4672 Direction: Open & Crossed & Open & Closed
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 21:14:37 -0500
From: "Jake Spatz (TangoDC.com)" <spatz@tangoDC.com>
Subject: [Tango-L] Direction: Open & Crossed & Open & Closed
To: tango-L@mit.edu
Hi Huck,
In response to your points...
1. "Open-side" etc.
Yes, you are perfectly correct. And nevertheless, we've got duplicate
terms. I use them sometimes myself, but my point is that I'd like
something better (w/o duplication, for clarity's sake), and I'm
enlisting everyone in the search.
2. The "salida"
Yes, you're using the Spanish term more correctly. I'm using it to mean
8-count basic, which I take to be entirely in parallel system, and will
henceforth switch to the abbreviation 8CB or "basic 8" when referring to
that particular thing.
3. "Open steps"
Well, if I have to stop, pivot, and alter the position, then what the
hell kind of system is that? And what does it call those moves? And is
this where that moronic two-foot colgada came from?
An "open" step should be one that brings one or both dancers into a
position that is clearly described by the word "open." If my partner is
directly in front of me, and walks directly at me while I walk directly
backward, and we're in parallel system, then we're already facing each
other. (8CB #1, to put it simply.) If I pause the step mid-weight-shift,
then we have to do a colgada in order to "face each other," as that
analysis would have it. Sure, _then_ it looks like an "open step" all
right, but it's not the step we took, and we had to do all these extra
moves to get there.
And if we twist the other way (why shouldn't we?), we get a
"double-cross-step" pretzel.
This kind of analysis distorts all data until the data matches its cute
little reductive cubby-holes. It can be a handy rule-of-thumb, but it
doesn't hold up to inspection, or point the way to anything interesting.
And if an analysis can't tell the difference between #1 and #2 in the
8CB, I'm sorry, but it's a fairly worthless analysis.
No?
Jake
DC
Huck Kennedy wrote:
> In two postings, Jake Spatz writes:
>
>> I've heard one teacher use (on occasion) the terms "open-side" and
>> "closed-side," to refer to those respective sides of the embrace. Those
>> terms, however, are already used to describe the distance between the
>> dancers, so they're not that suitable.
>>
>
> To quote a famous college football ex-coach and
> TV commentator, "Not so fast, my friend!" "Open" and
> "closed" are used to describe distance between dancers,
> but not "open side of the embrace" and "closed side of
> the embrace," which you abbreviate here to "open-side"
> and "closed-side;" therefore, I see no confusion here
> whatsoever, especially when context is factored in, and
> would find these terms at least sometimes useful as
> directional terms both partners could use to avoid the
> "my left, your right" nuisance. For instance, "We both
> take a sidestep towards the open side [of the embrace]"
> is both easier to remember and more elegant than "the
> leader takes a sidestep to the left while the follower
> takes one to the right (or was that right and left
> instead of left and right? DOH!!)". I realize you're
> probably looking for ways to describe far more complex
> nuevo moves, but hey, maybe this could at least be
> helpful for beginners.
>
> Also, as someone else mentioned, in certain
> contexts the follower's perspective is always used.
> For example, if you add or subtract a step independent
> of your partner to go from parallel into crossed
> (or opposite feet into same feet if you prefer that
> terminology) and start walking forward on her left
> side on three tracks, you are said to be dancing on
> the left side, because you are on *her* left side.
> Similarly, in West Coast Swing, there are terms like
> "right-side pass with underarm turn" and "left-side
> pass," referring to which of her sides you are on
> when she zooms by in the slot. Again, this may turn
> out to be of little use with respect to the more
> complicated moves I think you want to describe.
>
>
>> As for the cross-steps in themselves... Usually the "cross" is taken to
>> mean that the dancer crosses his or her own body (or standing leg). But
>> this depends on the orientation of the partners and also on torso-hip
>> dissociation. Step #1 of the salida
>>
>
> As an aside, I find terminology such as "step 1
> of the salida" to be virtually useless without prior
> definition, since different instructors use different
> numbering notations for what they consider to be the
> basic step. You are using "salida" to mean the dreaded
> so-called "8-count basic," right? (apologies if I've
> misunderstood). What people consider to be a "salida"
> also seems to vary. I, for one, consider the salida
> to be just the one or two steps used to get underway.
> Sallying forth, or setting off, so to speak, which is
> the true meaning of "salida" in Spanish in this
> context.
>
>
>> can be executed without variation by the follower, but if
>> I (leading) step to my left instead of straight back, she's
>> open; if I dodge right, she's crossed. If I do step straight
>> back, she's NEITHER.
>>
>
> There's no such thing as "neither." A person
> either takes an open step or a crossed step. Now
> I don't know what kind of bizarre nuevo pretzel
> positions you wander into :) but for normal intents
> and purposes, if you are in a reasonably standard
> open tango connection and take a step and want to
> analyze whether the step you just took was open or
> crossed, you need simply press the pause button (as
> it were) for a moment, pivot on both feet to face
> your partner head on (it helps if both can do this),
> and see where your legs end up after the pivot. If
> you wind up standing there nonchalantly with your legs
> apart like a cool Elvis standing at ease in an Army
> uniform, you just took an open step. If you wind up
> standing there with your legs in a big ol' tangled
> cross like some kind of dorky stork, you just took
> a crossed step.
>
> Huck
>
>
>
>
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 08:50:57 -0700
From: "Brian Dunn" <brian@danceoftheheart.com>
Subject: Re: [Tango-L] Direction: Open & Crossed & Open & Closed
Hello Jake and others,
First of all...
Fair warning: Those readers who are not in an analytical mood should stop
reading now and begin dancing immediately, with broomsticks if necessary ;>
Jake, you wrote:
>>>
And is this where that moronic two-foot colgada came from?
<<<
How about this more complete explanation:
"two-step colgada" = "moronic two-foot colgada" = "shared-axis turn with
colgada 'dynamizer' (Spanish: dynamizador) keeping follower on her standing
leg (thus temporarily suspending both the walking-systems and the code of
the follower's turn as useful ways of explaining what is happening) while
leader takes two counterbalancing steps around follower's fixed foot, giving
her a big swoopy flight through the air until it's time to go somewhere
else, thus re-entering the world of parallel/crossed/etc." But, you know, I
was making a list, trying for a shorthand expression - honestly, I am only
impersonating a moron as an acting exercise...;>
>>>
An "open" step should be one that brings one or both dancers into a
position that is clearly described by the word "open."
<<<
If you like...but the issue could also be as simple as "If it's not crossed,
it's open." Like "if the light's not on, then it's off". It doesn't have
to be so tough.
>>>
If my partner is directly in front of me, and walks directly at me while I
walk directly backward, and we're in parallel system, then we're already
facing each other.
<<<
I guess I'm just saying that insistence on directionality terms like
"forwards" and "backwards" which are not couple-specific terms may have
consequences for the usefulness of your analysis - consequences that you may
not like, given your goals.
On the other hand, investing a little in couple-specific terms like "front
cross/open/back cross" to describe these things may well pay off in avoiding
"such cumbersome...descriptions".
But let's do a case study!
>>>
I'm looking for something that, as I noted, can clearly describe an
over-turned back ocho.
<<<
I assume you mean that "the follower is doing a back ocho" (which this
framework would analyze as 2 follower's back cross steps in succession).
Since a back cross step can go anywhere within approximately a 180 degree
arc, in this framework, we'll say that an "overturned back cross" is one
with more than 180 degrees of pivot, so you have a sequence of two of these
big mamas to make your "ocho" (which in this case isn't shaped much like an
"8" anymore, but - oh well, so much for terminology).
Continuing on anyway, according to the framework, her part in this is
expressed as:
Two overturned (>180) back crosses
To complete the framework's couple-oriented analysis, the leader could
accompany these overturned back crosses with, any of the following:
1. two overturned front-crosses
2. two open steps
3. two "shallow" (i.e., not overturned) back-crosses
4. a weight shift in place
5. standing on one leg (no accompaniment)(probably not what you're thinking,
but it fits your definition)
But there is yet more nontrivial ambiguity to resolve. Taking a step in
cases 1, 2 and 3 raises the question of whether the couple is stepping
together on more or less parallel paths ("with" motion), or stepping in more
or less opposing directions ("Contra" motion). In contra motion, from above
they will be seen to rotate as a couple while they step around a common
center, if they maintain a constant distance from each other.
This gives us
1a. two overturned front-crosses WITH
1b. two shallow front-crosses CONTRA (sacadas make this easier)
2a. two open steps WITH
2b. two open steps CONTRA
3a. two "shallow" (i.e., not overturned) back-crosses WITH
3b. two "overturned" back-crosses CONTRA (it's a strain to make everything
overturned in this case, maybe should be abandoned)
4. a weight shift in place
5. standing on one leg (no accompaniment)
So the clear description you ask for above:
Follower: Two overturned (>180) back crosses
Leader: any one of the eight possibilities listed above
Given the initial ambiguity about the leader's action, this gives us a
fairly small table of relatively compact couple-centric descriptions, don't
you think?
All the best,
Brian Dunn
Dance of the Heart
Boulder, Colorado USA
www.danceoftheheart.com
"Building a Better World, One Tango at a Time"
