2045 how different? - open, closed (was Just two styles)
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 18:01:59 +1100
From: Gary Barnes <garybarn@OZEMAIL.COM.AU>
Subject: Re: how different? - open, closed (was Just two styles)
> When I introduce tango to beginners I talk about two basic styles: open vs.
> close embrace.
I agree that this is a useful distinction, particularly for teachers in
deciding where you start with technique for beginners, and for students who
may have a preference for whatever reason.
> Where in open embrace follower has to rely significantly on eyes,
> intuition and significant pool of memorized steps (sequences), in
> close embrace all she need to learn is to listen with her torso,
> recognize slight shifts in balance and to step with confidence where
> her torso is led.
Personally, I sometimes enjoy the extra dimension of communication through
eye contact which open embrace allows, though the non-visual connection of
close embrace is also blissful.
The connection is different, without a doubt. I welcome discussion from
followers, especially those who enjoy both styles, as to how different it is
from that perspective.
However, for myself as a leader, I do not find that open embrace tango
necessarily involves sequences, looking at the feet, or a limitation in
musicality.
I do not find myself using sequences more, or using longer sequences, than I
do in close embrace. Both my open and close dances are built on individual
steps and pivots; and short one, two or three movement ideas - not long
sequences; though in both, sometimes the autopilot wins!
I definitely look down towards the floor (despite trying not to) more in
close embrace, even though there is nothing to see - a trait I notice in
videos of experts as well. The _need_ to see my partners feet depends on our
connection - with a strong frame in open embrace, I can _feel_ where her
feet land almost as precisely as in close embrace, but I can be aided by
peripheral vision as well.
To some extent, we are talking about extremes here - completely open vs
completely closed.
In 'completely closed' (I won't re-open the debate about what to call it!),
the lead comes from my torso, and I have relatively little opportunity to
adjust the frame, so my partner is always in front of my chest. It is very
easy to lead quick precise changes of weight, protect my partner from
crashes, etc.
In open embrace, I can adjust the frame, thereby allowing different
movements relative to my partner, but making fast changes of weight a bit
harder. There are many degrees between these two extremes, with different
possibilities.
In crowded conditions, I will always choose closed, unless my partner cannot
or does not wish to.
Its interesting that Oleh finds close embrace "more rhythmic (melodic)". For
me, staccato rhythms (whether heard in the melodies or in other elements)
are more easily expressed in close embrace, while more lyrical, legato
aspects (often found in melodies and in pauses) are easier in open. So
musically, I find open embrace better for some music, especially slower less
rhythmic tangos, and close embrace better for others, and especially for
milonga.
In the end, whatever works for you, your partner, and those around you!
good tangos to all
--
Gary Barnes
Canberra, Australia
"more tango, more often"
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 13:47:32 +0100
From: Eero Olli <eero.olli@ISP.UIB.NO>
Subject: Re: how different? - open, closed (was Just two styles)
Dear list members,
I would like to give a small comment on open style.
At 09:00 02.12.2003, Oleh Kovalchuke <oleh_k@HOTMAIL.COM>
wrote:
>One can dance tango either in open or in close embrace. Both styles
>share music and there is significant overlap in footwork, therefore
>to uninitiated spectators they look very much similar. However these
>are two entirely different dances from dancer perspective, the
>fundamental difference being the lead.
>
>Where in open embrace follower has to rely significantly on eyes,
>intuition and significant pool of memorized steps (sequences), in
>close embrace all she need to learn is to listen with her torso,
>recognize slight shifts in balance and to step with confidence where
>her torso is led. Hence the importance of eyes for open embrace to
>see where his or her foot is as opposed to posture for close embrace
>dance. To illustrate this importance observe how people dance in
>open and in close embrace at next milonga. Open embrace eyes down,
>close torso forward (better posture, by the way).
I disagree with the above presentation of the nature of the open style. I
enjoy both the open and the closed embrace, and find no fundamental
difference in the lead and follow. The description above sounds more like
the 'beginner' version of open style, and not something one would actually
want to dance.
I prefer the same type of focus on weight and center both open and closed
embrace. The most important change is which bodyparts are in contact. There
is no reason to make communication in open style any poorer than in closed
style (or why one should rely on eyes, intuition, or memorized patterns).
However, I must to admidt that in open style it requires a lot of
sensitivity in hands to be able to read each other's bodies with sufficient
presision. It is very tempting to rely on a rigid frame, which kills the
sensitivity and thus one can end up with a boring and mechanic dance.
However, just because it happens, does not mean that it should be accepted
as a valid description of open style. I rather view this as a problem that
should be solved.
It is of course a matter of personal preference whether to avoid the open
style or work more on it. :-)
best,
Eero Olli
eero@bergentango.no
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 23:37:56 +0900
From: astrid <astrid@RUBY.PLALA.OR.JP>
Subject: Re: how different? - open, closed (was Just two styles)
Oleh wrote:
> >Where in open embrace follower has to rely significantly on eyes,
> >intuition and significant pool of memorized steps (sequences), in
> >close embrace all she need to learn is to listen with her torso,
Eero Olli wrote:
> I disagree with the above presentation of the nature of the open style. I
> enjoy both the open and the closed embrace, and find no fundamental
> difference in the lead and follow. The description above sounds more like
> the 'beginner' version of open style, and not something one would actually
> want to dance.
>
> I prefer the same type of focus on weight and center both open and closed
> embrace. The most important change is which bodyparts are in contact.
There
> is no reason to make communication in open style any poorer than in closed
> style (or why one should rely on eyes, intuition, or memorized patterns).
>
> However, I must to admidt that in open style it requires a lot of
> sensitivity in hands to be able to read each other's bodies with
sufficient
> presision.
IMO, Eero Olli is more or less correct, while I do not agree at all with
Oleh.
If the follower had to rely on eyes, intuition and memorised steps, she
would be able to sort of follow, while avoiding being stepped upon or
stumbling over the leader, but not not much more than that, and execute
every step with a certain delay (or a little two early, based on her own
guesswork rather than his lead). To achieve a complete connection, where
both partners move in one synchronised, harmonious flow of movement, eyes,
intuition, and memorised steps are by far not enough. The memory of steps
can actually get in the way of following. To be able to lead and follow in
an open embrace, pretty much the same skills are required as in closed
embrace: a strong axis, balance, proper weight shifts with the right timing,
fully completed steps (not step combinations, but complete movements
finished by closing the ankles), and precisely executed movements. The main
difference is, that in a very close embrace, a good leader can almost
maneuver a follower around with the help of his body with her not doing much
more than maintaining her balance and letting him lead her,while in open
embrace, the connection is more indirect, and she has to move her weight
almost completely on her own. But the dynamics of the connection are still
basically quite similar. "Listening with her torso" is required in both
ways, Oleh.
Astrid
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 16:57:14 +0000
From: Oleh Kovalchuke <oleh_k@HOTMAIL.COM>
Subject: Re: how different? - open, closed (was Just two styles)
Well. Obviously my experience with open embrace is at beginner level, hence
my description of the style. However I do have a question about your last
remark: ""Listening with her torso" is required in both ways, Oleh." How
can you "listen with your torso" if there is no direct torso contact? My
perception is that you follow with eyes, intuition and memorized steps. I
forgotten to add hands lead. Have I missed something?
Cheers, Oleh K.
https://3clicksdesign.com/tango.htm
>From: astrid <astrid@RUBY.PLALA.OR.JP>
>Reply-To: astrid <astrid@RUBY.PLALA.OR.JP>
>To: TANGO-L@MITVMA.MIT.EDU
>Subject: Re: [TANGO-L] how different? - open, closed (was Just two styles)
>Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 23:37:56 +0900
>
>Oleh wrote:
> > >Where in open embrace follower has to rely significantly on eyes,
> > >intuition and significant pool of memorized steps (sequences), in
> > >close embrace all she need to learn is to listen with her torso,
>
>Eero Olli wrote:
> > I disagree with the above presentation of the nature of the open style.
>I
> > enjoy both the open and the closed embrace, and find no fundamental
> > difference in the lead and follow. The description above sounds more
>like
> > the 'beginner' version of open style, and not something one would
>actually
> > want to dance.
> >
> > I prefer the same type of focus on weight and center both open and
>closed
> > embrace. The most important change is which bodyparts are in contact.
>There
> > is no reason to make communication in open style any poorer than in
>closed
> > style (or why one should rely on eyes, intuition, or memorized
>patterns).
> >
> > However, I must to admidt that in open style it requires a lot of
> > sensitivity in hands to be able to read each other's bodies with
>sufficient
> > presision.
>
>IMO, Eero Olli is more or less correct, while I do not agree at all with
>Oleh.
>If the follower had to rely on eyes, intuition and memorised steps, she
>would be able to sort of follow, while avoiding being stepped upon or
>stumbling over the leader, but not not much more than that, and execute
>every step with a certain delay (or a little two early, based on her own
>guesswork rather than his lead). To achieve a complete connection, where
>both partners move in one synchronised, harmonious flow of movement, eyes,
>intuition, and memorised steps are by far not enough. The memory of steps
>can actually get in the way of following. To be able to lead and follow in
>an open embrace, pretty much the same skills are required as in closed
>embrace: a strong axis, balance, proper weight shifts with the right
>timing,
>fully completed steps (not step combinations, but complete movements
>finished by closing the ankles), and precisely executed movements. The main
>difference is, that in a very close embrace, a good leader can almost
>maneuver a follower around with the help of his body with her not doing
>much
>more than maintaining her balance and letting him lead her,while in open
>embrace, the connection is more indirect, and she has to move her weight
>almost completely on her own. But the dynamics of the connection are still
>basically quite similar. "Listening with her torso" is required in both
>ways, Oleh.
>
>Astrid
>
Has one of the new viruses infected your computer? Find out with a FREE
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 11:06:36 -0600
From: Stephen Brown <Stephen.P.Brown@DAL.FRB.ORG>
Subject: Re: how different? - open, closed (was Just two styles)
Eero Olli wrote:
>I enjoy both the open and the closed embrace, and find
>no fundamental difference in the lead and follow.
Astrid responded:
>To be able to lead and follow in an open embrace, pretty
>much the same skills are required as in closed embrace ...
I agree with Eero Olli and Astrid on the expectations about leading and
following being quite similar in both the open and close embrace styles.
Of course, either style can be taught as memorized step patterns, and
frequently are. We have previously discussed on Tango-L how much of
instruction in the open embrace style may (mis)lead people who do not do
understand tango tango is an improvisational dance to believe tango is
actually series of memorized patterns, but that is an entirely different
issue--and one that we have beat nearly to death.
Happy tangos to all,
Steve
Stephen Brown
Tango Argentino de Tejas
https://www.tejastango.com/
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 19:48:47 GMT
From: michael <tangomaniac@JUNO.COM>
Subject: Re: how different? - open, closed (was Just two styles)
Olel:
You are correct that there is no torso in open position, which is why I can't dance open position. The woman feels so far away from me, I need a cell phone to communicate the lead. "OK, salida, go to the cross. Pivot to left for front ocho, etc...."
You feel the leader's intentions through his arms instead of his upper body. The danger is that the leader will use his arms to pull and push to lead instead of rotating his shoulders. I see a lot of people who dance open breaking their frames. (Now I know what that "breaking" noise is.) I see men in open position leading molinetes by tilting to one side to push the woman around the circle. What's even worse. These leaders attempt to lead the open box. They step backwards to their left, and pull the woman around with their arms.
When I dance in close embrace, I can lead better because there is more physical contact with my partner. The woman can feel my intention through my upper body and I can feel how she is following through my upper body.
I don't understand how you can follow with the eyes. The leader can be doing something completely different than the woman. Molinete is an example. While the woman dances back-side-forward or forward-side-back or forward-side-forward, the man is the center of the circle. I don't know how watching the man communicates to the woman what to do. Intuition doesn't work. The woman should follow what the man LEADS, which ISN'T always what he INTENDED.
Michael
Only 29 days to the New Year's Eve Milonga at Dance Manhattan in New York
-- Oleh Kovalchuke <oleh_k@HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:
Well. Obviously my experience with open embrace is at beginner level, hence my description of the style. How can you "listen with your torso" if there is no direct torso contact? My perception is that you follow with eyes, intuition and memorized steps. I forgotten to add hands lead. Have I missed something?
Cheers, Oleh K.
https://3clicksdesign.com/tango.htm
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 20:51:57 +0000
From: Oleh Kovalchuke <oleh_k@HOTMAIL.COM>
Subject: Re: how different? - open, closed (was Just two styles)
Michael wrote: "I don't understand how you can follow with the eyes."
Remove embrace in the open embrace and all you have left is eyes to
lead/follow. Quite a few (not all) steps can be led this way. One of the
balance exercises in the beginner class I teach is based on this lead-follow
interaction.
Cheers, Oleh
https://3clicksdesign.com/tango.htm
Has one of the new viruses infected your computer? Find out with a FREE
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 21:39:08 GMT
From: michael <tangomaniac@JUNO.COM>
Subject: Re: how different? - open, closed (was Just two styles)
Olel:
What are you watching: The leader's feet, chest, or what? What balance exercise do you teach with the eyes?
Michael
Confused in Washington, DC
I'd rather be dancing argentine tango
-- "Oleh Kovalchuke" <oleh_k@hotmail.com> wrote:
Michael wrote: "I don't understand how you can follow with the eyes."
Remove embrace in the open embrace and all you have left is eyes to
lead/follow. Quite a few (not all) steps can be led this way. One of the
balance exercises in the beginner class I teach is based on this lead-follow
interaction.
Cheers, Oleh
https://3clicksdesign.com/tango.htm
Has one of the new viruses infected your computer? Find out with a FREE
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 23:46:31 +0000
From: Oleh Kovalchuke <oleh_k@HOTMAIL.COM>
Subject: Re: how different? - open, closed (was Just two styles)
Michael,
The exercise is rather simple: two people standing at about 2 feet distance
facing each other. No physical contact. Leader steps in any direction.
Follow follows preserving two feet cushion. Both have to watch each other's
bodies. Courtesy of Brigita Winkler. Eyes make this exercise possible, thus
eyes lead/follow.
Cheers, Oleh, lucid in Colorado Springs
https://3clicksdesign.com/tango.htm
PS Olel is new variation of my name. I do not want to get used to it.
>From: michael <tangomaniac@juno.com>
>To: oleh_k@hotmail.com
>CC: tangomaniac@juno.com, TANGO-L@MITVMA.MIT.EDU
>Subject: Re: [TANGO-L] how different? - open, closed (was Just two styles)
>Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 21:39:08 GMT
>
>
>Olel:
>What are you watching: The leader's feet, chest, or what? What balance
>exercise do you teach with the eyes?
>
>Michael
>Confused in Washington, DC
>
>
>I'd rather be dancing argentine tango
>
>-- "Oleh Kovalchuke" <oleh_k@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Michael wrote: "I don't understand how you can follow with the eyes."
>
>Remove embrace in the open embrace and all you have left is eyes to
>lead/follow. Quite a few (not all) steps can be led this way. One of the
>balance exercises in the beginner class I teach is based on this
>lead-follow
>interaction.
>
>
>Cheers, Oleh
>
>https://3clicksdesign.com/tango.htm
>
>Has one of the new viruses infected your computer? Find out with a FREE
>
>
Groove on the latest from the hot new rock groups! Get downloads, videos,
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 16:58:55 -0800
From: Razor Girl <dilettante666@YAHOO.COM>
Subject: Fwd: Re: [TANGO-L] how different? - open, closed (was Just two styles)
--- Oleh Kovalchuke <oleh_k@HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:
>Remove embrace in the open embrace and all you
>have
>left is eyes to
>lead/follow.
.......
> > Eyes make this
> > exercise possible, thus
> > eyes lead/follow.
Hi,
I like this exercise, its fun, I have done it, but
this is not the same as open embrace. If you remove
the "embrace" you just have an exercise, not a way
of
dancing. A follower does not look to see where you
go
in order to follow, in the exercise that you
describe
the eyes are involved as a means to sense the energy
of the leader. This is the way that we follow.
Whether it be close, open or no embrace the
followers
job is to tune in to the energy of the leader and
match it with her own energy to move. The follower
must first have the intention to move and then
obtain from the leader the direction and intensity of
the movement. This is the same experience no matter
what the embrace.
But personally, I like close embrace because I can
feel the beating of my partners heart....
Regards,
Rose
Portland, OR
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 3:46 PM
Subject: Re: [TANGO-L] how different? - open, closed (was Just two styles)
> Michael,
>
> The exercise is rather simple: two people standing at about 2 feet
distance
> facing each other. No physical contact. Leader steps in any direction.
> Follow follows preserving two feet cushion. Both have to watch each
other's
> bodies. Courtesy of Brigita Winkler. Eyes make this exercise possible,
thus
> eyes lead/follow.
>
>
> Cheers, Oleh, lucid in Colorado Springs
> https://3clicksdesign.com/tango.htm
>
> PS Olel is new variation of my name. I do not want to get used to it.
>
>
>
> >From: michael <tangomaniac@juno.com>
> >To: oleh_k@hotmail.com
> >CC: tangomaniac@juno.com, TANGO-L@MITVMA.MIT.EDU
> >Subject: Re: [TANGO-L] how different? - open, closed (was Just two
styles)
> >Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 21:39:08 GMT
> >
> >
> >Olel:
> >What are you watching: The leader's feet, chest, or what? What balance
> >exercise do you teach with the eyes?
> >
> >Michael
> >Confused in Washington, DC
> >
> >
> >I'd rather be dancing argentine tango
> >
> >-- "Oleh Kovalchuke" <oleh_k@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Michael wrote: "I don't understand how you can follow with the eyes."
> >
> >Remove embrace in the open embrace and all you have left is eyes to
> >lead/follow. Quite a few (not all) steps can be led this way. One of the
> >balance exercises in the beginner class I teach is based on this
> >lead-follow
> >interaction.
> >
> >
> >Cheers, Oleh
> >
> >https://3clicksdesign.com/tango.htm
> >
> >Has one of the new viruses infected your computer? Find out with a FREE
> >
> >
>
> Groove on the latest from the hot new rock groups! Get downloads, videos,
>
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 09:29:30 +0100
From: Ecsedy Áron <aron.ecsedy@OM.HU>
Subject: how different? - open, closed (was Just two styles)
Dear Tanguero/as,
There was a time when used a rigid frame, with a rigid embrace (open embrace). After some time and lessons with many good tango teachers =
(even if not famous), I found that though firm frame is essential, but firm embrace isn't. Since I had to find this out for myself, I tried to =
analyse it.
It is obvious that when the only connection between us is our hands, the embrace cannot be limp. You may not feel that your arms are tense, but =
you cannot keep chest-to-chest contact if your arms leave too much space for movement - of course there must be some dynamism. You cannot lead =
with eyes either (it should work with closed eyes as well!) and the thing called leading with "energy" is clearly a holistic approach which =
incorporates many other elements (which aren't separated at concious level), but it does not explain the exact dynamic of the lead.
If you picture the axis-to-axis lead with a sort of creating "vacuum" (moving only your own body and not concentrating on moving your =
follower's body) when moving away from her axis and creating "higher pressure air" between you when moving towards her axis. This requires a =
firm (not rigid) frame but she shouldn't feel too much from the embrace - just the touch. This method (though written down, the difference from =
anything else I've used before appears minimal) does work the way some of you described: the follower will feel that the steps are "happening =
to her", rather then being led to her.
However, I still have some combinations where I cannot give this "nolead" feeling 100%: like stationary boleos (where the follower stands =
on one leg and does boleos and/or quattros), some ochos (where I stay stationary or move very little, so she either must do a strong twist to =
remain close (back ocho on a circle) or a simple very small forward ocho to step beside me) and especially complex movements such as some ganchos =
done by the follower (from a back ocho). I do know that it is possible (I have FELT it led by teachers), but no teacher could give a closer =
explanation what's missing. Of course I am a perfectionist...but nevertheless...
Cheers,
aron
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 17:34:22 +0000
From: Oleh Kovalchuke <oleh_k@HOTMAIL.COM>
Subject: Re: [TANGO-L] how different? - open, closed (was Just two styles)
Rose
Portland, OR
wrote: this is not the same as open embrace. If you remove
the "embrace" you just have an exercise, not a way of
dancing.
Hello Rose,
I agree entirely. This is just an exercise and not an open *embrace* dance.
In open embrace, hands and arms (embrace) are as important as vision
(intuition nurtured by experience does not hurt either) to get the drift of
the lead. A note to Tom: important does not mean that leader drags follower
around with arms to lead. Important as in follower sensing the lead via her
hands and arms follower s perspective.
By the way, I do not claim to be an expert of open embrace style (I am
reasonably good in milonguero one), therefore I should not even be involved
in the discussion of the finer details of this style. I simply gave my
point of view, which I still believe to be correct, on plain mechanics of
the
lead and follow. The mechanics are quite different due to fundamental
difference of direct vs. arms and vision mediated contact. Especially for
novices.
I have focused on mechanics simply because I have to teach, explain them to
complete beginners in simple, understandable terms. When I dance I do not
think about the mechanics, instead I indulge in the sweetness of connection
and the exchange of energy. Don't we all?
A note on the credit for the two feet exercise . I was introduced to this
exercise by Brigitta, therefore I credit her. She had never said that she
invented it.
Cheers, Oleh K.
https://3clicksdesign.com/tango.htm
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 09:28:49 -0800
From: Carlos Rojas <Crojas@HACIENDACDC.ORG>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [TANGO-L] how different? - open, closed (was Just two styles)
Rosa hermosa & primorosa wrote:
"But personally, I like close embrace because I can
feel the beating of my partners heart....
Rose,
No wonder you are one of Portland's best and favorite dancer.
Carlos Rojas
Portland, OR
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 4:59 PM
To: TANGO-L@MITVMA.MIT.EDU
Subject: [TANGO-L] Fwd: Re: [TANGO-L] how different? - open, closed (was
Just two styles)
--- Oleh Kovalchuke <oleh_k@HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:
>Remove embrace in the open embrace and all you
>have
>left is eyes to
>lead/follow.
.......
> > Eyes make this
> > exercise possible, thus
> > eyes lead/follow.
Hi,
I like this exercise, its fun, I have done it, but
this is not the same as open embrace. If you remove
the "embrace" you just have an exercise, not a way
of
dancing. A follower does not look to see where you
go
in order to follow, in the exercise that you
describe
the eyes are involved as a means to sense the energy
of the leader. This is the way that we follow.
Whether it be close, open or no embrace the
followers
job is to tune in to the energy of the leader and
match it with her own energy to move. The follower
must first have the intention to move and then
obtain from the leader the direction and intensity of
the movement. This is the same experience no matter
what the embrace.
But personally, I like close embrace because I can
feel the beating of my partners heart....
Regards,
Rose
Portland, OR
LISTSERV@MITVMA.MIT.EDU.
