4668 Direction: Step descriptors...
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 16:53:00 -0500
From: "Jake Spatz (TangoDC.com)" <spatz@tangoDC.com>
Subject: [Tango-L] Direction: Step descriptors...
To: tango-L@mit.edu
(I'm splintering this thread so we can pursue the various topics that
have arisen, most of which are worth pursuing in detail. Thanks to all
for the energetic responses so far!)
Brian,
Regarding the 3-step system and teaching turns: I understand what you're
saying, but I think it's a classic case of the leader's mistaken
perspective on the follower's dance.
I've found monosyllables wholly undesirable in the case you describe,
not only because tango music has an arrastre "swing" (furrrrr-RONT), but
because there should be a syllable to mark the follower's pivots as well
as her steps. You might clarify matters rhythmically for ALL your
students by using "front," "side," and "back" to denote the direction
not of the step, but of the pivot; and then proceed thus:
"Front-step-Side-step-Back-step-etc."
(Although, in all honesty, I'd scrap "step" in favor of something that
matches the music better, like "vrrrROOM.")
My leaders & followers both learn, in this way, to acknowledge the pivot
as the expressive equivalent of any step; and this lets them more
consciously & effectively vary their rate of movement from the get-go.
As for the 6-steps or 3-steps debate... I find that the 3-step catalog
is more useful sounding than actually useful. For one, there's a big
difference to both partners whether the follower's "open step" is
towards the leader, away from him, or lateral; and to the follower, it
inaugurates Bad Form if these differences are ignored. (Sidesteps ought
to be very clearly lateral, for instance, and not just some non-crossed
step or other.)
Furthermore, the front- and back-cross steps are not that distinct from
each other: it's just a matter of which direction you're moving in. The
stationary step is more radically different from "open" and "cross"
steps though, and needs more work for all students; so any system of
steps that marginalizes it presents, in my opinion, a glaring flaw.
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 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.
In Luciana's (Fabian's) 3-step system, what's the word for this Neither
step? What's the word for the weight-change?
And let's say I lead my follower to take the salida #2 step _to my
right_, after pivoting her so that her back is facing me. To her, it's
an "open step"? But to me, it's a "cross step," because it has crossed
the central line of the embrace-- i.e., her step has crossed MY body...
Moreover, if you introduce counterpoint walking, then it's possible that
a follower's step extends as an "open" one and collects as a "crossed"
one, because the leader has changed position in the meantime. So these
steps of the follower are really determined, again, by the leader's
perspective. So much for basing things on her. (Sorry for deconstructing
this, and exposing its leader-centrism, in case anyone out there was
attached to it.)
Thus the 3-step system not only fudges matters by ignoring (a) the
stationary weight-change, and (b) the "neither" step (perhaps the most
common one in the dance?), but it (c) falls apart as soon as we get into
an old-fashioned embrace, such as we may find in two consecutive
"promenade" steps.
Furthermore, "open" already refers to a kind of embrace; "cross" is
already the name of a step (or more accurately, a kind of collection
AFTER a step). A new system ought not to duplicate terms like this,
which is one of the major complaints about it, whether you use it or not.
Not that the 6-step system has unique terms, or can handle what I've
described above either... but at least it preserves the difference
between one side of the embrace and the other. Which, given the
asymmetry of the embrace, is rather important.
So, we still have no answers. But I do hope I'm making a better case for
seeking them out.
Jake Spatz
DC
Brian Dunn wrote:
> J, you wrote:
>
> * I think in terms of there being 6 possible "basic steps" from any given
> position: front, back, side, in-place, front cross (ocho), back cross (ocho)
> <<<
> We used to teach that way too, for years - then at one point after some
> fundamentals classes with Luciana, we realized that using the clarified
> 3-step definition, "front", "back" and "side" steps generally reduce to
> "open steps in different directions", geometrically similar in terms of the
> couple. On the other hand, "front cross" and "back cross" represent truly
> distinct cases geometrically, according to the definition in my original
> message. Unless we make this distinction, we might as well add a
> "half-front-half-side" step to split the directional difference between
> "front" and "side", the same way "side" is used to split the directional
> difference between "front" and "back".
>
> These days, in our classes we use "front", "side" and "back" as shorthand
> monosyllabic synonyms for "front cross", "open" and "back cross", which we
> introduce first and clarify as I did above. That way, we can use the
> monosyllables to train the code of the turn in a group, saying half as many
> syllables in a musical phrase ;>.
>
> Looked at in this way, an "in-place step" becomes a step of zero (or
> minimal) length, actually usually a tiny "open step" - although
> theoretically you could shift weight in the follower's cross position,
> creating a tiny front-cross or back-cross step instead.
>
> Similarly, by this frame of reference, "ocho" becomes a figure, composed of
> two front cross steps or two back cross steps, but the front cross stands
> conceptually on its own, without reference to an "eight-shaped" figure.
>
> All the best,
> Brian Dunn
> Dance of the Heart
> Boulder, Colorado USA
> www.danceoftheheart.com
> "Building a Better World, One Tango at a Time"
>
>
>
>
>
>
> * Regarding the 8CB and numbering of the steps: I have heard instructors use
>
> the numbers more to refer to the position of the feet than the actual steps
> needed to get there. So if I am standing with my feet together, and my
> follower has her left crossed in front of her right, we are in position #5,
> regardless of what steps we just did to get to this position. Note that with
>
> this interpretation, positions 1, 4, and 6 are all substantially identical,
> as are 2 and 7.
>
> J
> www.TangoMoments.com
>
>
>
> ----Original Message Follows----
> From: "Jake Spatz (TangoDC.com)" <spatz@tangoDC.com>
>
> Hi all,
>
> I'm wondering if anyone out there has found a more useful way to
> describe direction in tango, since "left-right" and "forward-backward"
> easily become confusing when two dancers are facing each other in the
> embrace.
>
> 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. I've thought of using "hand-side"
> and "body-side," but that takes a moment of calculation, and I'd like
> something better.
>
> I've also tried using the old salida numbers from time to time-- 2 and
> 7, for instance, describe consecutive sidesteps-- but they have a very
> limited application, and only to parallel-system at that. (There being,
> to my knowledge, no cross-system salida.)
>
> Compass points such as North and South don't really work, because each
> partner is tempted to consider themselves facing North. Same goes for
> the clockface system (which is already used for rotation anyway). (The
> compass system may come in handy for describing the couple in relation
> to the room, but that's another matter.)
>
> Ideally, I'd like a set of terms that can explain *to both partners
> simultaneously* what direction everything's going-- relative to the
> couple, but not oriented according to either partner-- during complex or
> asymmetrical movements (e.g., overturned back ochos) as well as in
> simple ones. I've considered using Spanish terms as well as English, but
> that just creates a translation issue and complicates matters for
> bilinguals.
>
> Any suggestions appreciated, unless you're one of the schmucks who was
> in charge of naming quarks.
>
> Jake Spatz
> DC
>
>
>
> Talk now to your Hotmail contacts with Windows Live Messenger.
> https://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwme0020000001msn/direct/01/?href=https://get
> .live.com/messenger/overview
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 23:39:05 -0700
From: "Brian Dunn" <brian@danceoftheheart.com>
Subject: Re: [Tango-L] Direction: Step descriptors...
To: <tango-L@mit.edu>
Hi Jake,
Thanks for starting a very interesting discussion.
You wrote:
>>>
I've found monosyllables wholly undesirable in the case you describe,
not only because tango music has an arrastre "swing" (furrrrr-RONT)..."
<<<
Well, the problem with (furrrrr-RONT) is that, working as we are on the code
of the turn, the front-cross in the turn is a quickstep without any leading
pivot except at the end of the step. What you're describing sounds more like
a walking step instead of a turn, in which case the dynamic you describe
would be very useful.
>>>>
But because there should be a syllable to mark the follower's pivots as well
as her steps.
<<<
Here we REALLY agree - see next point.
>>>
You might clarify matters rhythmically for ALL your
students by using "front," "side," and "back" to denote the direction
not of the step, but of the pivot; and then proceed thus:
"Front-step-Side-step-Back-step-etc."
<<<
OK, so again, in our classes we are not talking about step direction when we
say "front cross", "open", or "back cross" - shortened to
"front-side-back-side-front-side-etc." just for that code-of-the-turn
"burn-in" exercise. We are talking about geometrical body configurations
that can be used to travel in one of an almost infinite number of possible
directions, depending on the navigational requirements of the moment (which
after all IS the context we are working in - social dance with other
couples, and moving safely and musically to the next safe spot).
Nor are we training rhythm - that's a later exercise. This is a very very
simple exercise to train those three movement configurations and the
sequence of their use in the follower's molinete/giro/turn around the
leader.
I'm assuming we share a common frame of reference here: in the code of the
follower's turn around a more or less stationary leader, there is a 180
degree pivot of the follower's hips on the frontcross-open transition, and
another 180 degree pivot on the open-backcross transition, right? It can
take about the same length of time to do one of these 180 hip-swiveling
pivots as it does to take the step that preceded them. But again, in the
code of the turn, the back cross-open and the open-front cross transitions
HAVE no pivot, which is why they tend to be quicksteps in typical tango
social dancing.
So at about the second lesson, we point out that the common
"slow-slow-quick-quick" description of the timing of steps in the follower's
turn is actually misleading, because the steps are in fact NOT "slow" unless
the pivot is being abandoned - pivots take time! Instead of
"slow-slow-quick-quick", a more accurate representation might be
"quick-pivot-quick-pivot-quick-quick" - but that opens up another topic...
>>>
As for the 6-steps or 3-steps debate... I find that the 3-step catalog
is more useful sounding than actually useful. For one, there's a big
difference to both partners whether the follower's "open step" is
towards the leader, away from him, or lateral; and to the follower, it
inaugurates Bad Form if these differences are ignored.
<<<
Not true in our experience - she goes where she's led, with the foot she's
not standing on. An open step can go anywhere in an almost 180 degree arc,
and still stay "open". Sure there are differences, but in this system they
are not relevant - perhaps analogous to the difference between the follower
wearing flats or heels - that can certainly affect "form" as well.
>>>
(Sidesteps ought to be very clearly lateral, for instance, and not just some
non-crossed step or other.)
<<<
But *you're* talking about "sidesteps", not me - I'm advising against it. I
think you're illustrating why we avoid using the term.
>>>
Furthermore, the front- and back-cross steps are not that distinct from
each other: it's just a matter of which direction you're moving in.
<<<<
Uuhhh...so "direction" matters a lot in open steps (see above), and
*doesn't* matter much in crossed steps? You lost me...
>>>
The stationary step is more radically different from "open" and "cross"
steps though.
<<<
Doesn't seem like a big deal really, conceptually you're switching weight
>from one foot to the other, so it affects parallel/crossed state, but
otherwise it seems pretty trivial - you're not going anywhere, so if she is,
she's essentially turning around you, and we kick in the code of the
follower's turn. As I said, if you must call it a step, by this framework
it's most likely a tiny open step. Pretty straightforward.
>>>
...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.
<<<
So you're talking about the boundary condition, I get it...but how
interesting is that really? How likely is it that you nailed EXACTLY the
"straight at her" condition anyway? How useful is it to focus on that? Not a
fraction of a degree to either side, remember, or we're back in the 99.999%
of simpler cases.
>>>
In Luciana's (Fabian's) 3-step system, what's the word for this Neither
step?
<<<
"Open"
>>>
What's the word for the weight-change?
<<<
"Weight-change", but it might get interesting if you do some monstrous pivot
on top of it...
>>>
And let's say I lead my follower to take the salida #2 step _to my
right_, after pivoting her so that her back is facing me. To her, it's
an "open step"? But to me, it's a "cross step," because it has crossed
the central line of the embrace-- i.e., her step has crossed MY body...
<<<
You are proposing reversing the embrace, OK - so her back is now her front,
and just reverse everything accordingly - all the step logic will still work
- then when you switch back, all returns to normal. A pretty simple
transformation, really. (This "Cambio del frente" was a whole little subset
of tango, mostly for performance, in mid-century or later - Anton Gazenbeek
has done a lot of interesting historical research on this.)
>>>
Thus the 3-step system not only fudges matters by ignoring (a) the
stationary weight-change,
<<<
So there are two possibilities:
1) The weight change is not a step...Hmmm, let's see, so you're unhappy
because the 3-step system ignores things that aren't steps? Because, you
know it doesn't brush your teeth either...;>
Or 2) the weight change IS a step, a very small step, a very small open or
crossing step...then of course it's not ignored at all. So I don't get your
complaint here.
>>>
Furthermore, "open" already refers to a kind of embrace; "cross" is
already the name of a step (or more accurately, a kind of collection
AFTER a step). A new system ought not to duplicate terms like this,
which is one of the major complaints about it, whether you use it or not.
<<<
Well, you know, the originators spoke Spanish. "Cruce Adelante/Cruce Atras"
(Front Cross/Back Cross) isn't the same as "Cruzada" (the cross). Maybe we
should switch to the Spanish terms.
I'd also dispute the structural usefulness of "close embrace" vs. "open
embrace" anyway, and I don't hear serious students of structure using the
terms much - in my experience it's much more of a "style preference
indicator" than a structural distinction. Until one starts talking about
on-axis vs. off-axis, shared weight, and/or gravity-driven connection, the
distinction is in my experience too vague to be structurally useful, even
though many people think they know what someone else means when they say it.
Thanks for an interesting and provocative discussion. I remain persuaded of
the system's usefulness, especially after spending a month in Buenos Aires
watching the likes of Chicho come up with wacky stuff from scratch right in
front of my eyes at El Motivo that I could scarcely believe - he started
with a concept so raw and freshly minted that he and Lucia ended up on the
floor a couple times while they worked out the kinks - then within an hour,
they are pulling it off on a crowded floor with astonishing grace,
musicality and spontaneity to high-speed D'Arienzo.
Chicho, his fellow explorers Gustavo, Fabian, Luciana, and the framework
they helped foster set the bar pretty high - any replacement structural
system has its work cut out for it. Theory games are fun, but results count
too.
Brian Dunn
Dance of the Heart
Boulder, Colorado USA
www.danceoftheheart.com
"Building a Better World, One Tango at a Time"
