68  Rotating technique

Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2001 15:15:38 -0400
From: Melinda Bates <tangerauna@EARTHLINK.NET>
Subject: Rotating technique

You "experts" need to get a grip. I don't know what others wrote about
"lifting", but my message said it was a subtle upward lifting movement of
the man's right arm. Those of you so quick to condemn this as bad leading
should think about what that means. (Clearly the word "subtle" created real
problems for some of you.) It's NOT a "lift". It's a subtle upward
pressure with the arm that is already forming the embrace.

It's NOT like using your left arm to move us around when you can't really
lead. It's NOT like digging your fingers into the small of our backs to
direct us (ugh!). It's a part of the language of the dance that certain
movements on the part of the leader are supposed to lead to (sorry!)
corresponding movements by the follower. Isn't that precisely what lead and
follow is about?

----- Original Message -----

Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 08:27:05 -0700
From: JC Dill <tango@VO.CNCHOST.COM>
Subject: Re: Rotating technique

On 12:15 PM 7/8/01, Melinda Bates wrote:

>What other pattern has the man moving around in a circle (or in any
>direction, for that matter, any longer than an embellishment) while the
>woman stays still in place?

Does it matter? Tango isn't about learning and memorizing
"patterns". It's about leading and following, a step at a time. At some
point, this move is/was new to every follower. And yet, if the follower
knows to follow, and the leader knows how to properly lead this move, it
should be no problem to lead a follower to follow it correctly *the very
first time*. As long as the follower's weight remains centered on her
standing foot, she has no *reason* to take a step, so why should she?

>Since I can't think of one, it appears to me
>that without some signal, when the man steps to his right, the woman would
>naturally follow - with a step. Since we follow their chests it sure seems
>like a lead, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED. By a subtle upward movement of the
>arm, for example........

Lead comes before the movement. The lead to step to the right comes BEFORE
the step to the right. If the leader is merely going to the right and
expecting followers to tag along because his frame is dragging them after
him, then certainly you will need a "lead" to not follow.

When the leader wants to keep the follower on her axis, he merely needs to
keep his frame from dragging her *off her axis* when he steps to the right,
by stepping in a rotating fashion, so that she rotates and keeps her axis.

>> No amount of "lifting" will compensate for pulling her off balance as you
>> rotate around her. If you pull her off balance, you "lead" her to
>> step.
>
>No, if you pull her off balance, she will take an UNlead step to keep from
>falling, regardless of where you are. (And it won't be pretty.)

If you pull her off balance, you led her. Intentionally or not, the
leader's frame causes the follower's frame to get off balance, and that's
an indication for the follower to take a step. It's an unintended step (in
the case of this move) and an unintended lead, but it's still there.

That's what makes following so damn hard, that leaders don't want to take
responsibility for these bad leads! They only want followers to take a
step when they intend for her to step, and they want to be able to blame
her for "taking a step when none was led" because they didn't intend to
lead, therefore they believe they didn't lead. But if they made a movement
that unbalanced the follower, then the subsequent step is certainly "led".

>> IMHO, using a "lifting" cue is admitting that either you are a bad leader,
>> or she is a bad follower, and you need a special cue to tell the follower
>> to "follow" because standard lead/follow isn't working.
>
>So, by this description, in excellent leading the man NEVER moves his
>arms/changes his frame? How could that work? When he wants us to move
>right or left, for example, doesn't he open his chest in that direction?

I never said we don't follow the frame, I said that it isn't necessary for
the leader to give a "lifting motion" to lead this movement. If the leader
leads with his frame, then all he needs to do to keep the follower from
taking a step is to NOT LEAD HER TO STEP AS HE MOVES, BY KEEPING HIS FRAME
CENTERED IN FRONT OF HER WEIGHT BEARING FOOT, KEEPING HER IN BALANCE ON HER
AXIS.

This is yet another reason why the old tangueros were so successful in
learning to dance by leading each other in practice. When you have one man
leading another man trying to learn this movement, you won't hear any crap
like one man telling another "you weren't supposed to take a step there"
because the other man will say "you led me to step, you jerk, if you had
kept my frame balanced over my foot I wouldn't have stepped". The men then
know by experience what it feels like to be led off balance into taking a
step, and what it feels like to keep the follower balanced to pivot so as
not to step. It's dead easy to learn if you merely swap roles back and
forth for an hour or so to practice, and assume that every time the
follower steps, it is because the leader didn't keep the follower's weight
over the axis.

>Doesn't that require a change in frame/arm position? Isn't that "standard"
>lead and follow? If this is an acceptable lead, why isn't a gentle upward
>pressure/movement/lift (all these words are too strong for what it feels
>like) an acceptable lead?

Because we aren't being asked to move "upwards". Correct leads indicate
what the follower needs to DO. If we are being asked to stay motionless,
the "lead" is one that indicates that no movement is desired, which is to
say "no lead" or perhaps a slightly firmer hold that means "stay there"
(think of how you would silently indicate by touch (not gesture) to someone
else to stand still). An upwards lifting motion doesn't indicate that.

All tango movements consist of nothing else but "steps". The leader leads
the follower to step forwards, backwards, to either side, and to turn and
pivot. Nothing more. All of this can be done by subtly moving the
leader's frame in such a way to move the follower's frame slightly to one
direction or the other (slightly upsetting her balance and indicating that
a step in that direction is desired) *prior* to when the follower is
expected to step in that direction, and to pivot the follower in place
(using the leader's frame) when a turning motion is required. When there
isn't a lead to move, the follower doesn't move. Why make it complicated?

I love to compare dancing to horseback riding. When riding, the rider is
the leader, the horse is the follower. I'm presently breaking a 12 year
old horse to be ridden. I practically "lead" her to take every step right
now, if she's at all unsure what I want her to do she stops, so riding her
is much like dancing tango! If I want her to take a step to the right, I
can gently pull on the right rein until she turns her head slightly to the
right (and then I release the cue). If she is stopped and I keep on
pulling her head to the right, eventually she will get unbalanced (a
horse's head and neck are very heavy and this movement does significantly
unbalance the entire body) and take a step, even though I haven't used my
legs to say "take a step". It would be counterproductive for me to yell at
her and say "stand still, I didn't lead you to step because I didn't use my
legs". It would also be counterproductive for me to try to add some other
aid to "prevent" her from stepping, because she would become confused and
upset. It is much better to simply not turn her head that far unless I
intend for her to step! Further, if I DO want her to step, it's better to
add the leg cues as just she's becoming unbalanced enough to want to step
on her own (to "catch" her balance) and then she associates the leg cues
with stepping (forward or turning). Voila, she knows how to "follow" the cues.

If it's that easy to teach a horse to "dance" with me and learn the simple
cues I use to indicate stop, go, go right, go left, go backwards, it should
be totally simple to teach the same things to another human being,
especially when we both speak the same language. Why make it so complicated?

The reason why it's so complicated is that we put the beginner leaders with
the beginner followers. My SO is also helping break this horse, and he's
only been on horseback himself (other than on her) 4 other times in his
life. So it's no surprise that he has a much harder time giving the cues
in a way to get her to respond. His timing is poor. He's worrying about
his own balance on top of her back (much as beginner leader dancers worry
about their own steps) and then forgets to give a cue when he should. And
he often uses too much of one cue and not enough of another. For instance,
he can use a rein too much, such that it stops her, and even gets her to
back up, when he wanted her to keep moving and just walk in a curving line
(when he should have used less rein, released sooner, and used some leg
too). A less caring rider/leader would blame and perhaps even "punish" his
follower ("you weren't supposed to stop!") and then end up with a follower
who blasts through subtle cues (and so we get beginning tango followers who
automatically do whole molinetes, or repeat ochos, and will do the
automatic cross, whether it is led, or even intended... hmmm). So she is
not as responsive to what he "intends" for her to do, because his "lead is
bad" (novice leader). Yet she is very responsive when I ride her, and I'm
able to get her to do what I want almost all of the time on the first
try. IMHO, she's a GREAT follower, she does everything I ask her to do as
long as I ask it correctly.

Yet, she's the same horse with the same training (or lack thereof). Food
for thought, hmmm?

jc

Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 01:19:05 +0900
From: astrid <astrid@RUBY.PLALA.OR.JP>
Subject: Re: Rotating technique

> That's what makes following so damn hard, that leaders don't want to take
> responsibility for these bad leads! They only want followers to take a
> step when they intend for her to step, and they want to be able to blame
> her for "taking a step when none was led" because they didn't intend to
> lead, therefore they believe they didn't lead. But if they made a

movement

> that unbalanced the follower, then the subsequent step is certainly "led".

You forgot to say that it also makes following hard to have to put up with
men who expect the woman to apologize for taking a step they did not intend
to lead, and then refuse to dance with her anymore if she goes instead:
"You led me to step, you jerk, if you had

> kept my frame balanced over my foot I wouldn't have stepped" like those

men teaching each other to tango, instead of tactfully taking the blame.
Fortunately, the blaming stops and the need for allowing one to be be
blackmailed into phony apologies stops also once the men learn how to do it.
But it certainly would be nice if we could have some guys talk back to them.
Astrid

Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 11:42:55 -0500
From: Stephen Brown <Stephen.P.Brown@DAL.FRB.ORG>
Subject: Re: Rotating technique

I have noticed is that if the woman is secure on her axis, I can easily
tell when I have pulled her off her axis. When she has trouble holding her
axis, I find it much more difficult to determine whether I have pulled her
off her axis or whether she has simply fallen off her axis. When both
partners are having trouble maintaining the woman's axis, it is very
unlikely that anything will be led or followed with any degree of
consistency. I think this is a major reason that beginners have trouble
dancing with other beginners and that memorized figures become a learning
crutch.

--Steve (de Tejas)

Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 12:17:02 -0700
From: john trimble <john.trimble@EXCITE.COM>
Subject: Re: Rotating technique

Steve's insight is true in my experience, too. Many followers, including
even many experienced dancers, seem to have little idea how to find or
maintain their own axes and aren't aware that they're maintaining their
balance by tugging or pushing upon a partner.

I don't blame pattern dancing so much as Steve, though, for being at the
root of balance difficulties. I think knowing how to find and maintain your
balance comes most clear from doing exercises independent of a partner,
especially in a room with a good mirror, so you can monitor your posture and
movement.

The discussion brings up a substantial point of "What does it mean to be a
good leader, and is balance essential to good following?" I think "good
leading" means different things in different circumstances, and balance and
axis are central issues in what seems to me a minority of those
circumstances.

Pattern dancing introduces the enigma, "is she following the pattern or is
she following me?" In the case of some dancers, being a good leader means
knowing how and when to follow.
If a lady has a vocabulary of patterns, I can lead some and, if , out of
habit or lack of balance or whatever, she takes a step I didn't "mean" for
her to take, I can "follow" her out to accomodate, and it makes a dance.
She'll likely never have a clue that I spent half my time following her.

By varying degrees there seem to be other qualities of "good" leading to
which I may extend less favor, but which nevertheless seem appropriate to
understand and incorporate in any leader's vocabulary.

Another category of leading with a stong claim to the good leading label, it
seems to me, has an objective of making the lady feel that she has danced
effortlessly. The leader assumes a more aggressive role than in the above
example, and there's a more passive "surrendering to the dance" for the
follower. The leader's frame will may be more firm so that the follower may
use it for support and that it may be used to turn or pivot the follower.
The indications are strongly marked. We'll avoid questions of follower's
balance, because the leader's firm stance will easily deflect whatever
forces are applied to it. Our relationship becomes more one of player
(bandoneonist) and solo instrument (bandoneon). I've had some terrific
dances playing the roles.

It seems to me there's a role-reversal type of leading counter to the above,
whose object is to show the follower to her own "best" effect. It involves
many of the same skills of strength and balance as giving an effortless
dance, but the leader's interpretation of the music takes a back seat to the
follower's. The leader's activity focuses on firm navigation and
transitions. The leader's the rhythm section, and the follower is the
soloist.

To me, the best experience is when I indicate (by my lead), and my partner
accompanies me in unison. Then I have the feeling that we are dancing
together, and whenever one of us takes the other's weight or inertia, it's a
chosen act of artistic expression and trust. Or it may be an act of
affection, because everyone loses their balance a little sometime or
another, and those who keep their balance as a rule usually know when
they've lost it and appreciate the support to get it back. Whenever we may
exchange lead briefly, we both know the impetus has changed hands.
Gentleness, clarity, unity, and expressiveness are the qualities I most
enjoy in leading and following. If it were music, I would describe it as a
duet.

All this is to say that balance isn't the central issue to dancing tango for
everyone, and by some trains of thought, it might be considered relatively
unimportant. Some of the most unbalanced people take their tango the most
seriously :-)





On Thu, 12 Jul 2001 11:42:55 -0500, Stephen.P.Brown@DAL.FRB.ORG wrote:

Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 14:28:44 -0500
From: Stephen Brown <Stephen.P.Brown@DAL.FRB.ORG>
Subject: Re: Rotating technique

John Trimble wrote:

>I don't blame pattern dancing so much as Steve, though, for being at the
>root of balance difficulties.

Let me clarify (without criticizing John's comments in any way) that I do
not blame pattern dancing for creating balance difficulties. Rather I see
teaching tango through patterns as a possible response to teaching students
who may have balance difficulties. If both partners know what pattern they
are to reproduce, a lack of balance or other lead and follow skills are
less of an obstacle to the appearance of learning. Students have the
impression that they have learned some new dance steps whether or not they
have the requisite lead and follow skills to dance well.

Fabian Salas is a particular genius at teaching tango because he designs
step combinations to teach his students that will only work if the students
develop the proper leading and following techniques.

--Steve (de Tejas)