Choreography


4511 Choreography	ARTICLE INDEX
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 13:46:17 -0400 From: "TangoDC.com" <spatz@tangoDC.com> Subject: [Tango-L] Choreography To: tango-L@mit.edu Dear list, As I was watching some tumbleweed airily somersault through the ghost-town of my inbox, I began to wonder what you all think of choreography as it relates to tango. Open season, Jake Spatz Washington, DC Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 12:03:04 -0700 (PDT) From: "Trini y Sean \(PATangoS\)" <patangos@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [Tango-L] Choreography To: Tango-L <Tango-L@MIT.EDU> For "choreography" used in the most common sense in dance: I have worked on pieces for demos in which couples (mostly non-performers) were trying to strictly choreograph to particular music selections, but it was very difficult. What worked better was to just hit a specific accent with a particular vocabulary. So it was like trying to hit check points in a marathon, but not to worry too much about how to get there (run, walk, hop, etc.). Perhaps the nuevo teaching system would come in particularly handy, here. For "choreography" in the way I prefer to use it, I think of it simply as how one combines vocabulary, but it doesn?t mean following a preset formula. In a way, any two-step pattern (rock step, ocho), can be called a choreography, right? If one has favorite ways to enter or exit a particular movement (or habits), doesn?t that become a choreography? Trini de Pittsburgh --- "TangoDC.com" <spatz@tangoDC.com> wrote: > Dear list, > > As I was watching some tumbleweed airily somersault > through the > ghost-town of my inbox, I began to wonder what you all > think of > choreography as it relates to tango. > > Open season, > > Jake Spatz > Washington, DC > PATangoS - Pittsburgh Argentine Tango Society Our Mission: To make Argentine Tango Pittsburgh's most popular social dance. https://www.pitt.edu/~mcph/PATangoWeb.htm Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 20:51 +0100 (BST) From: "Chris, UK" <tl2@chrisjj.com> Subject: Re: [Tango-L] Choreography Cc: tl2@chrisjj.com > what you all think of choreography as it relates to tango. As the Kama Sutra reminds us <smile>, it is much harder that the real thing. So best left to professionals ;) Chris Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 12:36:42 -0700 (MST) From: Huck Kennedy <huck@eninet.eas.asu.edu> Subject: Re: [Tango-L] Choreography To: tango-l@mit.edu Jake writes: > As for choreography, I'm still interested in what everyone thinks. About what? It's definition? Whether we like it? Whether we have plans for a career on Broadway? What? Trini de Pittsburgh writes: > For "choreography" in the way I prefer to use it, I think > of it simply as how one combines vocabulary, Leaving the dance notation part out of it, choreography is the arranging of which steps are to be done at precisely which point in the pre-determined music in a dance performance, be it pure dance performance or dance performance embedded in some other medium, like a Broadway musical or an opera. A typical question might be, "Who did the choreography for that show?," and it would mean, "Who told the dancers where to go on the stage when and dance what steps?" > but it doesn't mean following a preset formula Well usually it does. > a way, any two-step pattern (rock step, ocho), can be > called a choreography, right? If one has favorite ways > to enter or exit a particular movement (or habits), > doesn't that become a choreography? First of all, only performance tango has choreography per se. Sometimes people derisively say social tango has choreography if a leader is trying to execute long pre-determined dance sequences at a milonga regardless of the current conditions on the floor. Now I think what you (Trini) are getting at is, can we pejoratively label anything more than a bicameral-mind instinctive one-step reaction by the leader to current conditions on the floor "choreography," because the second and perhaps even third steps are part of a pre-determined pattern rather than strictly improvisational on the spot, one step at a time? I would say that's a bit unfair. I think it's more realistic to think of the allowable improvisational building blocks to be a bit more than a single step. If after determining it should be perfectly safe to do so, a leader decides to lead a simple little right-turn giro in place, should he be accused of doing choreography? I don't think so. How about someone who just got out of a class teaching a 15-step nuevo sequence, and who then goes straight to the milonga and holds up the ronda behind him in an attempt to let 10 yards of space open up in front of him so he can try to do the new 12-step sequence? Yeah, you bet that's choreography. Huck Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 04:45:00 +0800 From: Kace <kace@pacific.net.sg> Subject: Re: [Tango-L] Choreography Trini y Sean (PATangoS) wrote: > For "choreography" in the way I prefer to use it, I think > of it simply as how one combines vocabulary, but it doesn?t > mean following a preset formula. In a way, any two-step > pattern (rock step, ocho), can be called a choreography, > right? If one has favorite ways to enter or exit a > particular movement (or habits), doesn?t that become a > choreography? > > Trini de Pittsburgh This use of the word "Choreography" is simply equating it to a "script". That only covers part of what it really is. The key element of choreography, in my opinion, is the power to communicate between dancers and audience. If there is no audience, there is no absolute need to choreograph, since the communication between the dancing couple is already solved by perfect notion of using lead and follow dynamics, and improvisation. A choreography is needed mainly to transform a big artistic idea into a series of movements that can be visually understood by the audience. It is the choreographer's job to be the "third eye" during rehearsals; his version of what message the dance is trying to send; his selective application of tango steps, accented with vocabulary from ballet and other forms of body language, and how he create or adapt a soundtrack to make everything fit. Without understanding the full reason for choreographing a performance, the whole experience becomes distorted to the point of either (1) self-indulgence, the dancers doing what they like but not making any point to the audience; or (2) purely technical, like a show-off pulling out his entire bag of tricks to get a "wow" reaction. Kace tangosingapore.com Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 15:06:54 -0700 (PDT) From: "Trini y Sean \(PATangoS\)" <patangos@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [Tango-L] Choreography Thanks Kace & Huck for very informative posts. Perhaps I have been using the word incorrectly. Suppose I am explaining to someone about not using high boleos or potentially harmful ganchos on a crowded dance floor. I might say, choose your choreography to fit the available space. This is actually how I normally use the word - choosing a portion of vocabulary out of one's full repertoire. I am not referring to scripting the dance. Or I might say, that if one is dancing to D'Arienzo, one's choreography might include more rhythmic elements rather than languid elements (like the climbing a tree embrace :). What should I be saying instead? Just "vocabulary"? Trini de Pittsburgh --- Kace <kace@pacific.net.sg> wrote: > Trini y Sean (PATangoS) wrote: > > For "choreography" in the way I prefer to use it, I > think > > of it simply as how one combines vocabulary, but it > doesn?t > > mean following a preset formula. In a way, any > two-step > > pattern (rock step, ocho), can be called a > choreography, > > right? If one has favorite ways to enter or exit a > > particular movement (or habits), doesn?t that become a > > choreography? > > > > Trini de Pittsburgh > This use of the word "Choreography" is simply equating it > to a "script". > That > only covers part of what it really is. > > The key element of choreography, in my opinion, is the > power to communicate > between dancers and audience. If there is no audience, > there is no > absolute need > to choreograph, since the communication between the > dancing couple is > already > solved by perfect notion of using lead and follow > dynamics, and > improvisation. > > A choreography is needed mainly to transform a big > artistic idea into a > series > of movements that can be visually understood by the > audience. It is the > choreographer's job to be the "third eye" during > rehearsals; his version > of what > message the dance is trying to send; his selective > application of tango > steps, > accented with vocabulary from ballet and other forms of > body language, and > how he create or adapt a soundtrack to make everything > fit. > > Without understanding the full reason for choreographing > a performance, > the whole experience becomes distorted to the point of > either (1) > self-indulgence, > the dancers doing what they like but not making any point > to the > audience; or > (2) purely technical, like a show-off pulling out his > entire bag of > tricks to get > a "wow" reaction. > > Kace > tangosingapore.com PATangoS - Pittsburgh Argentine Tango Society Our Mission: To make Argentine Tango Pittsburgh's most popular social dance. https://www.pitt.edu/~mcph/PATangoWeb.htm Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 23:58 +0100 (BST) From: "Chris, UK" <tl2@chrisjj.com> Subject: Re: [Tango-L] Choreography Cc: tl2@chrisjj.com > Or I might say, that if one is dancing to D'Arienzo, one's > choreography might include more rhythmic elements > > What should I be saying instead? Just "vocabulary"? How about just "dancing"? Chris Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 19:46:37 -0400 From: "Michael" <tangomaniac@cavtel.net> Subject: [Tango-L] Choreography vs improvisation To: "Tango L" <Tango-L@Mit.Edu> Cc: Michael <tangomaniac@cavtel.net> I've read a number of messages dealing with choreography, vocabulary, and improvisation and their definitions. Vocabulary is like words in a dictionary. You have to know the definition of each word and have them fit correctly in a sentence, e.g. singular vs. plural, adjective vs. noun. Tango vocabulary is the step (forward, back, side.) Choreography is memorized vocabulary that dancers know IN ADVANCE of the lead. Improvisation is spontaneously selecting "words" from the tango dictionary based on the music. Only the leader knows what is going to happen next. Of course, women can figure out what happens next is the man leads the same steps in the same sequence regardless of music. That's not choreography. That's poor improvisation. Hope this helps. Michael Ditkoff Washington, DC NY Tango festival next week. www.celebratetango.com I'd rather be dancing Argentine Tango Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 17:14:22 -0700 From: "Igor Polk" <ipolk@virtuar.com> Subject: Re: [Tango-L] Choreography Trini: "What should I be saying instead? Just "vocabulary"?" Use "Style", Element, Figure, Steps, Idea, Sequence.. There is no point to use the world "Choreography" to describe what is not. Only like a metaphor. During the dance you can not "choose choreography", you can improvise, or dance what is pre-defined. Choreographed, it means prepared, designed, graphed before. Huck is right saying that "choreography" is about dance notation and performance. We should respect words, otherwise the messy world will become even more messy. I am currently trying to align the meaning of the word "connection" to what I need. Please, send me your understanding of this, so that I know in what content to use it, and should I choose another word to name what I need to. I am not looking for a definition, just a description. From any school. Igor. Suppose I am explaining to someone about not using high boleos or potentially harmful ganchos on a crowded dance floor. I might say, choose your choreography to fit the available space. This is actually how I normally use the word - choosing a portion of vocabulary out of one's full repertoire. I am not referring to scripting the dance. Or I might say, that if one is dancing to D'Arienzo, one's choreography might include more rhythmic elements rather than languid elements (like the climbing a tree embrace :). Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 17:45:55 -0700 (MST) From: Huck Kennedy <huck@eninet.eas.asu.edu> Subject: Re: [Tango-L] Choreography To: tango-l@mit.edu "Igor Polk" <ipolk@virtuar.com> writes: > > We should respect words, otherwise the messy world > will become even more messy. I wholeheartedly agree, Igor. Which reminds me, when some dancers talk about doing quick steps, they consistently misuse the word "syncopation," having not the slightest idea what it actually means, so I think we should go over this.... Ha ha!! Kidding! Bet I made some of you wince, though! Huck Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 01:55 +0100 (BST) From: "Chris, UK" <tl2@chrisjj.com> Subject: Re: [Tango-L] Choreography vs improvisation Cc: tl2@chrisjj.com > Vocabulary is like words in a dictionary. You have to know the definition > of each word and have them fit correctly in a sentence, e.g. singular vs. > plural, adjective vs. noun. Tango vocabulary is the step False assertion and good analogy. Just as a speaker does not have to know the definition of a word in order to use it meaningfully, nor does the dancer have to know the definition of a step. Definitions are for linguists and tangologists. For people who do it rather than study others doing it, meaning suffices amply. > Only the leader knows what is going to happen next. A collision. The leader who knows he doesn't is the one I'd rather be next to. Chris Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 04:17:21 -0400 From: "TangoDC.com" <spatz@tangoDC.com> Subject: Re: [Tango-L] Choreography To: tango-L@mit.edu Er, guys... ? What's the big deal about syncopation? It's a rather simple affair of superimposed patterns... Hasn't everyone cultivated the habit of looking up words and ideas they're not clear about? Given that everyone reading this has Internet access: can't you start today? As for your usage of "choreography," Trini, you're perfectly correct. The word, as a technical term in dance, has both the meaning you've been using (general selection of elements) and the one more commonly thought correct by some members of this list (premeditated, rehearsed, and executed program). A quick look at Answers.com or Wikipedia will verify this, as will browsing just about any (gasp) book on dance as an art form. I really do advise everyone to look this garbage up Before they start pontificating about "respecting words" and all that. As for Michael's contradictory post on what "choreography" means in tango (it's steps known in advance; it's Not steps a follower can see coming a mile away), it unwittingly points to precisely the ambiguity I'm trying to examine. I posed this question vaguely on purpose. I am interested in what people actually _think_ about pre-prepared, fully choreographed stage tango. Especially if you've ever done it, and comprehend that tango moves in that situation Still require lead-and-follow, connection, and so forth. And if you're hostile to the notion of it being done, in your dance or in anyone's, I'd love to hear your reasoning. But I'm also interested in the more delicate question of where we separate choreography from improv. Ocho cortado provides a fine example. If you deploy that sequence impromptu, but dance it the same way every time-- i.e., with the same rhythmic intention, and with all the steps in order-- which word better describes it? If you're not able to follow variations in it, to syncopate it (speak of the devil) against the base tempo, or to understand (with your body) that it's only a "move" because custom makes it so-- is your improv really deficient? Or are you already dealing with a matter of degrees? What, in other words, IS "vocabulary"? Is it the whole burrito, or the rice and beans, with the ability to compose them impromptu? Or is it rather the attributes and qualities of those discrete parts themselves? How nice are the beans? How perfect the rice? And why the hell do I care? 1. I just taught an advanced class on precisely this topic (ocho cortado as choreography vs. as improv), after considering it extensively, analyzing it during practice and social dancing, and looking at it in as many ways as I'm capable of. My students, to judge from the smiles on their faces and the comments I received after class, had enlightened themselves in the course of that hour. I'm in the process of double-checking and reconsidering, in the spirit of relentless but confident skepticism. 2. I recently (last Thursday) danced at length (11 hours or so) with someone trained in International Ballroom tango, and had to make it work. Initially we were completely incompatible. But we tried to be good sports about it, and met halfway. In the end, we were dancing something that I consider about 75% improv, with the remainder being fancy moves that were kinda-sorta choreographed, including a few on-demand poses that needed to be synchronized with other couples. (Full disclosure: We were shooting a commercial.) In truth, there simply wasn't time to imbue everything; but my partner learned with phenomenal speed. Also, we were able to execute certain moves that would be accidents with anyone except a partner of very high caliber. I used to be completely opposed to choreographed dancing, in theory at least, but this experience changed my thinking about it. I began to doubt my former opinion. The possibilities were immense, and they included many of the same functional elements of social dancing. 3. Now, it occurred to me while doing all this that I was "teaching" my partner some very gymnastic shit (which she already had the skills to do, anyway; we truly collaborated when it came to selecting the figures, which in any case were fully led and fully followed, albeit "known in advance" in an ad hoc sort of way) in _exactly_ the same way that one teaches someone ochos. This led me to realize that ochos-- let alone a more "scripted" sequence such as the misnomered "ocho cortado"-- are choreography, at least initially. (That's why beginners frequently can't "get out" of them.) At least, we'd do well to call them such, if we're being honest about this dance. 4. It also occurred to me that we could teach beginners, provided they had sufficient athletic ability, jumps and weird showy stuff as readily as we teach them ochos. Perhaps not two beginners, but certainly one, if paired with a skillful partner. The method is exactly the same: It's a mixture of choreography and connection. Gradually (one hopes) the choreography recedes. I'm not suggesting anyone actually do this just yet. But to speculate: Perhaps we could actually accelerate people's learning by teaching more complex figures first-- those which require a lead-follow relationship if they're to be possible at all, like boleos-- and then simplifying, honing, refining afterwards. I realize full well that this goes against most dominant pedagogical methods in many disciplines, which tend to start small and then build up. By the same token, however, I'm talking about more than a hypothesis. I've used the start-big approach in other areas, and have found that it adds adrenaline to the learning process. I've used it as a systematic teaching method, not in dance, and seen good results. (E.g., learn a language by trying to translate it, before you're "ready" in the eyes of most teaching philosophies.) Starting big gives you Context-- without which, discrete elements are not only simplistic but often meaningless. Likewise, small parts only make sense if you already have a stake in learning detail. This method, incidentally, is how I began learning this dance, under a teacher (a native Argentine, as if that actually mattered) (he was fearless, hilarious, and my age, which were probably more important) who showed me many things I soon forgot, and which were out of my league, but which carried more knowledge than simpler stuff. This method is also how I learned, years earlier, to translate some very difficult Italian poetry. In short: I'm beginning to wonder what would happen if I taught my beginning students the ocho cortado, and how to be creative with it, while teaching my advanced students the tango embrace. I'm already seeing people make progress quickly. Retention notwithstanding (I give them notebooks; it's up to them to use them), I ask myself if it's hubris to imagine them learning even More rapidly. This dance takes too long to get, and is too expensive, especially for young people. It pisses me off, and I'm trying to damage my own teaching career by getting my students out of my classes at maximum speed. Unfortunately, I realize, that may keep them coming back. Improv is the goal, yes. Total improv, by the millisecond. Choreography, I'm starting to think, can help us get there, by giving us material to play around. I teach mainly structural ideas; but I now see the wisdom (as opposed to the laxity) behind teaching step sequences. The burden has got to be on the student, at some point. If you give a bicycle to an idiot, he'll learn how to ride it somewhere useful. If you give it to Picasso, he'll take it apart, make a bull's head, and sell it for enough cash to buy ten more pieces of raw material. I'm not making the claim that most teachers-- since most teachers do offer sequences-- have thought these questions out. (And they are questions.) But I imagine some of them have; and I think we're all rather stupid to dismiss it impatiently, now that we've taken those classes and believe ourselves (mistakenly or not) done with them. Before you start saying Nay, and counsel "just dancing" (vanitas vanitatum), or accuse me of reinventing the wheel, consider what I'm trying to say. Ocho cortado, blandly, is impromptu choreography at best. A move out of a box. A rock step (or two) done with molasses viscosity, then a slingshot front cross step, followed by a thrice-rocked sidestep (involving butt), concluding with the "normal" cross (and where it goes from there is anyone's guess), could be either improv or choreography, depending on whether you write it down beforehand or afterwards. In fact, I'm even beginning to think that anything one Can write down, in whatever system of notation, is choreography, regardless of when the writing occurs relative to the dance. Improv is really when you have no goddamn idea what you're doing, until you've just done it for the first time on earth. My apologies to you all if all these points have been considered in threads previous. I may be guilty, like many an art critic, of educating myself in public. I just hope that what I'm laboriously describing (and challenging) is more than grist. Jake Spatz Washington, DC "A little learning is a dangerous thing..." -- Alexander Pope, "Essay on Criticism," ii.15. Huck Kennedy wrote: "Igor Polk" <ipolk@virtuar.com> writes: > We should respect words, otherwise the messy world > will become even more messy. > I wholeheartedly agree, Igor. Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 11:36 +0100 (BST) From: "Chris, UK" <tl2@chrisjj.com> Subject: Re: [Tango-L] Choreography Cc: tl2@chrisjj.com Jake wrote: > Perhaps we could actually accelerate people's learning > by teaching more complex figures first Many do teach complex figures first. But what this accelerates is not learning, but earning. > it adds adrenaline to the learning process. It sure does. I recall a first-time visiting instructor 'teaching' backwards saccadas into overturned ochos to a class of beginners to 'give them a feel of advanced stuff early on'. That feel was painful. The girls adrenaline-striken bodies felt as if they'd been through a lesson in self-defence. Which actually, they had. > Starting big gives you Context Starting 'big' undermines context. That context is the essential feeling for self, relationship and the music. Chris Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 14:51:05 -0700 (PDT) From: "Trini y Sean \(PATangoS\)" <patangos@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [Tango-L] Choreography To: tango-L@mit.edu --- "TangoDC.com" <spatz@tangoDC.com> wrote: > But I'm also interested in the more delicate question of > where we separate choreography from improv. The first class I ever took on contact improvisation might provide some insight. The instructor was exploring ways of improvising within a strictly choreographed dance. Students were first paired, with one student sprawled out in a random position on the floor. The other student would trace an outline around their partner, using their foot, elbow, hand, etc. Then the first student (the sprawlee) had 3 choices: 1 ? to step cleanly out of the outline, 2 ? to deepen the outline (rolling into it without erasing it), 3 ? or to blur the outline (wriggling on the outline). In the next exercise students did the same thing individually, as we were dancing. We had to stay in a clear position long enough to create a snapshot (outline) of a particular pose, and then use one of the 3 choices. Eventually, we moved into a contact jam, in which people dance improvisationally in groups of 2-4 people using the same idea. The point was to find improvisation in a strictly choreographed performance through the sense of touch. Otherwise, a choreography could become stale and rote for the performers. Perhaps improvisation requires a level of intellectual involvement (as opposed to habits of movement). Could performers in non-tango dances could share their experiences? > 4. > It also occurred to me that we could teach beginners, > provided they had sufficient athletic ability, jumps and weird showy stuff as readily as we teach them ochos. Last fall, Sean began teaching an intermediate class mostly by himself to my students. One night I walked in late and thought "Ohmigod, what did he do?!". My carefully taught social dancers (some with less than 6 months experience) were practicing showy lifts and jumps, including one couple well into their sixties. They all looked terrible, but they were having fun and were learning how to use their bodies better. In this case, it made the men more grounded and the women more connected through their arm structure. The complex sequence approach succeeds when teachers use it to hone a basic technique, not to teach a step. One time, we hosted Diego DiFalco and Carolina Zokalvski who taught a sequence that included an extremely difficult pivot and multiple turns. Diego created the sequence just to get us to work harder on our balance. Other instructors do the same thing. This method works if: a) students realize that practicing the technique is more important than learning the actual step (though it makes a nice goal), b) students already understand what good tango is (connection, clean technique, musicality, etc.), and c) students can make informed decisions regarding what they like or dislike about tango or about different personal styles. When these elements are not in place, I find that those beginning with a "start-big" approach are not enjoyable to dance with (men or women). I think it?s a question of developing the physical sensitivity for small, subtle movements, which can be missed in "big movements". Developing this sensitivity early on, I think, is what really makes partners learn tango quickly. This based on experiences of dancers with "natural" abilities that I have seen in my community. Perhaps small classes with lot of student/teacher interaction might work with a "start-big" approach. The trick, I think, is to make sure that students already have regular vocabulary that they can use and are used to building things up from small elements. I do agree, though, that a "big" movement can add some adrenaline and excitement to a class. Trini de Pittsburgh PATangoS - Pittsburgh Argentine Tango Society Our Mission: To make Argentine Tango Pittsburgh's most popular social dance. https://www.pitt.edu/~mcph/PATangoWeb.htm Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 00:47 +0100 (BST) From: "Chris, UK" <tl2@chrisjj.com> Subject: Re: [Tango-L] Choreography Cc: tl2@chrisjj.com Trini wrote: > Perhaps small classes with lot of student/teacher > interaction might work with a "start-big" approach. The > trick, I think, is to make sure that students already have > regular vocabulary that they can use ... So, start big... having first started not big. Isn't that slightly.... impossible? ;) > those beginning with a "start-big" approach are not enjoyable to > dance with (men or women). I think it?s a question of developing > the physical sensitivity for small, subtle movements, which can be > missed in "big movements". Developing this sensitivity early on, I > think, is what really makes partners learn tango quickly. Agreed 100%. Chris Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 17:50:13 -0700 (MST) From: Huck Kennedy <huck@eninet.eas.asu.edu> Subject: Re: [Tango-L] Choreography To: tango-l@mit.edu "TangoDC.com" <spatz@tangoDC.com> writes: > > Er, guys... ? > > What's the big deal about syncopation? It's a rather simple > affair of superimposed patterns... Many dancers struggle with this concept from the musician's world. If they don't already feel a bit chagrined about that, no doubt your dismissively informing them it's just "a rather simple affair" will hammer it home for them. > Hasn't everyone cultivated the habit of looking > up words and ideas they're not clear about? Three points: First of all, many dancers don't even realize they need to look up the word, because misusage in the dance world is so rife that they don't even suspect they're using the word wrong in the first place. Heck, many instructors misuse it, so how can the students be blamed? Secondly, even when they do become aware that there's a problem, without a musical background, the concept can be difficult to grasp from just reading a dictionary definition. > Given that everyone reading this has Internet access: can't > you start today? And thirdly, you can really be an insufferable pompous ass at times. Maybe this plays real well in person, but at this point, it's already starting to wear a little thin in print. > As for your usage of "choreography," Trini, you're perfectly correct. Which is why we hear social tango dancers talking about their choreography all the time. Not. At least other than in a derogatory fashion. As in a practica, "let's mix some variation into this so I can tell you're really following my lead and not just doing choreography." > The word, as a technical term in dance, has both the meaning you've been > using (general selection of elements) and the one more commonly thought > correct by some members of this list (premeditated, rehearsed, and > executed program). A quick look at Answers.com or Wikipedia will verify > this, It most certainly will not. The first four entries of answers.com, to wit, American Heritage, Houghton Mifflin, Word Tutor espindle, and WordNet, do not mention Trini's usage at all. And even the fifth and last entry, Wikipedia, is a far stretch at best ("the art of making structures in which movement occurs"--that's vague enough that one could label almost anything "choreography," including building a basketball arena, and is thus a garbage definition). >as will browsing just about any (gasp) book on dance as an art form. Do comic books count? How about Cliff's Notes? Could you possibly be more of a condescending, annoying, sophomoric twit? Why yes, I suppose you could go back to reciting fresh bon mots from Oscar Wilde with each posting. Oh my God, what have I just done. > I really do advise everyone Do you now, laddie? > to look this garbage up Before they start > pontificating about "respecting words" and all that. Okay, part of that is my bad. I'd already responded on the subject of choreography, and the sole purpose of my responding to Igor's posting about respecting words was to make the joke about syncopation (a subject previously fretted over in this forum several times in the past, but of course you had no way of knowing that); but on re-reading that post, I see now that it could easily be misconstrued (well, by the shallow reader, anyway) to look like I was actually pontificating ("Take that, Trini, you ignorant slut!") instead of just using Igor's line as a straight line with which to lead into my joke. For that carelessness I do apologize. (No, not to you, you oaf, to Trini). Although I do think it was obvious from my original response to Trini that I had no desire to pontificate whatsoever. That's your department, Jake--and if word count is any criterion, you're doing one hell of a bangup job at it. Huck Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 18:29:16 -0700 From: "Jonathan Thornton" <obscurebardo@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [Tango-L] Choreography To: "Huck Kennedy" <huck@eninet.eas.asu.edu> Cc: tango-l@mit.edu <f9247e8a0607241829p1002de59iff5ebd7e19b4e4e7@mail.gmail.com> Thanks, Huck, Jake's infatuation with his own opinion of himself has become a colossal bore. Hopefully we've all learned to not even breathe a hint of a joke about syncopation lest it spring up to bite us in our gluteus maximus! Jonathan Thornton On 7/24/06, Huck Kennedy <huck@eninet.eas.asu.edu> wrote: > > "TangoDC.com" <spatz@tangoDC.com> writes: > > > > Er, guys... ? > > > > What's the big deal about syncopation? It's a rather simple > > affair of superimposed patterns... > > Many dancers struggle with this concept from > the musician's world. If they don't already feel > a bit chagrined about that, no doubt your > dismissively informing them it's just "a rather > simple affair" will hammer it home for them. > > > Hasn't everyone cultivated the habit of looking > > up words and ideas they're not clear about? > > Three points: First of all, many dancers don't > even realize they need to look up the word, because > misusage in the dance world is so rife that they > don't even suspect they're using the word wrong in > the first place. Heck, many instructors misuse it, > so how can the students be blamed? Secondly, even > when they do become aware that there's a problem, > without a musical background, the concept can be > difficult to grasp from just reading a dictionary > definition. > > > Given that everyone reading this has Internet access: can't > > you start today? > > And thirdly, you can really be an insufferable > pompous ass at times. Maybe this plays real well > in person, but at this point, it's already starting > to wear a little thin in print. > > > As for your usage of "choreography," Trini, you're perfectly correct. > > Which is why we hear social tango dancers talking > about their choreography all the time. Not. At least other > than in a derogatory fashion. As in a practica, "let's > mix some variation into this so I can tell you're > really following my lead and not just doing choreography." > > > The word, as a technical term in dance, has both the meaning you've been > > using (general selection of elements) and the one more commonly thought > > correct by some members of this list (premeditated, rehearsed, and > > executed program). A quick look at Answers.com or Wikipedia will verify > > this, > > It most certainly will not. The first four entries > of answers.com, to wit, American Heritage, Houghton Mifflin, > Word Tutor espindle, and WordNet, do not mention Trini's > usage at all. And even the fifth and last entry, Wikipedia, > is a far stretch at best ("the art of making structures in > which movement occurs"--that's vague enough that one could > label almost anything "choreography," including building > a basketball arena, and is thus a garbage definition). > > >as will browsing just about any (gasp) book on dance as an art form. > > Do comic books count? How about Cliff's Notes? > > Could you possibly be more of a condescending, > annoying, sophomoric twit? Why yes, I suppose you > could go back to reciting fresh bon mots from Oscar > Wilde with each posting. Oh my God, what have I just > done. > > > I really do advise everyone > > Do you now, laddie? > > > to look this garbage up Before they start > > pontificating about "respecting words" and all that. > > Okay, part of that is my bad. I'd already > responded on the subject of choreography, and the sole > purpose of my responding to Igor's posting about > respecting words was to make the joke about syncopation > (a subject previously fretted over in this forum several > times in the past, but of course you had no way of > knowing that); but on re-reading that post, I see now > that it could easily be misconstrued (well, by the > shallow reader, anyway) to look like I was actually > pontificating ("Take that, Trini, you ignorant slut!") > instead of just using Igor's line as a straight line > with which to lead into my joke. For that carelessness > I do apologize. (No, not to you, you oaf, to Trini). > Although I do think it was obvious from my original > response to Trini that I had no desire to pontificate > whatsoever. That's your department, Jake--and if > word count is any criterion, you're doing one hell of > a bangup job at it. > > Huck > -- "The tango can be debated, and we have debates over it, but it still encloses, as does all that which is truthful, a secret." Jorge Luis Borges Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 02:44:28 -0400 From: "TangoDC.com" <spatz@tangoDC.com> Subject: Re: [Tango-L] Choreography To: tango-L@mit.edu Hi Huck, Thanks for keeping the ball in the air on these topics. You've really moved things forward, I gotta hand it to you. (More below!) Huck Kennedy wrote: > "TangoDC.com" <spatz@tangoDC.com> writes: > >> Er, guys... ? >> >> What's the big deal about syncopation? It's a rather simple >> affair of superimposed patterns... >> > Many dancers struggle with this concept from > the musician's world. If they don't already feel > a bit chagrined about that, no doubt your > dismissively informing them it's just "a rather > simple affair" will hammer it home for them. > Wasn't it you who dismissed the topic in the act of raising it? Maybe my memory's off... Anyway, we've actually been having an informative discussion about music, for once, while you were off doing something else. You should join us next time, if the topic appeals to you. It's just like chatting at a cocktail party, except there aren't any drunk stupid people who butt in. >> Hasn't everyone cultivated the habit of looking >> up words and ideas they're not clear about? >> > Three points: First of all, many dancers don't > even realize they need to look up the word, because > misusage in the dance world is so rife that they > don't even suspect they're using the word wrong in > the first place. Heck, many instructors misuse it, > so how can the students be blamed? Secondly, even > when they do become aware that there's a problem, > without a musical background, the concept can be > difficult to grasp from just reading a dictionary > definition. > Wait a second here... I'm confused. Are you defending students' right to ignorance, or attacking teachers' lack of that right? For my part, I haven't heard a teacher misuse the term "syncopation" yet, although I've heard a few dancers do so from time to time. On hearing a correction start up, they all admit that they've got the term wrong. Perhaps you know other people, but that's what I've seen. But far more serious than these misuses, to me, is the fact that I seldom hear anyone talking about this stuff, correct in their particulars or not. We ought to be talking about it all the time. On the level Sebastian is, actually, if we're going to call tango an art form. If anyone out there is still Really confused, perhaps this page can help... https://www.lovemusiclovedance.com/syncopat.htm >> Given that everyone reading this has Internet access: can't >> you start today? >> > And thirdly, you can really be an insufferable > pompous ass at times. Maybe this plays real well > in person, but at this point, it's already starting > to wear a little thin in print. > Dude, every Aries is a pompous ass. I just go the extra mile. >> As for your usage of "choreography," Trini, you're perfectly correct. >> > Which is why we hear social tango dancers talking > about their choreography all the time. Not. At least other > than in a derogatory fashion. As in a practica, "let's > mix some variation into this so I can tell you're > really following my lead and not just doing choreography." > >> The word, as a technical term in dance, has both the meaning you've been using (general selection of elements) and the one more commonly thought correct by some members of this list (premeditated, rehearsed, and executed program). A quick look at Answers.com or Wikipedia will verify this, >> > It most certainly will not. The first four entries > of answers.com, to wit, American Heritage, Houghton Mifflin, > Word Tutor espindle, and WordNet, do not mention Trini's > usage at all. And even the fifth and last entry, Wikipedia, > is a far stretch at best ("the art of making structures in > which movement occurs"--that's vague enough that one could > label almost anything "choreography," including building > a basketball arena, and is thus a garbage definition). > Definition 1., a., at Answers.com, for "choreography," reads: "The art of creating and arranging dances or ballets." Now, in Argentine tango, excepting most _stage_ performance, that "creation" is allegedly impromptu and improvised. That part of a dance which can be written in dance notation (before or after the dance) is commonly called choreography by people who (a) can use dance notation, and (b) write critically of dance. That social dancers almost never do either is hardly a commandment forbidding that usage by me, Trini, or anyone else who wants it. Furthermore, the _short_ bibliography at the end of the Wikipedia entry refers to a title called: "Choreography: A Basic Approach Using Improvisation." This leads me to believe that there IS such a thing, commonly known among dancers (at least beyond the tango community), as "improvised choreography." It might even be worth reading. If anyone has it, please let me know how it is. >> as will browsing just about any (gasp) book on dance as an art form. >> > Do comic books count? > I really can't pin down whether you're being a snob or a philistine in this comment-- care to set me on course? Or are you just razzing me because I'm a sometime cartoonist? or because I've published newspaper reviews of comic books? HAVE you got a point? What are most comics packed with, if not choreography? Others interested in this tangent: Isn't Dave Sim's art in "Jaka's Story" (Cerebus, vol. 5) quite good at capturing the iconic appeal of dance? The reactions in those scenes of the onlooking peanut gallery (rapture) may be comic relief, but they're insightfully in keeping with Paglia's observations on how fully and intensely audiences react to dance as an art form. If this is too heady for anyone out there, skip it. It won't be on the test. > Could you possibly be more of a condescending, > annoying, sophomoric twit? Why yes, I suppose you > could go back to reciting fresh bon mots from Oscar > Wilde with each posting. Oh my God, what have I just > done. > Sure. Let me start by attributing to myself your post, that used "syncopation" to joke-butt those who have trouble understanding it. That was plenty condescending, you big teddy bear, you. >> I really do advise everyone >> > Do you now, laddie? > >> to look this garbage up Before they start >> pontificating about "respecting words" and all that. >> > Okay, part of that is my bad. I'd already > responded on the subject of choreography, and the sole > purpose of my responding to Igor's posting about > respecting words was to make the joke about syncopation > (a subject previously fretted over in this forum several > times in the past, but of course you had no way of > knowing that); but on re-reading that post, I see now > that it could easily be misconstrued (well, by the > shallow reader, anyway) to look like I was actually > pontificating ("Take that, Trini, you ignorant slut!") > instead of just using Igor's line as a straight line > with which to lead into my joke. It was so funny too. But to clarify my "pontification" remark: I wasn't intending to target you. That, Huck, is why I quoted, er, IGOR's diction. As for the content of your prior post on choreography, here's an excerpt, halved: (HALF ONE): "... I think it's more realistic to think of the allowable improvisational building blocks to be a bit more than a single step." I personally disagree with you on this. I believe every step (to confine ourselves to the step as a unit) is the result of several other improvised (or not) factors, determining or describing its particular qualities. And I believe that full improvisation requires the dancers to actively choose those qualities, crafting every single of them, so that the outcome step is uniquely carved into space. I believe this, I strive to do it in my dance, and I try to teach aspects of it to my students. That is: I believe we must improvise More than our choreography. We must improvise our entire dance. I'm curious about what others think, however, because I like the free exchange of ideas, and I'm always open to rethinking and revision. I'm also interested in non-improv choreography, but that seems to be universally hated here, except by the few people who've actually tried it. But silly me for imagining this is the place for open talk. I should really find a forum somewhere. {HALF TWO): "If after determining it should be perfectly safe to do so, a leader decides to lead a simple little right-turn giro in place, should he be accused of doing choreography? I don't think so." I absolutely do. I accuse myself of it all the time. This dance, in my opinion, is best when it's rich and complex at every instant. And I'm after the best, slowly though I plod. If you're not, that's perfectly fine. Not everyone will be-- certainly not all of my students will be. I'm trying to better understand to what extent "choreography" is okay for such talents, and to what extent I ought to push them to develop a more profound capacity for art. So far, most of them seem to want that capacity. They're hungry for it. I'll tell them, Huck, that you think it's okay if they stick to routine, but I can't guarantee they'll care for it much longer. Not with such an insufferable, pompous, condescending, annoying, sophomoric, oafish twit like me cheering them on. Have a nice day, Spatz Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 00:53:29 -0700 From: "Jonathan Thornton" <obscurebardo@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [Tango-L] Choreography To: tango-L@mit.edu <f9247e8a0607260053n8abdcf2mc49d4bc568fcf197@mail.gmail.com> Jake, I think discussions of choreography are appropriate. I disagree that all dancing is choreographed. I lean to the more formal definition of the term. One reason for that is that if you make the definition too broad it ends up a synonym for dance and you no longer have a term to make a distinction. On the other hand I'm personally not interested in dance choreography. I listen to music almost every single day. I hardly ever watch dance performances except those incidental to workshops and milongas. But choreography is clearly important to dance performance. And it's clear that you are very deeply into performing which is a good thing but not everyone dances for that reason. The issues that interest me in the dance are the very subtle but rich nuances of shared felt music expression. These are not of interest to everyone and there is no necessity for that. I once received a private email (and because of that I'm being very circumspect though would welcome the writer to share with the list the story) with an anecdote about a famous dancer telling the writer that her first teacher had her just walk for the first year. But I can well imagine that in that year of walking her appreciation and expression of the music grew in depth. She later developed into a fine and moving performer. I think it is a mistake, possibly a tragic mistake to emphasize choreography to beginning dancers, especially American beginning dancers who are unfamiliar with tango music. I think the emphasis should be on the music, on the feeling, and walking and the embrace and the very basics that allow a deeper appreciation for the felt experience of dancing tango. All these things will serve very well those who wish to go on to be performers. I would think it likely that we have all seen tango performances that were highly skilled dances but lacked the feeling of tango. Well trained dancers can be taught to dance tango moves in a short time. For some reason sometimes they don't learn the feeling of tango and that lack is visible in their performance. This is my preference, my opinion based on the experiences that I value. Jonathan Thornton -- "The tango can be debated, and we have debates over it, but it still encloses, as does all that which is truthful, a secret." Jorge Luis Borges Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 09:45:19 -0400 From: "WHITE 95 R" <white95r@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: [Tango-L] Choreography To: spatz@tangoDC.com, tango-L@mit.edu Hi everybody! With some trepidation I decided to wade into this choreography/improvisation debate. I think that what most tango dancers who can dance even just a little bit, realize that the show tango exhibitions consist of steps and movements that are practiced in a certain sequence and with a particular piece of music. This produces a more polished and interesting performance with some elaborate and intricate moves. The rehearsed performance looks good and it matches the music. If the performers are good enough it it's actually quite beautiful and shows great musicality and skill. If the dancers are not so good, the results can be less than impressive. Now, there is a widespread use of the word "improvised" as it refers to the tango. To my thinking, this means that it's unrehearsed and spontaneous. However, if you look at it a little more deeply, you can see that the "improvised" part applies only to the order and variety of the sub-choreographies that everyone has learned as the basic steps of tango. Practically everybody dances a short walk, a partial turn to the right, the "ocho cortado", a partial turn to the left, back ochos, etc. The more advanced dancers complete turns to both sides and perform other more difficult steps. Basically all those steps and moves are learned and rehearsed (choreographed ?) little sequences of steps. Most of us try to put these little sequences in places where the music seems to "fit" better. Basically, this is all the improvisation that I've seen in tango dancing. IMHO, to be totally improvised and spontaneous, the dance would have to be made from unplanned, unlearned, brand new movements. When I think of improvisation in the dance, I think of "contact improv" where things just sort of develop without preconceived notions (or motions). I think all tango dancers dance choreographies. Some of these are many very small choreographies more or less strung together in fairly predictable fashion done within the length of the song. The biggest difference between the "show" choreographies and the "improvised" dancing is that the show dancers practice and rehearse longer and more complicated sequences of tango steps which more rigidly follow the music. Respectfully, Manuel Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 09:59:00 -0700 From: "Jonathan Thornton" <obscurebardo@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [Tango-L] Choreography To: "WHITE 95 R" <white95r@hotmail.com> Cc: spatz@tangodc.com, tango-l@mit.edu <f9247e8a0607260959u7e9ea3d0hfef955383cd2886d@mail.gmail.com> Manuel, I really appreciate what you've written. I'm going to disagree a little bit and perhaps my points will make sense, perhaps not but you have made very helpful advances in this thread by looking more closely at improvisation. In Contact and other improvised dance forms there is a much wider range of improvisation allowed and often music is not used. Tango and other social dances allows only a restricted subset of movement. There is as you observe a big difference between the two improvisations. Have you done the follow hands exercise in your Contact classes? There occurred a key epiphany for me in class doing this. At the end talking about when either of us could initiate a lead I commented on something my partner did only to hear her say that she didn't do it, she thought I did it. I asked our teacher about this, and it was an experience other students expressed also and she answered that that "was the mind of the duet." Mind singular of duet plural. And I have experienced that dancing tango. For me dancing in the mind of the duet is the rare jackpot that keeps me dancing. We begin as infants with a very limited repertoire of movement. As we grow and develop we increase our capabilities and our repertoire. Learning to dance, play an instrument, cook, sew, etc. involves among other things adding to our repertoire of movements. I can't do back flips and so no surprise that my improvisations included no back flips. When we dance tango we use a selection of our repertoire. When we do improvisation we use a much larger selection from our repertoire. My view here differs from your statement: "MHO, to be totally improvised and spontaneous, the dance would have to be made from unplanned, unlearned, brand new movements. When I think of improvisation in the dance, I think of "contact improv" where things just sort of develop without preconceived notions (or motions)." In my contact classes we did "free improvisation" but we often did "scores" that had some sort of constraints such as an improvisation began at one wall and moved across the floor to the opposite wall. The music in social dance is for me (but not everyone!) a major constraint. I think the difference between contact improv is mostly a matter of degrees, but then I'm a lumper. (for those who are familiar with the lumper splitter dichotomy there was a discussion some years back here that you might be able to recover from the archive). Much more rarely in tango than in improv but it does happen that a new movement occurs, mostly mistakes but some of those mistakes become new moves. Improvisation involves learning and some of it can be formal but it's more about what you learn from your experience where as now tango is often a set of formally taught techniques but there are some of those in Contact also. "Some of these are many very small choreographies more or less strung together in fairly predictable fashion done within the length of the song." I'm not comfortable calling learned movements choreographies. Yes, one could speak of choreographing a pizza, or dress, or changing a tire. But then it is equally true to say that one spontaneously choreographs an improvisation. I find it more useful to keep choreography a formal term that is concerned with how something is presented to a viewing audience. If two people dancing together are consciously considering how they look to a viewer I would say they are choreographing their dance. But if two people dancing together are enjoying their interaction and the music using a shared constrained subset of movement in response to each other, the music, and floor conditions then I would say they are improvising their dance, not from scratch but from a select palate so to speak. Technique has importance in terms of visual impact but it also is significant in the way the dancers express and enjoy the music and dance for each other. I am quibbling here. It's only language as your over all perception makes sense to me. My motive for the quibbling is that I am very interested in the nature of what is spontaneous, which means I'm trying to understand the way our brains interact with each other through the dance particularly with the idea of nurturing "dancing in the mind of the duet" which for me is an incredible high. Now to cut to my bottom line. I have danced with some good partners who have very good visual impact and are musical in their visual expression of the music. They are very thoughtful and thinking all the time. But that is not why I dance nor what I want from the dance. I want to reach a state where my brain isn't relying on conscious direction to dance. The dancing takes place and my consciousness is free to savor the depth of my experience of the music and my partner and my experience. The dance that then takes place surprises me because it's not mine, it's not hers, it's the mind of the duet dancing us. Jonathan Thornton On 7/26/06, WHITE 95 R <white95r@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Hi everybody! > > With some trepidation I decided to wade into this > choreography/improvisation > debate. I think that what most tango dancers who can dance even just a > little bit, realize that the show tango exhibitions consist of steps and > movements that are practiced in a certain sequence and with a particular > piece of music. This produces a more polished and interesting performance > with some elaborate and intricate moves. The rehearsed performance looks > good and it matches the music. If the performers are good enough it it's > actually quite beautiful and shows great musicality and skill. If the > dancers are not so good, the results can be less than impressive. > > Now, there is a widespread use of the word "improvised" as it refers to > the > tango. To my thinking, this means that it's unrehearsed and spontaneous. > However, if you look at it a little more deeply, you can see that the > "improvised" part applies only to the order and variety of the > sub-choreographies that everyone has learned as the basic steps of tango. > > Practically everybody dances a short walk, a partial turn to the right, > the > "ocho cortado", a partial turn to the left, back ochos, etc. The more > advanced dancers complete turns to both sides and perform other more > difficult steps. Basically all those steps and moves are learned and > rehearsed (choreographed ?) little sequences of steps. Most of us try to > put > these little sequences in places where the music seems to "fit" better. > Basically, this is all the improvisation that I've seen in tango dancing. > > IMHO, to be totally improvised and spontaneous, the dance would have to be > made from unplanned, unlearned, brand new movements. When I think of > improvisation in the dance, I think of "contact improv" where things just > sort of develop without preconceived notions (or motions). I think all > tango > dancers dance choreographies. Some of these are many very small > choreographies more or less strung together in fairly predictable fashion > done within the length of the song. The biggest difference between the > "show" choreographies and the "improvised" dancing is that the show > dancers > practice and rehearse longer and more complicated sequences of tango steps > which more rigidly follow the music. > > Respectfully, > > Manuel > > > -- "The tango can be debated, and we have debates over it, but it still encloses, as does all that which is truthful, a secret." Jorge Luis Borges Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 10:12:03 -0700 From: "Igor Polk" <ipolk@virtuar.com> Subject: [Tango-L] Choreography. And Improvisation. To: <tango-L@mit.edu> Manuel, "rehearsed" does not mean "choreographed". Choreographing - it is not rehearsing ! It is creating a dance to the certain music ( most of the time ) before the performance. CREATING ! It is not just defining the sequence of steps. It is making the dance interesting, making connections between elements, crating beginning, the body of the dance and the end. It is introducing an idea, a message into the dance. It is staging it: making it look best to fit the place it is danced. There are dozens of thing to consider, including where light is falling at ! This is an art by itself. Sorry, I put my humble opinion here - I am not a specialist, but I am sure you will find plenty of information about it. It looks like the word "Choreographed" is used as an antonym to the "improvised", but this is not correct. I can not find an antonym to "improvised", may be other who know the language better then me can tell. It is difficult because there are many levels of improvisation. Improvisation is not "any move can happen next". Then, what move is the best? There are building blocks of many levels which an improviser uses. Improvisation in dancing is rather a skill and art of modifying the pattern, or familiar technique, changing rhythmical pattern, mixing elements, changing style, body ways to do things, to react, and to affect. It is looking for something new, and this new does not necessarily has to be big! Very little. And in the ocean of sensitivity what is tango it is quite enough to make a new sea. You said it so well: the peak of improvisation is "where things just develop". Dancers do not make the dance anymore, it grows, develops itself. But dancers should be ready, be able to follow the demands of it. Igor. Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 10:43:42 -0700 (PDT) From: NANCY <ningle_2000@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [Tango-L] Choreography To: Jonathan Thornton <obscurebardo@gmail.com>, WHITE 95 R <white95r@hotmail.com> Cc: spatz@tangodc.com, tango-l@mit.edu I don't understand all the hair splitting over definitions. This follower certainly knows the difference. In choreography, I KNOW what my partner and I will do - it has been planned, rehearsed, practiced. In improvisation, I do not know. The only thing I am sure of is that there will be an embrace ( of some kind) and music ( well, maybe not) and from there on it is all going to be a lovely surprise. As for compas and cadencia: in Buenos Aires tango classes and as used by dancers, 'compas' means the beat and 'cadencia' means the rhythm. But of course, if Pliny the Elder defines it otherwise, then that is what we should all be using............................bullcaca! And when someone refers to tango as an 'Art', that tells me they need an audience to appreciate it. I don't. I just need a partner and the music and his soul....is that too much to ask? ;-) Nancy! Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 14:08:08 -0400 From: "WHITE 95 R" <white95r@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: [Tango-L] Choreography To: obscurebardo@gmail.com Cc: spatz@tangodc.com, tango-l@mit.edu >Manuel, > >I really appreciate what you've written. I'm going to disagree a little bit >and perhaps my points will make sense, perhaps not but you have made very >helpful advances in this thread by looking more closely at improvisation. First of all Jonathan, thank you for the kind response. I said that I waded into this with some trepidation. I expected to get "set straight" with lots of caps and exclamation points ;-), so I do appreciate kindness. The reason I wrote as I did is that I get a feeling that this discussion is a lot like splitting hairs or discussing semantics. I've noticed that there are very few people who dance tango choreographies. AFAIK, only tango dance performances make use of choreographies. I've never seen anyone dance a choreography in the social dance scene except perhaps in the occasional performance break in a milonga. My wife, Ronda, and I have performed tango exhibitions many times, and even in those cases, our performances were what people call "improvised". We've only worked on a very few choreographies which included several dancers and some sort of theme. I love to dance as much as I can and I can safely say that I never know what move I'll lead next (from whatever options I might have at the time) during a dance. By definition I guess all my dancing is improvisational, but I do think that it's made from a core set of steps, movements or weight changes that I do all the time. These small pieces get strung together in various forms during any one dance, by it's extremely predictable when and how these parts occur. Let me explain. As I'm dancing , the music dictates exactly when and how I must move. In reality, I'm pretty much compelled by the music to move, stop (briefly), accentuate or de-emphasize a movement, etc. I'm probably quibbling here, but when I hear "improvised", I imagine some sort of wonderful flow or diverse but artfully, smoothly segued movements, perhaps not generally seen as tango steps.... Granted, this is just what I think, because I really don't think much about the dancing of tango itself. For me, the experience is rather simple. I hear music that inspires me to move, I take a partner and express my interpretation of the music through movement with my partner. The movements I use come from a rather limited repertory of steps further constrained by the music. I often wonder who are these legions of "choreographed tango dances" that so many people in these forums are comparing themselves to. I also wonder why there is some sort of pejorative tone to the word "choreography".... I just don't get the gist or the reason for the discussions. Splitting hairs and discussing words is all fine and good. But I don't see the real theme or topic, or why there is any need to compare and judge the intrinsic value or superiority of "improvisational" vs. "choreographed" tango since one is almost exclusively in the realm of performance and the other is what people do in the social dance. With kind regards, Manuel Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 12:19:49 -0700 From: "Igor Polk" <ipolk@virtuar.com> Subject: [Tango-L] Choreography and why tango dancers should know what it is. To: <tango-l@mit.edu> I guess some of the "splitting hairs" comes from me. I'll try to make myself a little more clear on the subject. Only one example. Use of light. Even at the most respected tango gatherings like Portland Tango Festivals they do not use artistic light during performances ! Incredible !!! If you do, your shows, guys, will finally become of a professional level, and those dancers who know how to use it in their "predefined" "choreographies" will shine !!! And we will be delighted. Or they also think that choreography is just memorized steps? Using "Choreography" in a loose, metaphoric sense, greatly diminishes the efforts of the artists who entertain us at some performances. Knowing choreography is more than knowing how to dance.. it is a different art, art of making the dance ! Visual dance, yes. Movements of arms, expression of faces... do we learn it in tango classes? Everyone has a video camera now. Do you really think that when you record your potluck party you are making a movie? Paradoxical time we live in ! Our informational space ( art is there too ) is filled up so much with greatest performances of all times, so we are fed up with them ! Television made us take the art so easy, as if it is nothing, transparent... relaxing in a char, no even need to applause... Perfect background for advertisement ! And at the same time, anyone who can draw a line with paint calls himself an artist.. Igor Polk. PS. There is a strange idea ( widely expressed in books ) that Art requires audience. Absolutely not! Making art is a process of creation. During this process an "artist" experiences pleasure, trance, which is the value in itself. Not matter what you create: Mona Lisa, Relativity Theory, or perfect order in your file cabinet. We as tango dancers experience the same when we create our little dances right on the spot. PSS. Shortly, choreography is not a memorization, or repetition. It is an art ! Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 12:50:29 -0700 From: "Jonathan Thornton" <obscurebardo@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [Tango-L] Choreography. And Improvisation. To: "Igor Polk" <ipolk@virtuar.com> Cc: tango-l@mit.edu <f9247e8a0607261250q33e5e0b3u43ca17651ee44d38@mail.gmail.com> Igor, The first antonyms that came to mind were prepared or rehearsed. Wikipedia has this to say: Improvisation is the act of making something up as it is performed. This term is usually used in the context of music<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music>, theater <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theater> or dance<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dance> .https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Improvise. Think of the difference between the performance of a string quartet and a jazz quartet jamming. Performance tango is like the former and dancing social tango more like the latter. I'm still under the impression that choreography is generally referring to prepared, rehearsed performance though I think one could correctly speak of improvised choreography. Improvisation has a lot of meanings that are related but with nuances of distinction. Jonathan Thornton On 7/26/06, Igor Polk <ipolk@virtuar.com> wrote: > > > > It looks like the word "Choreographed" is used as an antonym to the > "improvised", but this is not correct. I can not find an antonym to > "improvised", may be other who know the language better then me can tell. > It > is difficult because there are many levels of improvisation. > > > -- "The tango can be debated, and we have debates over it, but it still encloses, as does all that which is truthful, a secret." Jorge Luis Borges Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 13:09:01 -0700 From: "Igor Polk" <ipolk@virtuar.com> Subject: Re: [Tango-L] Choreography. And Improvisation. To: "Jonathan Thornton" <obscurebardo@gmail.com> Cc: tango-l@mit.edu "I'm still under the impression that choreography is generally referring to prepared, rehearsed performance though I think one could correctly speak of improvised choreography. " I think the same. There is a paradox here as you mentioned. I'd like to emphasize that. The paradox here is that yes, it does not necessary to be rehearsed ! Knowing principles of creating a performance dance, an artist can make an improvisational dance right on spot, which is choreographed right in that moment. Choreography is an art of making the great-impact dance out of all sorts of dance elements taking in account the situation in the place of performance. Improvised or rehearsed it does not matter very much. It can be totally improvised dance, but at the same time highly choreographed. Choreography and improvisation are not antonyms, they are on different levels. Choreography lies on the level higher. You can not counterpose them. In a sense, a tango leader is the one who is a choreographer in tango dance. A choreographer who's audience and at the same time a principal dancer is his partner. Igor. -----Original Message----- From: Jonathan Thornton [mailto:obscurebardo@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 11:50 AM To: Igor Polk Cc: tango-L@mit.edu Subject: Re: [Tango-L] Choreography. And Improvisation. Igor, The first antonyms that came to mind were prepared or rehearsed. Wikipedia has this to say: Improvisation is the act of making something up as it is performed. This term is usually used in the context of music, theater or dance.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Improvise. Think of the difference between the performance of a string quartet and a jazz quartet jamming. Performance tango is like the former and dancing social tango more like the latter. I'm still under the impression that choreography is generally referring to prepared, rehearsed performance though I think one could correctly speak of improvised choreography. Improvisation has a lot of meanings that are related but with nuances of distinction. Jonathan Thornton On 7/26/06, Igor Polk < ipolk@virtuar.com> wrote: It looks like the word "Choreographed" is used as an antonym to the "improvised", but this is not correct. I can not find an antonym to "improvised", may be other who know the language better then me can tell. It is difficult because there are many levels of improvisation. -- "The tango can be debated, and we have debates over it, but it still encloses, as does all that which is truthful, a secret." Jorge Luis Borges Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 14:16:48 -0600 From: nina@earthnet.net Subject: Re: [Tango-L] Choreography and why tango dancers should know what it is. To: tango-l@mit.edu Hi, Igor and everyone, Igor, thank you! You have made a very important point about choreography. It is an art form. I wanted to add to your post a couple of components of choreography. The real art of choreography sets a framework that allows dancers to go very deep into the movement. Because dancers are free from creating the structure of the movement, they become free to explore not only their own expression and feeling, but also the energy of the movement. To make the energy speak, to make a stretched out leg much more than just a stretched out leg, takes an enormous amount of rigorous training of body, mind and spirit. It is an art of training the body to speak the language of the spirit. It demands authenticity and complete integrity, that is if it is to be done well. In tango choreography, again, if done well, the structure of choreography also allows dancers to explore and express the depth of their connection. It is an amazing feeling to not have to think about the structure of the combination, but to just feel the music, the partner, the dance, and be able to speak outwardly the inner feelings. It is an art form to be able to communicate to the audience accurately and purposefully what is going on internally in the dance of the couple, and at the same time allow the audience to see whatever it is that they want to see. It is an art of truth and illusion, fused as one. I am speaking in ideal terms. Very few choreographies reach this standard. But those that do, really shine. Just take a look at the choreographies of Julio Balmaceda and Corina de la Rosa! It is original and very creative work. And if you would like to see a modern dance choreography that is incredible, just rent the movie "White Nights" one more time with Baryshnikov dancing "Young Man and Death" (the music of Bach)at the beginning of the movie. That was an amazing dance. Memorable. Choreography is like tango - it is not what it looks like to the uninitiated. Happy dancing to you, Nina Quoting Igor Polk <ipolk@virtuar.com>: > > PS. There is a strange idea ( widely expressed in books ) that Art requires > audience. > Absolutely not! Making art is a process of creation. During this process an > "artist" experiences pleasure, trance, which is the value in itself. Not > matter what you create: Mona Lisa, Relativity Theory, or perfect order in > your file cabinet. > > We as tango dancers experience the same when we create our little dances > right on the spot. > > > PSS. Shortly, choreography is not a memorization, or repetition. It is an > art ! > > > > This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 19:55:05 EDT From: Euroking@aol.com Subject: Re: [Tango-L] Choreography To: obscurebardo@gmail.com, tango-L@mit.edu Someone once said, referring to military battle plans, and I am paraphrasing, the best military plans are great until the first shot is fired. This is how, IMO I see the difference between choreography, which I totally degree is an art, and is created and executed for artistic effect. I also recognize that some have defined choreography as any planned sequence of steps or movements. In a stage performance, I would recognize both connotation of the word to be accurate. The former being a success and the latter not so successful. What I am having trouble accepting is that any sequence of steps is choreography, no matter how few. I will buy the fact beginners will dance or try to dance a choreographed routine, as that is all they know. They have been taught a series of sequences. They can transition from one to another and that is the limit of their experience. Until they realize that Tango is a series of steps, a walk if you will, and that at any point they are able to go in any direction (well almost) there is a choreographic element to Tango. Also, again looking at the connotation of Choreography, what is the length of the sequence, is an 8 step basic Choreography? Is a Salida Choreography? On the other hand is the random or unpreplanned linking of these sequences improvised choreography. Back to my military analogy, in a social context, preplanned or choreographed sequences will only be successful until the second note is played. At that point of time you are on your own and need to adapt your dance to the other dancers and the music. The other dancers are the variables that limit the preplanning of the dance and the music is the constant you return to. Simply put, for me. Choreography is a preplanned sequence of steps that are rehearsed and known and expected by both dancers. Improvisation is the sequence that develops step by step depending on the music, your partner and the other dancers on the floor. Any mincing of semantics beyond that to me, at my early stage of learning is not useful. I will and do recognize that the discussions preceding this are enlightening and in many cases intellectually enticing, they do not help relative to understanding and dancing Tango. Just some thoughts, Bill in Seattle. In a message dated 7/26/2006 12:54:07 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, obscurebardo@gmail.com writes: Jake, I think discussions of choreography are appropriate. I disagree that all dancing is choreographed. I lean to the more formal definition of the term. One reason for that is that if you make the definition too broad it ends up a synonym for dance and you no longer have a term to make a distinction. On the other hand I'm personally not interested in dance choreography. I listen to music almost every single day. I hardly ever watch dance performances except those incidental to workshops and milongas. But choreography is clearly important to dance performance. And it's clear that you are very deeply into performing which is a good thing but not everyone dances for that reason. The issues that interest me in the dance are the very subtle but rich nuances of shared felt music expression. These are not of interest to everyone and there is no necessity for that. I once received a private email (and because of that I'm being very circumspect though would welcome the writer to share with the list the story) with an anecdote about a famous dancer telling the writer that her first teacher had her just walk for the first year. But I can well imagine that in that year of walking her appreciation and expression of the music grew in depth. She later developed into a fine and moving performer. I think it is a mistake, possibly a tragic mistake to emphasize choreography to beginning dancers, especially American beginning dancers who are unfamiliar with tango music. I think the emphasis should be on the music, on the feeling, and walking and the embrace and the very basics that allow a deeper appreciation for the felt experience of dancing tango. All these things will serve very well those who wish to go on to be performers. I would think it likely that we have all seen tango performances that were highly skilled dances but lacked the feeling of tango. Well trained dancers can be taught to dance tango moves in a short time. For some reason sometimes they don't learn the feeling of tango and that lack is visible in their performance. This is my preference, my opinion based on the experiences that I value. Jonathan Thornton -- "The tango can be debated, and we have debates over it, but it still encloses, as does all that which is truthful, a secret." Jorge Luis Borges Tango-L mailing list Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 20:39:09 -0700 (MST) From: Huck Kennedy <huck@eninet.eas.asu.edu> Subject: Re: [Tango-L] Choreography To: tango-l@mit.edu ACK!! I've exceeded the byte limit (not by much, mind you), gotten a rejection notice, and am now officially a rambler! Splitting into two parts... Part one: Jake Spatz writes: > Huck Kennedy wrote: > > "TangoDC.com" <spatz@tangoDC.com> writes: > > > >> Er, guys... ? > >> > >> What's the big deal about syncopation? It's a rather simple > >> affair of superimposed patterns... > >> > > Many dancers struggle with this concept from > > the musician's world. If they don't already feel > > a bit chagrined about that, no doubt your > > dismissively informing them it's just "a rather > > simple affair" will hammer it home for them. > > Wasn't it you who dismissed the topic in the act of raising it? Yes... Do you really think that it irrevocably follows logically that that means I share your posted view that the topic is simple, one that any idiot should be able to grasp with a quick trip to the bookshelf for a dictionary? I immediately dismissed the topic after "raising" it (as a joke) because, in view of the group's having thrashed through the subject several times before about how dancers misuse what is originally a musician's term, the consensus mood of the group was to bury that particular dead horse. That's why my pretending to bring it up again was meant to be funny. As a matter of fact, I even got one private email that said the writer was about to strangle me until he saw that I was just joking about raising the topic again. > Maybe my memory's off... Anyway, we've actually been having an informative > discussion about music, for once, while you were off doing something > else. You should join us next time, if the topic appeals to you. It's > just like chatting at a cocktail party, except there aren't any drunk > stupid people who butt in. I notice you're careful not to give me any guarantees nobody will be rambling on endlessly on cocaine. > >> Hasn't everyone cultivated the habit of looking > >> up words and ideas they're not clear about? > >> > > Three points: First of all, many dancers don't > > even realize they need to look up the word, because > > misusage in the dance world is so rife that they > > don't even suspect they're using the word wrong in > > the first place. Heck, many instructors misuse it, > > so how can the students be blamed? Secondly, even > > when they do become aware that there's a problem, > > without a musical background, the concept can be > > difficult to grasp from just reading a dictionary > > definition. > > Wait a second here... I'm confused. Are you defending students' right to > ignorance, or attacking teachers' lack of that right? How did whatever conceptual filter you use when you read come up with that nonsense? I'm saying first that if you don't realize you're misusing a word, you're probably not going to take Jake's admittedly fine advice and go running for the dictionary because you aren't even aware you have a problem with the word in the first place (I should hope you at least understood that much); and secondly, once many dancers do become aware that their conception of the word is wrong, just looking up the word in a dictionary may not correct the misunderstanding, because it is a technical term in the musical field, and thus may be difficult for a dancer to master just from reading the technical definition. He may need to be shown some concrete examples in the real world, and have someone suddenly stop the music, rewind a bit, play a snippet again and point out, "There! Those notes are syncopation, and here's why." Bear in mind that many dance students have problems with just basic rhythm, never mind syncopation--witness how many group classes start out with the instructor forcing everyone to clap hands to just basic rhythms. Now where do you get "defending students' right to ignorance" out of that? And how does my pointing out that even many instructors misuse the term translate to "attacking teachers' lack of that right?" As I clearly stated, it's hard to blame students for misusing the term when so many teachers also misuse it, in other words, when the students are being taught wrong definition of the term. That's all I meant. > For my part, I > haven't heard a teacher misuse the term "syncopation" yet, You're lucky then. I've heard many, if not most dance teachers do so, including Argentines. From what I've seen, the Argentines usually pick it up after coming over here and being erroneously informed by dancers, trying to help them with their English, that syncopation means "going quick-quick instead of slow," or perhaps the slightly more exotic and mysterious, "to do something not usually expected." You'll hear stuff like, "In the left basic step, the man syncopates on the salida, the woman on the cruzada, and both on the tango close" when they just mean "does a quick-quick." A classic example of movement that a musician would label "syncopated" is the basic step in international-standard ballroom rumba, where you step and change weight on two, three, and four, but not one: Two-three-fourrr (hold and just swivel body through one) Two-three-fourrr (hold and just swivel body through one) etc. A musician would say, wow, cool, that movement is syncopated. But the irony is, a ballroom instructor would almost invariably reply no, silly little musician (perhaps patting him on the head), that's not syncopation, because it's what's expected, it's the basic step, for crying out loud! Syncopation is when you do a quick-quick when it's not expected, like to change feet to get into shadow position in a waltz! > But far more serious than these misuses, to me, is the fact that I > seldom hear anyone talking about this stuff, correct in their > particulars or not. We ought to be talking about it all the time. Well as one of the ones who originally brought up the topic years ago, you won't get any complaint out of me. Which should give you further background as to why my joke was meant to be funny, as in, "Oh no, not that syncopation crap again, Huck." (Or Jonathan. Or Philip Seyer--yes, he's posted here on the subject as well. Surprise!) > > And thirdly, you can really be an insufferable > > pompous ass at times. Maybe this plays real well > > in person, but at this point, it's already starting > > to wear a little thin in print. > > Dude, every Aries is a pompous ass. Really? I don't know about that, but it does explain the urgency with which you tend to want to drag people out of their lethargy and into discussion. Which can be a good thing--every group should have at least one Aries to make sure something new at least gets off the ground and started from time to time. > I just go the extra mile. Conceded. Pun not intended. > >> As for your usage of "choreography," Trini, you're perfectly correct. > >> > > Which is why we hear social tango dancers talking > > about their choreography all the time. Not. At least other > > than in a derogatory fashion. As in a practica, "let's > > mix some variation into this so I can tell you're > > really following my lead and not just doing choreography." > > > >> The word, as a technical term in dance, has both the meaning you've > >> been using (general selection of elements) and the one more commonly > >> thought correct by some members of this list (premeditated, rehearsed, > >> and executed program). A quick look at Answers.com or Wikipedia will > >> verify this, > > > > It most certainly will not. The first four entries > > of answers.com, to wit, American Heritage, Houghton Mifflin, > > Word Tutor espindle, and WordNet, do not mention Trini's > > usage at all. And even the fifth and last entry, Wikipedia, > > is a far stretch at best ("the art of making structures in > > which movement occurs"--that's vague enough that one could > > label almost anything "choreography," including building > > a basketball arena, and is thus a garbage definition). > > Definition 1., a., at Answers.com, for "choreography," reads: "The > art of creating and arranging dances or ballets." Now, in Argentine > tango, excepting most _stage_ performance, that "creation" is > allegedly impromptu and improvised. Yes, as opposed to choreographed. Consider the following salsa article that can be found on the internet (https://tinyurl.com/s2qfe). It is called, "On Learning the Passion of Salsa: Social Dancing vs. Choreography." The way all the dancers in the article use the word "choreography" coincides with my and Jonathan's interpretation and not your vague over-generalized one. I quote various relevant excerpts without noting skipped text: On to Part two! Huck Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 20:54:01 -0700 (MST) From: Huck Kennedy <huck@eninet.eas.asu.edu> Subject: Re: [Tango-L] Choreography To: tango-l@mit.edu Part 2 of 2: Consider the following salsa article that can be found on the internet (https://tinyurl.com/s2qfe). It is called, "On Learning the Passion of Salsa: Social Dancing vs. Choreography." The way all the dancers in the article use the word "choreography" coincides with my and Jonathan's interpretation and not your vague over-generalized one. I quote various relevant excerpts without noting skipped text: The night-clubs challenge the student dancer differently than dancing a choreographed routine before an audience. Ideally, a good salsa dancer should be capable in both social dancing and performance, but each dancer will build, or prefer to build, their foundation differently. Alexandra Sell <https://www.mambopro.com/> commented, "Social dancing allows you to develop lead & follow skills, strengthen reflexes, improvise and increase attentiveness to the music. Choreography, on the other hand, trains stage presence, sharpness, technique, ability to handle pressure, etc." It is arguable, however, that dancers who mainly reserve their dancing to performance or choreographed classes lack spontaneity and adaptability, whereas, dancers who mainly reserve their dancing to the social floor never learn any new moves, lack growth--and are often there for other reasons than salsa. "However," she added, "I never lose sight of what salsa really is: a street dance. Social dancing is unquestionably better at feeling the music and connecting with your dance partner. I don't see how choreography can do that. After all, that is what it is--choreography, so the moves do not have to be lead-able. As with everything else, repeatedly training the same routine and music is bound to become monotonous, tedious and lose its spontaneity." Everybody learns differently, according to Erika Sanchez from Grupo America <https://www.grupoamerica.net/> (Vancouver, Canada ). Some people learn to feel the music better in choreography because the timing and execution has to be perfect. "These dancers not only follow a routine based on counts but on the changes and highlights of a song, plus they learn the feeling of each piece when the choreographer explains it." "Performance and choreography is taking what you learned to the next level and treating salsa as more than a past-time or hobby," according to Arthur Ga of Salsa Picante Dance Company <https://www.salsapicantedanceco.com/> (Toronto, Canada). Natalie Reis of AusLatin Productions <https://www.auslatin.com/>, (Australia) responded, "Salsa is first and foremost meant to be enjoyed between two people moving with the music. There is nothing quite like the almost universal language of dancing salsa socially with a friend or complete stranger from across the globe, and knowing that you are both so in tune with one another that you have, in fact, become the music. It is true magic." "I feel strongly that one should develop social dance skills to a fairly competent level before moving into choreography," she added. (end of quotes) So I would submit to you, Jake, that this is how the word "choreography" is used in everyday life in the real dance world, and that your over-generalizing of a rather simplistic one-line dictionary definition of "The art of creating and arranging dances or ballets" to include virtually all dance movement would tend towards the sophomoric. :) Now you may argue that my particular choice of article to quote was a begging the question of sorts--well, then okay, if you find some passages that clearly shows your use of the word "choreography" to be mainstream in the everyday workaday dance world, then I'll back off a bit. :) > Furthermore, the _short_ bibliography at the end of the Wikipedia entry > refers to a title called: "Choreography: A Basic Approach Using > Improvisation." This leads me to believe that there IS such a thing, Maybe that just means one might strive to think outside the box when designing dance routines and take risks. Maybe it means you can design a performance where not everything is planned in advance. It doesn't necessarily mean that all improvisation can be labelled "choreography." I think Jonathan raised an excellent point: If we label just anything that happens on the dance floor "choreography," then the word just morphs towards being a synonym of "dancing" and loses its usefulness as a tool of distinguishing one kind of dance (more or less spontaneous) from another (planned out in detail in advance). > >> as will browsing just about any (gasp) book on dance as an art form. > >> > > Do comic books count? > > I really can't pin down whether you're being a snob or a philistine in > this comment-- care to set me on course? Or are you just razzing me > because I'm a sometime cartoonist? or because I've published newspaper > reviews of comic books? HAVE you got a point? What are most comics > packed with, if not choreography? Wow, you've applied way too much of your own circumstances to that one (I'm trying to refrain from saying, "Everything isn't all about you, Jake" but, alas, I'm failing). It was just a humorous sarcastic self-deprecating rejoinder to your insulting suggestion that some of us would never dream of tearing ourselves away from NASCAR and Three Rocks From The Sun long enough to (gasp) pick up a book and actually read it and not just look at the pictures. > Others interested in this tangent: Isn't Dave Sim's art in "Jaka's > Story" (Cerebus, vol. 5) quite good at capturing the iconic appeal of > dance? The reactions in those scenes of the onlooking peanut gallery > (rapture) may be comic relief, but they're insightfully in keeping with > Paglia's observations on how fully and intensely audiences react to > dance as an art form. > > If this is too heady for anyone out there, skip it. It won't be on the test. Dear God in Heaven, you can't stop, can you. If we actually did meet in person (email can be so misleading) at a cocktail party, no doubt there'd be no in between, I'd either take to you immensely, or run away screaming, I'm not quite sure which. Guess I have something to look forward to. :) > > Could you possibly be more of a condescending, > > annoying, sophomoric twit? Why yes, I suppose you > > could go back to reciting fresh bon mots from Oscar > > Wilde with each posting. Oh my God, what have I just > > done. > > Sure. Let me start by attributing to myself your post, that used > "syncopation" to joke-butt those who have trouble understanding it. That > was plenty condescending, you big teddy bear, you. I should hope that by now with the further input I've given you, it should be clear that that was not what I was doing. And I still claim it was what you were doing (perhaps unwittingly, I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt): After I pointed out that many dancers without a musician's background struggle with the term, you responded with a cavalier, what's the big deal, syncopation is a simple concept, don't they have dictionaries, and if they do, don't they bother to use them? You're claiming that isn't condescending and insulting to the folks who are struggling to understand the term? What are they supposed to think after reading that, besides, "Wow, I guess I must be really stupid then for struggling with what is apparently supposed to be such a simple term to grasp." > >> I really do advise everyone > >> > > Do you now, laddie? > > > >> to look this garbage up Before they start > >> pontificating about "respecting words" and all that. > >> > > Okay, part of that is my bad. I'd already > > responded on the subject of choreography, and the sole > > purpose of my responding to Igor's posting about > > respecting words was to make the joke about syncopation > > (a subject previously fretted over in this forum several > > times in the past, but of course you had no way of > > knowing that); but on re-reading that post, I see now > > that it could easily be misconstrued (well, by the > > shallow reader, anyway) to look like I was actually > > pontificating ("Take that, Trini, you ignorant slut!") > > instead of just using Igor's line as a straight line > > with which to lead into my joke. > > It was so funny too. No need to get snippy about it, Jake, rest assured I have no plans to give up my day job, but as I said before, you couldn't be expected to see any humor in it not having been aware of the history of the group's discussions on syncopation. > But to clarify my "pontification" remark: I wasn't > intending to target you. That, Huck, is why I quoted, er, IGOR's diction. And you also quoted my quoting of Igor, and snipped out my joke. So it looked like what I'd done was just pile onto Trini ("I wholeheartedly agree, Igor") instead of quote that line just to lead into the joke. And besides, you said, "I really do advise everyone to look up this garbage before they [emphasis mine] start pontificating about 'respecting words' and all that." Sounds like your target was more than just Igor to me. After all, the fact that you missed my joke (no matter how poor it was) would imply that you believed I did agree with Igor. You can't have it both ways. > As for the content of your prior post on choreography, here's an > excerpt, halved: > > (HALF ONE): "... I think it's more realistic to think of the allowable > improvisational building blocks to be a bit more than a single step." > > I personally disagree with you on this. I believe every step (to confine > ourselves to the step as a unit) is the result of several other > improvised (or not) factors, determining or describing its particular > qualities. And I believe that full improvisation requires the dancers to > actively choose those qualities, crafting every single of them, so that > the outcome step is uniquely carved into space. I believe this, I strive > to do it in my dance, and I try to teach aspects of it to my students. > > That is: I believe we must improvise More than our choreography. We must > improvise our entire dance. Ignoring all disagreements about the meaning of "choreography," I agree with your conclusion, but I don't agree with how you got there. If I decide to do a right giro, I might improvise all sorts of emotion from the music and subtle movement-nuance into it as I do it, but I've still made up my mind to do a complete circle, and will do so barring any unforseen circumstances like someone coming crashing in to smash into me from the wings. Gee, I hope that not considering changing my mind and doing something else instead halfway around (unless forced to by outside influence or perhaps the follower doing something other than I thought I was leading) doesn't make me too insufferably boring! :) The thing is, I'm not either Superman or Gustavo, and women tend to like clear definition and confidence in a lead, so if I try to always be improvising all the way down to the atomic or even sub-atomic level at all times to the point of being too vague and tentative, it becomes more of a liability than an asset to the partnership. Especially if we're in the outer lane trying to be part of a cohesive ronda-animal and not just lollygagging about independently by ourselves in the middle. > I'm curious about what others think, however, because I like the free > exchange of ideas, and I'm always open to rethinking and revision. I'm > also interested in non-improv choreography, but that seems to be > universally hated here, except by the few people who've actually tried > it. Has anyone actually said that? I thought the prevailing sentiment was that people just didn't like it at the milonga. I for one think it's great fun to work on a choreographed routine and perform it. Or even just practice it with nobody looking. > But silly me for imagining this is the place for open talk. > I should really find a forum somewhere. This strikes me as approaching a martyr complex, Jake. I've seen plenty of response to your discussions here from many people (including from me several times before this). > {HALF TWO): "If after determining it should be perfectly safe to do so, > a leader decides to lead a simple little right-turn giro in place, should > he be accused of doing choreography? I don't think so." > > I absolutely do. I accuse myself of it all the time. This dance, in my > opinion, is best when it's rich and complex at every instant. And I'm > after the best, slowly though I plod. If you're not, that's perfectly > fine. I think we're all after that, but there are other considerations. In a crowded milonga, my partner expects me to not do anything to put her in a position to get physically hurt, to not in any way bother any other couple, and to lead something to the music. Under circumstances like that, I'm a bit more concerned with survival than always striving to find the ultimate tango experience in each and every moment. So I hope you won't judge me too harshly if I don't go for the gold ring at all times. At least for now. I'm going for it more and more. > So far, most of them seem to want that capacity. They're hungry for it. > I'll tell them, Huck, that you think it's okay if they stick to routine, Oh come on, Jake, that's an awful lot to extrapolate and saddle me with from my simple statement that I don't think deciding to do a little right giro is worthy of being accused of doing choreography. I beg you to kindly step down off your soap box. You asked once what people strive for in tango. One thing I strive for as a leader is to move my thought processes while dancing as much as possible from my left, logically calculating brain, to my right intuitive and instinctive one. I think that pretty much jibes with your goals. Huck Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 10:31:24 -0500 From: "Lois Donnay" <donnay@donnay.net> Subject: Re: [Tango-L] Choreography To: <tango-l@mit.edu> "The truly creative mind in any field is no more than this: A human creature born abnormally, inhumanly sensitive. To him... a touch is a blow, a sound is a noise, a misfortune is a tragedy, a joy is an ecstasy, a friend is a lover, a lover is a god, and failure is death. Add to this cruelly delicate organism the overpowering necessity to create, create, create -- so that without the creating of music or poetry or books or buildings or something of meaning, his very breath is cut off from him. He must create, must pour out creation. By some strange, unknown, inward urgency he is not really alive unless he is creating." -Pearl S. Buck, novelist, Nobel laureate (1892-1973) Lois Donnay Minneapolis, MN Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 20:46 +0100 (BST) From: "Chris, UK" <tl2@chrisjj.com> Subject: Re: [Tango-L] Choreography Cc: tl2@chrisjj.com Manuel > Practically everybody dances a short walk, a partial turn to the right, > the "ocho cortado", a partial turn to the left, back ochos, etc. ... > Basically all those steps and moves are learned and rehearsed > (choreographed ?) little sequences of steps. Most of us try to put these > little sequences in places where the music seems to "fit" better. > Basically, this is all the improvisation that I've seen in tango dancing. Good grief. That's utterly tragic. Where is this tango scene you speak of? > IMHO, to be totally improvised and spontaneous, the dance would have to > be made from unplanned, unlearned ... movements. Well, of course. That's what improvisation is. That's what makes tango so special. And so easy. And so creatively rewarding. Astrid wrote: > I have never understood why some teachers, esp. stage dancers I suppose, > teach by first explaining the step without the music, then have people > practise the step without music, and finally turn on the music. When I > ask, they say:"It is easier to do the step without the music first, > because with music you might get it all wrong and not be able to follow > the music." That's all too common here too. One teacher said "The music interferes with the step." Of course she's right. Only one can come first. Chris Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2006 16:21:07 +0100 (BST) From: Andrew RYSER SZYMA?SKI <arrabaltango@yahoo.co.uk> Subject: Re: [Tango-L] Choreography Cc: tl2@chrisjj.com --- "Chris, UK" <tl2@chrisjj.com> wrote: > Astrid wrote: > > > I have never understood why some teachers, esp. > stage dancers I suppose, > > teach by first explaining the step without the > music, then have people > > practise the step without music, and finally turn > on the music. When I > > ask, they say:"It is easier to do the step without > the music first, > > because with music you might get it all wrong and > not be able to follow > > the music." > > That's all too common here too. One teacher said > "The music interferes with > the step." > > Of course she's right. Only one can come first. > > Chris Actually, the step interferes with the music: when you learn a new move, you develop your kinaesthetic perception in order to establish new reflex connections, and any music played at the same time will be ignored. Once these connections are established and fluid enough there is a chance that the student will be able to open their ears and move to the music. Too often instructors, even world famous ones, ignore this basic physiological fact and insist on playing music from the very beginning. All they are successfully doing is blocking the ears of their students for many years to come, by encouraging the early [& therefore more permanent] development of a music-ignoring reflex. Paradoxically these are usually the ones who say they can tango to any music [but who, on closer inspection, can't dance to any]. Cheers, Andy. Andrew W. RYSER SZYMA?SKI, 23b All Saints Road, London, W11 1HE, 07944 128 739. Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 15:51:46 -0400 From: "TangoDC.com" <spatz@tangoDC.com> Subject: Re: [Tango-L] Choreography To: tango-L@mit.edu Hi Jonathan, I think you could say I'm going for a major in what you're talking about, and a minor in everything else. (I largely agree with Manuel's posts too.) That said: I've seen first-hand, and been told by others, that playing with full-on choreography actually Can improve one's improv skills. I think that happens because these things overlap a lot more than we like to admit. But I'm dead-set on improving, and find that exposing that overlap is a great way to identify where I need to improvise more, if I'm honestly going to call it improvisation. I.e., this critical writing has a big component of self-criticism. I'm not afraid to identify my shortcomings: I love it. It shows me exactly what to work on. Festival and milonga performers, to generalize, use improv choreo almost exclusively. But most of them limit their choreography (in Trini's use of the word) to give things a clearer sense of form, and to minimize the chances of something going wrong. Dancers also have preferred vocabularies in performance, and that's part of this overlap I'm talking about. I've noticed that Alex Krebs, for instance, more heavily favors sacadas in performance than he does in his social dancing, which has a richer, wider vocab. But the payoff is that his performances foreground rhythm very crisply. I think it's a conscious, aesthetic decision. Other dancers have other preferences. Jaimes, lately, seems to favor walking, and it gives his performances a sharpness and edge. Nick Jones is an example of someone who seems to improvise his choreography (again, in Trini's usage), and his every movement, much more than other young performers. He's after a different result, so it's a different compromise going in. All this has an impact on how articulate, how clearly presented the (improvised) performance is, as a whole. Also, I believe the visual impact of this dance isn't divorced from the feel of it. I used to think so, until I started watching videos of myself practicing. I saw all sorts of things going on; and then, paying attention to them in the dance, I found myself better able to fix minor problems. And we can tell, by eye, when a choreographed stage performance has great virtuosity (e.g., a rich and varied choreography), but No Soul, so there's obviously a value in studying the visual side of things. But to get back on course... When we learn a sequence, or a new move, we often learn it as planned choreography. The challenge is to make it improvised, and as spontaneous as possible. Performers who teach such sequences, such as Fabian sometimes does, are teaching, I think, actual choreography in the strict sense of the term-- bits and pieces from their rehearsed dances. If our foundation in lead-follow and connection is solid enough, we can discover new things about that foundation by using these complex, pre-mapped tools to explore it. Then we can break apart the prefab sequence, and recombine its various parts, a la Cubist collage, to which tango dancing in general has been compared rather frequently. I extend that comparison to the music as well, and I think the likeness is why we're discussing choreography and syncopation at the same time. In my private exchanges on this topic, and my conversations with friends, I've been seeing that followers have a different view of our dances than leaders do. Good followers pick up on our habits very well; they know which turns and elements we favor, which ones we don't, and how we tend to move. This is why something uncustomary (according to us leaders), even if led perfectly, can surprise them, and wake them up a little. My girlfriend knows full well that I don't improvise as much as I think I do; it may, at first, chafe me to hear her say it, but my mind is open enough to realize she's dead goddamn right. Nor do I believe this is a case of two lovebirds slugging it out. I've heard the same thing from others, about other dancers, about me, about everyone. I suspect that this is why many women who also lead, if their partners' opinions are to be trusted, have much less predictable footwork than the majority of men-- even than excellent men. I suspect they're dancing the way they wish we were dancing. That's what I see in DC anyway, as the theme that unites all the good female leaders, despite their other differences. My point being: Improv is a matter of degrees. Lots of gray in there. The line of dance is a shaping element. The music is. Our breathing is. I want to get in there with a zoom lens and see what else I can play with, for all my partners' benefit and for mine. This kind of hair-splitting, I believe, is where progress comes from, after you've reached a certain level of proficiency. Case in point: We've been talking about things in terms of "steps," out of convenience. But what's a step? Extension, weight-shift, collection... All three of these may be shaped creatively. You can collect not only with a different speed, but with a changing speed, with dynamism. And this is also where the follower can be very present as a maker of the dance, without breaking the connection or disrupting the lead. I've posted on that before, and have been teaching it recently. For a lot of dancers, it's proving to be a wake-up call, as it was for me. I'm not saying this stuff has to be "conscious." I'm saying it has to be there. I think there's a misunderstanding on this list about that... I realize that calculus is the branch of math that could describe what I'm getting at (if that helps anyone), but that's not how I feel it. I feel sculptural motion. Every single moment, including pauses (which have things going on), carved into space and time, engorged with presence. I rarely "think" in any normal way about what's going on when I'm on the dance-floor. But I reflect on it afterwards, and learn from myself, and come back to the dance with fewer rote habits. That's the empirical process informing my posts. And as a side-effect of my reflection, I now notice I've been dancing almost exclusively in close-embrace for about two weeks. I've been heading towards that, because it's easier to explore this kind of sculpting with it. Anyhow, I feel this has turned into a great discussion. I hope everyone else is getting something out of it too. (And I apologize for not elaborating earlier, as I was doing in private exchanges. It was stupid, and just held things up.) Jake Spatz DC Jonathan Thornton wrote: > Jake, > > I think discussions of choreography are appropriate. I disagree that > all dancing is choreographed. I lean to the more formal definition of > the term. One reason for that is that if you make the definition too > broad it ends up a synonym for dance and you no longer have a term to > make a distinction. > > On the other hand I'm personally not interested in dance choreography. > I listen to music almost every single day. I hardly ever watch dance > performances except those incidental to workshops and milongas. But > choreography is clearly important to dance performance. And it's clear > that you are very deeply into performing which is a good thing but not > everyone dances for that reason. > > The issues that interest me in the dance are the very subtle but rich > nuances of shared felt music expression. These are not of interest to > everyone and there is no necessity for that. > > I once received a private email (and because of that I'm being very > circumspect though would welcome the writer to share with the list the > story) with an anecdote about a famous dancer telling the writer that > her first teacher had her just walk for the first year. But I can well > imagine that in that year of walking her appreciation and expression > of the music grew in depth. She later developed into a fine and moving > performer. > > I think it is a mistake, possibly a tragic mistake to emphasize > choreography to beginning dancers, especially American beginning > dancers who are unfamiliar with tango music. I think the emphasis > should be on the music, on the feeling, and walking and the embrace > and the very basics that allow a deeper appreciation for the felt > experience of dancing tango. All these things will serve very well > those who wish to go on to be performers. > > I would think it likely that we have all seen tango performances that > were highly skilled dances but lacked the feeling of tango. Well > trained dancers can be taught to dance tango moves in a short time. > For some reason sometimes they don't learn the feeling of tango and > that lack is visible in their performance. > > This is my preference, my opinion based on the experiences that I value. > > Jonathan Thornton > > On 7/25/06, TangoDC.com <spatz@tangodc.com > <mailto:spatz@tangodc.com>> wrote: > > Hi Huck, > > Thanks for keeping the ball in the air on these topics. You've really > moved things forward, I gotta hand it to you. (More below!) > > Huck Kennedy wrote: > > "TangoDC.com" < spatz@tangoDC.com <mailto:spatz@tangoDC.com>> > writes: > > > >> Er, guys... ? > >> > >> What's the big deal about syncopation? It's a rather simple > >> affair of superimposed patterns... > >> > > Many dancers struggle with this concept from > > the musician's world. If they don't already feel > > a bit chagrined about that, no doubt your > > dismissively informing them it's just "a rather > > simple affair" will hammer it home for them. > > > Wasn't it you who dismissed the topic in the act of raising it? > Maybe my > memory's off... Anyway, we've actually been having an informative > discussion about music, for once, while you were off doing something > else. You should join us next time, if the topic appeals to you. It's > just like chatting at a cocktail party, except there aren't any drunk > stupid people who butt in. > >> Hasn't everyone cultivated the habit of looking > >> up words and ideas they're not clear about? > >> > > Three points: First of all, many dancers don't > > even realize they need to look up the word, because > > misusage in the dance world is so rife that they > > don't even suspect they're using the word wrong in > > the first place. Heck, many instructors misuse it, > > so how can the students be blamed? Secondly, even > > when they do become aware that there's a problem, > > without a musical background, the concept can be > > difficult to grasp from just reading a dictionary > > definition. > > > Wait a second here... I'm confused. Are you defending students' > right to > ignorance, or attacking teachers' lack of that right? For my part, I > haven't heard a teacher misuse the term "syncopation" yet, > although I've > heard a few dancers do so from time to time. On hearing a correction > start up, they all admit that they've got the term wrong. Perhaps you > know other people, but that's what I've seen. > > But far more serious than these misuses, to me, is the fact that I > seldom hear anyone talking about this stuff, correct in their > particulars or not. We ought to be talking about it all the time. > On the > level Sebastian is, actually, if we're going to call tango an art > form. > > If anyone out there is still Really confused, perhaps this page > can help... > https://www.lovemusiclovedance.com/syncopat.htm > >> Given that everyone reading this has Internet access: can't > >> you start today? > >> > > And thirdly, you can really be an insufferable > > pompous ass at times. Maybe this plays real well > > in person, but at this point, it's already starting > > to wear a little thin in print. > > > Dude, every Aries is a pompous ass. I just go the extra mile. > >> As for your usage of "choreography," Trini, you're perfectly > correct. > >> > > Which is why we hear social tango dancers talking > > about their choreography all the time. Not. At least other > > than in a derogatory fashion. As in a practica, "let's > > mix some variation into this so I can tell you're > > really following my lead and not just doing choreography." > > > >> The word, as a technical term in dance, has both the meaning > you've been using (general selection of elements) and the one more > commonly thought correct by some members of this list > (premeditated, rehearsed, and executed program). A quick look at > Answers.com <https://Answers.com> or Wikipedia will verify this, > >> > > It most certainly will not. The first four entries > > of answers.com <https://answers.com>, to wit, American Heritage, > Houghton Mifflin, > > Word Tutor espindle, and WordNet, do not mention Trini's > > usage at all. And even the fifth and last entry, Wikipedia, > > is a far stretch at best ("the art of making structures in > > which movement occurs"--that's vague enough that one could > > label almost anything "choreography," including building > > a basketball arena, and is thus a garbage definition). > > > Definition 1., a., at Answers.com <https://Answers.com>, for > "choreography," reads: "The art > of creating and arranging dances or ballets." Now, in Argentine tango, > excepting most _stage_ performance, that "creation" is allegedly > impromptu and improvised. That part of a dance which can be > written in > dance notation (before or after the dance) is commonly called > choreography by people who (a) can use dance notation, and (b) write > critically of dance. That social dancers almost never do either is > hardly a commandment forbidding that usage by me, Trini, or anyone > else > who wants it. > > Furthermore, the _short_ bibliography at the end of the Wikipedia > entry > refers to a title called: "Choreography: A Basic Approach Using > Improvisation." This leads me to believe that there IS such a thing, > commonly known among dancers (at least beyond the tango community), as > "improvised choreography." It might even be worth reading. If > anyone has > it, please let me know how it is. > >> as will browsing just about any (gasp) book on dance as an art > form. > >> > > Do comic books count? > > > I really can't pin down whether you're being a snob or a philistine in > this comment-- care to set me on course? Or are you just razzing me > because I'm a sometime cartoonist? or because I've published > newspaper > reviews of comic books? HAVE you got a point? What are most comics > packed with, if not choreography? > > Others interested in this tangent: Isn't Dave Sim's art in "Jaka's > Story" (Cerebus, vol. 5) quite good at capturing the iconic appeal of > dance? The reactions in those scenes of the onlooking peanut gallery > (rapture) may be comic relief, but they're insightfully in keeping > with > Paglia's observations on how fully and intensely audiences react to > dance as an art form. > > If this is too heady for anyone out there, skip it. It won't be on > the test. > > Could you possibly be more of a condescending, > > annoying, sophomoric twit? Why yes, I suppose you > > could go back to reciting fresh bon mots from Oscar > > Wilde with each posting. Oh my God, what have I just > > done. > > > Sure. Let me start by attributing to myself your post, that used > "syncopation" to joke-butt those who have trouble understanding > it. That > was plenty condescending, you big teddy bear, you. > >> I really do advise everyone > >> > > Do you now, laddie? > > > >> to look this garbage up Before they start > >> pontificating about "respecting words" and all that. > >> > > Okay, part of that is my bad. I'd already > > responded on the subject of choreography, and the sole > > purpose of my responding to Igor's posting about > > respecting words was to make the joke about syncopation > > (a subject previously fretted over in this forum several > > times in the past, but of course you had no way of > > knowing that); but on re-reading that post, I see now > > that it could easily be misconstrued (well, by the > > shallow reader, anyway) to look like I was actually > > pontificating ("Take that, Trini, you ignorant slut!") > > instead of just using Igor's line as a straight line > > with which to lead into my joke. > It was so funny too. But to clarify my "pontification" remark: I > wasn't > intending to target you. That, Huck, is why I quoted, er, IGOR's > diction. > > As for the content of your prior post on choreography, here's an > excerpt, halved: > > (HALF ONE): "... I think it's more realistic to think of the > allowable improvisational building blocks to be a bit more than a > single step." > > I personally disagree with you on this. I believe every step (to > confine > ourselves to the step as a unit) is the result of several other > improvised (or not) factors, determining or describing its particular > qualities. And I believe that full improvisation requires the > dancers to > actively choose those qualities, crafting every single of them, so > that > the outcome step is uniquely carved into space. I believe this, I > strive > to do it in my dance, and I try to teach aspects of it to my students. > > That is: I believe we must improvise More than our choreography. > We must > improvise our entire dance. > > I'm curious about what others think, however, because I like the free > exchange of ideas, and I'm always open to rethinking and revision. I'm > also interested in non-improv choreography, but that seems to be > universally hated here, except by the few people who've actually tried > it. But silly me for imagining this is the place for open talk. I > should > really find a forum somewhere. > > {HALF TWO): "If after determining it should be perfectly safe to > do so, a leader decides to lead a simple little right-turn giro in > place, should he be accused of doing choreography? I don't think so." > > I absolutely do. I accuse myself of it all the time. This dance, in my > opinion, is best when it's rich and complex at every instant. And I'm > after the best, slowly though I plod. If you're not, that's perfectly > fine. Not everyone will be-- certainly not all of my students will be. > I'm trying to better understand to what extent "choreography" is okay > for such talents, and to what extent I ought to push them to > develop a > more profound capacity for art. > > So far, most of them seem to want that capacity. They're hungry > for it. > I'll tell them, Huck, that you think it's okay if they stick to > routine, > but I can't guarantee they'll care for it much longer. Not with > such an > insufferable, pompous, condescending, annoying, sophomoric, oafish > twit > like me cheering them on. > > Have a nice day, > > Spatz > > > > > > -- > "The tango can be debated, and we have debates over it, > but it still encloses, as does all that which is truthful, a secret." > Jorge Luis Borges Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 03:53:02 +0900 From: "astrid" <astrid@ruby.plala.or.jp> Subject: Re: [Tango-L] Choreography To: <spatz@tangoDC.com>, <tango-L@mit.edu> > friends, I've been seeing that followers have a different view of our > dances than leaders do. And what would that be, for exemple? That some of you guys are not half as hot as you think you are? = ) (you answered part of my question further down in your posting) Good followers pick up on our habits very well; > they know which turns and elements we favor, which ones we don't, and > how we tend to move. This is why something uncustomary (according to us > leaders), even if led perfectly, can surprise them, and wake them up a > little. This Sunday I confirmed my suspicion which I have had for a long time: Cristian Andres Lopez, who dances and teaches at the milonga I go to, and who finished on 4th place in the tango mundial in BA last summer, has been trying to "outwit" me at the dance for a long time. Yesterday, again, he tried all kinds of steps in unusual directions, unexpected turns and so on while dancing with me (sometimes I admire his intelligence at inventing ever new variations). When I followed him in everything, he next danced a sequence in a fast milonga that was something like a chain of half turns, moving diagonally in one direction, which he kept speeding up more and more almost to dizzying point while still keeping in rhythm with the music, like he was trying to outrun me but he was leading me at the same time. I followed him in everything and we never lost the connection. At the end of the dance, he gave me one of his special smiles, like a flash from his magic blue eyes, full of sparks, and nodded at me. After I sat down, a memory came to me from a private lesson I once had with Carlos Gavito. He said:"Tango is like a constant struggle between a man and a woman. He moves, like a challenge to her, and she goes:'Look, I am already here!' He moves again, another challenge, and again she goes:' I am already here!' And so on. He tries to beat here at the game, but with a good dancer, he can't win, because the move of the woman always says:'See, I am already here!'" 3am and not tired Astrid (yeah, yeah, I'm showing off a little, I know.... It's fun) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 16:58:26 +0000 From: Jay Rabe <jayrabe@hotmail.com> Subject: [Tango-L] teaching technique vs. choreography To: <tango-l@mit.edu> I agree that technique (how to walk/step, posture, balance, how to lead, how to follow) is the most important thing to teach. But, some comments: 1. Learning technique is a life-long process. There are dozens if not hundreds of individual "technique principles." It's not something you learn once and then you're done. You may quickly learn some key points, but refinement and fine-tuning continues for years/decades. 2. "Pure" technique is pretty boring, and hardly qualifies as "dancing." Beginning students are anxious to start dancing. 3. Simple steps can be executed with pretty sloppy technique. More complicated steps/patterns require more refined, more precise technique. So you teach the technique that is necessary for whatever steps you're teaching. If you've got absolute beginners, you start with posture, and the basics of how to step/walk. Then you teach the embrace and rudimentary lead and follow for walking. Then you teach them the first "pattern" - simple walking and pausing in LOD in open embrace. But now at least they're dancing. If they have trouble, you refine wherever they're deficient, whether posture, embrace, or lead/follow technique. Then if you want to teach them turns, you refine the technique of leading, by teaching how to turn the torso/chest necessary to make the turn happen. If you want to teach close embrace, you refine the posture/body-mechanics technique of having intention forward, weight on balls of feet, and body held straight without tipping or bending. And so it goes. When you want to teach another step - ochos, check-steps, the cross, whatever - you refine the basic technique with the subtleties that are necessary for the new step/pattern. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that you can't effectively teach JUST technique without boring and losing all but the most die-hard students. You have to embed the technique instruction into a dancing context of some step or pattern. If you try to teach algebra as nothing but x's and y's, it gets pretty dry. A student is likely to ask what good is all this. If you show them how to calculate whether the 47oz package is cheaper than the 28oz package that's on sale, then it's got context. So if you teach technique in the context of a step, then it's got relevance and the student can immediately see that, hey, if I use the right technique, viola, the step works. J TangoMoments.com Need to know the score, the latest news, or you need your Hotmail?-get your "fix". https://www.msnmobilefix.com/Default.aspx Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 11:01:48 -0700 From: Tom Stermitz <stermitz@tango.org> Subject: Re: [Tango-L] teaching technique vs. choreography To: Tango-L <tango-l@mit.edu> Jay makes some good points. The most important point he makes is: "Beginning students are anxious to start dancing." This goes double for retaining the men. Men quit tango when they are frustrated or unconfident. Complicated patterns keep men in that frustrated, complicated mindset. It is not a personality flaw on the part of the man; rather the teacher who forgets the beginner mindset. Walking a beautiful woman around the room can be taught in a one hour class. He leaves excited, thrilled, confident, happy, successful. The SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT RULE for retaining men is to recognize this, and make sure they leave each class, each month, each workshop, each series feeling confident and successful. On Jan 18, 2008, at 9:58 AM, Jay Rabe wrote: > I agree that technique (how to walk/step, posture, balance, how to > lead, how to follow) is the most important thing to teach. But, some > comments: > > 1. Learning technique is a life-long process. There are dozens if > not hundreds of individual "technique principles." It's not > something you learn once and then you're done. You may quickly learn > some key points, but refinement and fine-tuning continues for years/ > decades. > 2. "Pure" technique is pretty boring, and hardly qualifies as > "dancing." Beginning students are anxious to start dancing. > 3. Simple steps can be executed with pretty sloppy technique. More > complicated steps/patterns require more refined, more precise > technique. > ... > I guess the point I'm trying to make is that you can't effectively > teach JUST technique without boring and losing all but the most die- > hard students. You have to embed the technique instruction into a > dancing context of some step or pattern. Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 15:41:05 -0800 From: "Igor Polk" <ipolk@virtuar.com> Subject: [Tango-L] What is choreography To: <tango-l@mit.edu> I am not going to talk much about it: take a book teaching choreography and read it. I am sure you will be surprised with the vastness of the material to know to be able to choreograph a dance. I am going to talk only about something related to the myth (yeah, a myth again ) that choreography is memorizing and doing patterns like a monkey. When you talk about a choreography you can choose from what position to think about it. >>From a position of a chorus member, from a position of a soloist, or from a position of a choreographer who during the performance sits behind the curtains. By the way, nobody assigns you a position in tango. You choose it yourself! Let examine the choreographer's view. For him choreography is highly creative and challenging process of creation of a great impact dance considering the abilities of involved dancers. It must satisfy the tastes of a broad range of public: from newbie to aficionados. From those who know nothing about it, and to experts who are always ego to criticize "No, No, this is not right, it sucks ! Another guy around the corner is better, I remember one performance 50 years ago. That was tango !", and at the same time introduce an idea in the dance and convey it successfully without words. Creating the dance, a serious chorographer might spend hours or even days per a minute of a dance IMPROVISING, trying this and that, looking for the cornerstones, and new moves, or well forgotten ones. It is especially difficult when the dance must portray the social dance. Because in this task, the chorographer much grab the essence of it, churning tons of material, and staying in this boundaries of the real staff, impress the public with an image and technique which makes an imprint in their memories forever. The less ambitious choreographer still has complex creative task, and a lot of skills and knowledge are necessary to create a wonderful dance which at least one person might enjoy - a partner. Chorus girls. Yeah, they just should memorize it and do it. Correctly and nicely. Again, nobody asks you to be a chorus girl. You choose yourself whom to be in tango ! Soloists, ah ! That is another matter ! They do not just move along memorized lines. They have roles ! They perform ! They are actors. They express feeling, grace, technique beyond average, and doing so they should make sure that the dance just flows out of them. Naturally and as if it is improvised. Otherwise public will not believe them and they will go back - to chorus. Have your ever tried to dance choreographed dance as if it is improvised? Try it.. And remember: a slightest mistake will blow everything. I am not making a discovery saying that to achieve that, besides everything else, they must truly feel the truth, and truly improvise on stage. In their own way. I hope now you will have more respect to great masters, and less respect for those who pretend to be them - who just dance simplistic memorized patterns and sell it to you as "a truly improvised social dance" Igor Polk. PS. Now the question might arise. What is improvisation. Someone dare to dive into answering? Continue to Climbing a Tree Embrace \| ARTICLE INDEX

4511 Choreography