off Axis
To: "Igor Polk" <ipolk@virtuar.com>, TANGO-L@mitvma.mit.edu
<19bbdd920605080014q79cd9f1eh515ed118d6c8725e@mail.gmail.com>
I am no nuevo expert but anyways I like discussions about tango technique...
One instructor said this,( and I found it convincing) - if you are dancing
in 'strict' close embrace, i.e. the chests are in close contact and both are
turning around a common axis then the front and back steps of both will be
actually front cross and back cross respectively.
Here cross refers to the act of just placing the foot in front/back of the
other without any or minimal rotation of hips. (In fact the rotation of hips
is limited by the fixed relation between the two upper bodies.) The axis of
the foot which makes the cross is roughly the line through the toe of the
supporting foot thru the person's head.
Also note that if the woman is leaning she has to move the body/free leg
about a tilted axis which is little more limiting as far as taking steps is
concerned.
Now if the man is just standing and turning around inplace with the woman
orbiting him **maintaining the strict close-embrace**, then its still the
same - the woman's front and back steps will actually be front cross and
back cross respectively. Now if the strict embrace loosens a bit where the
woman's chest can *roll over* the man's chest thewoman can take bigger Front
and back steps since the body has already turned a little bit and the
dissociation of hips from the upper body can add a little bit more. Again
the woman can choose to be tilted or straight. I think a vast majority of
close embrace dancers will have this kind of loosened embrace with the
womans axis tilted in a little bit. A vast majority of nuevo followers will
choose this loosened embrace but with a vertical axis. The reason being
tilted axis is more limiting than vertical axis when it comes to taking
front and back steps of the molinette. It is this ability to make cleaner
front and back steps that allows for all the fancy stuff that follows.
Not to imply the one form is superior since they both have different appeals
which are beyond the scope of a strictly technical discussion like this.
Hope that helps.
Neeraj
PS
0. Actually the tilted axes of the pair referred to above are a little askew
because the heads can't blend together making the embrace a little
'one-sided' which explains why turns on one side are more popular than
others.
1. For men with huge bellies the follower has kind of a huge sphere or
beachball to rollover. Also the distance between the legs will be more. It
can almost be argued that a rotund man's close embrace is a thin man's open
embrace.
2. Since evan brings out the topic of vague exressions in tango teaching,
can someone explain me what does 'Grabbing the floor' mean ?
On 5/7/06, Igor Polk <ipolk@virtuar.com> wrote:
>
> It seems to me that many open embrace teachers pay very special attention
> to
> verticality of the axis ( of possible and real rotation, Evan ),
> especially
> women's. I am dancing mostly in close, I like lean, so can someone
> experienced, someone from Tango Nuevo give good explanation why you
> consider
> verticality of the axis very important?
>
> It is possible to dance molinete when individual axis is not vertical (
> tilted toward the center ), so why verticality is important?
>
> Igor Polk
>
>
--
Groucho Marx - "Anyone who says he can see through women is missing a lot."
Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 13:19:46 -0500 (CDT)
From: Zoltan Hidvegi <tango-l@hzoli.com>
Subject: Re: [Tango-L] Definition of Axis (was: On Axis, Off Axis)
To: Evan Wallace <evan@tangoing.com>
Cc: tango-l@mit.edu
Evan Wallace wrote:
> First of all, an "axis" is not a property of an object in the same way that
> mass or color or shape is. An axis is an imaginary construct used to
Actually, if you really want to be technical, each rigid body has at
least three mutually perpendicular principal axes, which *is* a
property of the object. A rigid body will rotate freely around its
principal axes, but you have to use force to make something rotate
around other axes. See
e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moment_of_inertia or any physics
book for some more details.
Of course dancers are not rigid, a dancer's principal axes changes as
she moves her body, but still at every moment you can calculate the
principal axes of an individual dancer or a couple. To allow easy
rotation, this principal axes must go through the point of contact
between the floor and the weight-bearing foot. I think that would be
the meaning of the phrase, stay on your own axes.
-Zoltan
Date: Mon, 08 May 2006 16:55:58 -0400
From: Jeff Gaynor <jjg@jqhome.net>
Subject: Re: [Tango-L] On Axis, Off Axis
To: tango-l@mit.edu
Tom Stermitz wrote:
>I like what Igor pointed out about how easily and smoothly the woman
>pivots when her axis if vertical. Also, that if she loses core
>support, the axis caves in and dissipates the energy.
>
>I personally prefer the more vertical posture, as it makes her
>movements very efficient and my life very easy. I can stop thinking
>about holding her up, and just channel the music.
>
>Core support or inner-tone makes her much lighter, even if she is
>leaning. Slumping onto me or bending at the waist makes her feel very
>heavy and sluggish.
>
>
Comment from a tango newbie who trains athletes ( martial arts, been
doing that 27 years): A kink in the spine effectively disconnects you
from your lower body. The ramifications are that you have to muscle it
with your upper body since you cannot use your legs plus you can get a
nasty backache. I see this a lot and spend a lot of time correcting it
in my students.
Here is your first martial arts lesson people: Stand up straight and
relax. Why aren't you on the floor? Because you instinctively stacked
your bones to take the load and when you relaxed, you removed all
tension except what it took to retain alignment. This is what I mean by
structure. I like CE because I have excellent structure and can use it
in a comfortable way for both me and my partner. OE and I don't mix so
well on this account too -- I've got the ballistic properties of the
Rock of Gibraltar. This is just a personal preference.
<snip/>
>THREE POINTS OF LEVERAGE.
>
>Pressing into the earth with the feet gives the leader one "point of
>leverage". He feels that the follower has completed her step, a pre-
>requisite for taking the next step.
>
>
From a mechanical point of view, bent legs act like shock absorbers and
give a squishy feel. I'm a beginner in tango, but the first thing I
noticed about the dance is the very good use of structure for
everything. Doing this will allow the forces to transmit normally and
let your skeleton handle the load so you don't get tired and you can
judge what your partner is doing.
>Second point of leverage is the connection or "presence" (yes, a
>little pressure) on his chest.
>
>
>Third point of leverage is the internal connection in the lower
>abdominal muscles, the "dan tien" if you wish. This is achieved by
>engaging the internal muscles. Helpful language from pilates is "pull
>your belly-button toward the back bone", but it is really a bit
>lower. This makes sense if you think about how the lower ab muscles
>solidify the skeletal framework where the backbone and pelvis meet.
>Any yoga or martial arts or athlete will be aware of this.
>
>
You are referring to your transverse abdominal muscles. These are the
ones right below the navel (guys contract these all the time when a
pretty girl goes by :o>). A simple and good exercise is a "vacuum":
contract and hold these muscles for up to 30 seconds. Actually these
muscles are much more important than most people think:
1. They are the only muscles in the front of the body that attach to the
back. As such, they are vital for posture.
2. Every time you move a limb, these muscles contract first in order to
solidify your core (core muscles are NOT just your abs, but everything
from your nipples to you knees, including your hamstrings). If you are
not using your transverse abs right in sports, the muscles in your limbs
will refuse to contract fully because they know they lack leverage. This
is why strength training is often a bad idea for athletes -- they get
strong biceps or whatever and bafflingly still can't generate force once
they are away from a weight machine.
[Public service announcement: If you have back trouble and have problems
standing upright, try some vacuums -- any position you are comfortable
in works, sitting, prone etc.. You'll stretch the lower back into its
normal position and be able to move much more easily. Forget about
trying to touch your toes or leaning backwards as a stretch. Also, one
bit of standard wisdom is that people with back trouble should do
situps. Not a bad idea, but vacuums are now recognized as the right
exercise.]
>The same three points of leverage apply for the man. Engaging these
>leverage points and using internal power makes his movements powerful
>and confident. The inevitable force.
>
>
>
>
Again, mechanically the reason is that all together you are in a
position to use your abdominal muscles and route all the forces into the
ground. This keep leaders from getting a sore back and because it is
physiologically an extremely good use of body mechanics, makes the
follower feel like she is on casters. All of it is smooth and effortless.
>>...
>>Finally, all of these principles apply to open embrace as well as
>>close
>>embrace. In close embrace, the forward force is applied with the
>>chest,
>>while in open embrace it is applied with the points of contact in the
>>hands/arms.
>>
>>
>>
Maybe I have it wrong, but the usage of the core in OE is completely
different from what is described above. For example, if I dance CE with
a woman with my eyes shut, I can tell what foot she is on with no
problem. This is a lot harder in OE and it is rare I can pull it off.
Try it and tell me if you notice a difference. All of this is specific
to little moi but I'd be interested if others experience this.
Cheers,
Jeff
Date: Mon, 08 May 2006 21:50:18 +0000
From: "Jay Rabe" <jayrabe@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Tango-L] On Axis, Off Axis
To: tango-l@mit.edu
Jeff wrote...
... if I dance CE with a woman with my eyes shut, I can tell what foot she
is on with no problem. This is a lot harder in OE and it is rare I can pull
it off. Try it and tell me if you notice a difference. All of this is
specific to little moi but I'd be interested if others experience this.
-----------------
Agree, completely different. However IMO you can lead in OE with your eyes
closed - preferrably alone on the dancefloor :-) One way to make it work
is for the follower to have a slightly tensed core and a firm frame, meaning
her arms/shoulders don't move in relation to her torso. If her core is
slightly tense, she will refrain from moving her hips when she changes
weight, and if her arms/frame are firm, a leader can feel the slight
movement of her weight change through her arms. OTOH if she moves her hips
so that her torso/arms don't move when she changes weight, then it's hard
for a leader wiith his eyes closed to detect it.
J
www.TangoMoments.com
Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 18:23:22 -0600
From: Tom Stermitz <stermitz@tango.org>
Subject: Re: [Tango-L] On Axis, Off Axis
To: tango-L@mit.edu
>>> Finally, all of these principles apply to open embrace as well as
>>> close embrace. In close embrace, the forward force is applied
>>> with the chest, while in open embrace it is applied with the
>>> points of contact in the hands/arms.
>>>
>>>
> Maybe I have it wrong, but the usage of the core in OE is completely
> different from what is described above. For example, if I dance CE
> with
> a woman with my eyes shut, I can tell what foot she is on with no
> problem. This is a lot harder in OE and it is rare I can pull it off.
> Try it and tell me if you notice a difference. All of this is specific
> to little moi but I'd be interested if others experience this.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jeff
Yes, you have a lot more control in CE. But, core support & internal
power is just as important in open or close.
One habit martial artists often have difficulty removing is the
training to stand on both feet. In Tango you generally (but not
always) are better off relaseing one foot in order that the other
completely take the weight.
Also, too much core strength and you ride up on your hips. Stacking
the skeleton, involves settling into the hips, and then you use core
strength to solidify that. Watch the old Argentines, and you will see
a lot more hip-play than you might expect.
Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 00:17:34 -0700
From: "Evan Wallace" <evan@tangoing.com>
Subject: [Tango-L] Definition of Axis (was: On Axis, Off Axis)
To: <tango-l@mit.edu>
Cc: 'Zoltan Hidvegi' <tango-l@hzoli.com>
Zoltan replied to Evan Wallace:
Actually, if you really want to be technical, each rigid body has at
least three mutually perpendicular principal axes, which *is* a
property of the object. A rigid body will rotate freely around its
principal axes...
Yes, you are correct. I alluded to this in my posting when I mentioned that
you can always assign three mutually perpendicular axes about which you can
describe three independent rotations. I didn't go into the concept of
"principal axes" (which is indeed the correct term), because I was beginning
to bore even myself with the length and tediousness of my posting.
(I'll also concede your point that principal axes could be considered a
property of a rigid body, but if I were in a really cantankerous mood and
hadn't had my morning coffee, I might still argue that even these axes are
constructs of a special body-centered coordinate system riding around with
the object. I might also argue about whether or not it really makes sense to
talk about principal axes for a non-rigid body, like a dancer, and whether
or not rigid bodies rotate freely about these axes (the rotations are stable
about some of the axes, and unstable about others), but I have had my
coffee, so I won't.)
My point remains that the term "axis" is frequently misused in tango
discourse. I think most of the time the word axis is used, the terms balance
and/or posture would be more precise and more useful.
Here is an example in which the terms axis, balance, and posture are used
fairly rigorously. If I were teaching ochos in an open embrace, I might say
to the lead: "You must keep the follow exactly on her balance the entire
time you are pivoting her, else you will pull her off her axis of rotation
and she will stumble, and perhaps glare at you." Or I might say to the
follow: "During the time you are pivoting, you must keep a consistent
posture and muscle tone, else you will not have a well-defined axis of
rotation to pivot about, and you will feel all wobbly." ("Wobbly" being the
precise scientific term.)
This is feedback that the student can actually use.
Evan Wallace
Seattle, WA
www.tangoing.com
Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 12:49 +0100 (BST)
From: "Chris, UK" <tl2@chrisjj.com>
Subject: Re: [Tango-L] Definition of Axis (was: On Axis, Off Axis)
Cc: tl2@chrisjj.com
Evan wrote:
> I think we need to be very careful about the use of the word "axis,"
> because most of the time that it is uttered in a class, it is utterly
> meaningless.
We need to be very careful about the use of words period.
Words were invented to say those things that are not communicable by the
direct means we already have. So no surprise that they are pretty much
useless for saying those things that are.
Whereas the tango connection is about as direct as it gets. It lets one
tell another about axis, and everything else that matters, far more
meaningfully than do words.
Chris
