4678 Direction: Theorem #1
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 19:43:34 -0500
From: "Jake Spatz (TangoDC.com)" <spatz@tangoDC.com>
Subject: [Tango-L] Direction: Theorem #1
To: tango-L@mit.edu
Hi Huck,
I don't think my position here is quite understood. I already use the
open-cross step definitions for what they're worth. I'm asking if we can
find something with More worth. My objections to the "open step"
definition of 8CB #1 deal with the "default to open" problem... Just
because a step isn't crossed, I'm arguing, doesn't mean it must
therefore be open.
Also, I know the "face each other" test thing is just a test. My point
is that it tests (and tells us about) a modified position, not the
actual step taken by the dancers.
As for Theorem #1... Any sacada (front or back) of the follower's
sidestep, starting from parallel system (in a normal embrace), has the
follower taking an open step and the leader in a crossed step. If the
move commences from cross-system, both partners are taking open steps
during the leader's front sacada.
You got a Theorem #2?
Jake Spatz
DC
p.s. Thanks for picking this discussion up again!
Huck Kennedy wrote:
> Martin Nussbaum writes:
>
>> Jake, what you are calling a "neither" step, ie a straight back step for
>> leader in "normal" (parallel)leader steps back with right, follower steps
>> forward with left, or leader steps back with left and follower matches with
>> forward step with right and vice versa, is an open step, for both, under
>> Gustavo/Chicho/Fabian system, (GCF ? )
>>
>
> That's three votes, counting Brian!
>
> Jake Spatz writes:
>
>
>> 2. The "salida"
>> Yes, you're using the Spanish term more correctly. I'm using it to mean
>> 8-count basic,
>>
>
> Okay, that's what I thought.
>
>
>> which I take to be entirely in parallel system,
>>
>
> Well the so-called "right basic" is, but the
> so-called "left basic" switches back and forth
> between the parallel and crossed.
>
>
>> and will henceforth switch to the abbreviation 8CB or "basic 8"
>> when referring to that particular thing.
>>
>
> Many thanks!
>
>
>> 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?
>>
>
> No, maybe I didn't make myself clear enough--the
> stopping and pivoting isn't for real-life dancing--it's
> just a test you can interrupt yourself with to do during
> analysis in a practica to help you determine if you just
> took an open step or a closed step.
>
>
>> 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.)
>>
>
> As a brief aside, thanks for calling it the 8CB,
> and now thanks for finally clearing up in my mind
> your numbering system. While most Argentines I've met
> who actually teach the 8CB do number the steps that way,
> many teachers don't.
>
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> You've lost me. Let me just say that for your
> Step #1 of the 8CB, it's just an open step under the
> GFC system. As Brian mentioned, any step that isn't
> a crossed step defaults to being an open step, which
> means that when you and your partner are directly
> facing each other, your thighs are not crossed (note
> that hers might be, in which case she just took
> a closed step as opposed to your open). And as for
> the little test I mentioned, for Step #1 of the 8CB,
> you're already facing each other, so there's no need
> to pivot to face each other. Your thighs aren't crossed,
> so you just took an open step.
>
>
>> This kind of analysis distorts all data until the data
>> matches its cute little reductive cubby-holes.
>>
>
> Well this kind of analysis is exactly what
> Gustavo, Fabian, and Chicho use to explain what
> they mean by an "open step" and a "crossed step."
> I didn't make up that little test, they did (or
> one of them did).
>
>
>> 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?
>>
>
> I guess you must hate topology then, which
> can't tell the difference between a coffee cup
> and a doughnut. :) I do agree with you that
> you need to know a lot more than open/closed to
> notate precise choreography.
>
> Actually, the whole GFC open/crossed thing
> is very much like a topological concept, when you
> think about it. When you do the little test where
> you and your partner stop for a moment and pivot on
> both feet to directly face each other to see if
> your thighs are open or crossed, that is very much
> like topological deformation.
>
> Now for some fun: Let's try on some theorems
> for size!
>
> Theorem #1: If you're in the parallel system
> and both you and your partner take a step, either
> you'll both be taking an open step, or you both
> will be taking a closed step. Likewise, if you're
> in the crossed system and you both take a step,
> one of you will be taking an open step while the
> other will be taking a closed step.
>
> Huck
>
>
>
>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 03:46:11 +0000
From: "Jay Rabe" <jayrabe@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Tango-L] Direction: Theorem #1
To: tango-L@mit.edu
Jake, regarding your comment: "I'm asking if we can find something with More
worth [than open-cross step definitions.] So how will you know when it has
more worth? What do you value? What do you want to DO with the
definitions/analysis?
For example, while it is curious to me and can be entertaining in a
left-brain sort of way to debate various definitions of when a step is open
or crossed or neither, what's the point? I'd love for someone to give me an
example of how it can be helpful in learning, teaching, or dancing (which
are the things I value) to know whether a given step is "open" or "crossed."
If the whole point is to use words to describe a step or sequence of steps
(ie without doing a demonstration or drawing a picture), and you might want
to say something like, "leader takes a right forward open step," then the
real measure of worth IMO is whether that description is superior in any way
to a definition based on for example Jeff Gaynor's proposal, which might
describe the same step by saying, "leader takes a right step to 12:00." My
personal opinion: it is not. I find Jeff's system completely adequate and
unambiguous.
In addition, I really liked Jeff's analysis of possible ways of stepping,
and the need to describe the differences between pivoting on one foot vs.
twisting on two, and between stepping by lifting-placing vs. sliding the
foot. I'd struggled with that too, and his is the first time I've seen it
addressed (Thanks, Jeff).
J
www.TangoMoments.com
Get free, personalized commercial-free online radio with MSN Radio powered
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 04:13:55 -0500
From: "Jake Spatz (TangoDC.com)" <spatz@tangoDC.com>
Subject: Re: [Tango-L] Direction: Theorem #1
To: tango-L@mit.edu
Hi Jay,
Please see my in-line comments below.
Jay Rabe wrote:
> Jake, regarding your comment: "I'm asking if we can find something with More worth [than open-cross step definitions.] So how will you know when it has
> more worth?
When it has more than one definition. As has been pointed out, there is
something _readily identifiable_ as a "cross-step," and called such; and
meanwhile everything NOT a cross-step is lumped in the "open step"
category, which I find insufficient. Calling a head-on step "open" has
no practical or notational value. (E.g., there is no room-- no opening--
for a clean sacada.) I find this is a shortcoming of that analysis; it
is also a logical fallacy, properly speaking; and whether there are
three or three hundred votes against me, I'll still say that it fudges
things, because (a) it DOES fudge things, and (b) as analysis it remains
incomplete.
Furthermore, I've added (to the discussion here, at least; unless it was
in a private message) that the front cross crosses the embrace AND the
dancer's own body, while the back cross crosses the body only (which I
imagine was among the original observations made by FaGuChi). But this
apparent difference in configuration isn't of much practical value
either, because if you reverse the direction of any such step without
altering the embrace (as in simple changes of direction, aka
arrepentidas) you clearly cross the embrace either coming or going.
This, to me, is actually useful practical knowledge. (Especially for
more complicated stuff in close embrace.)
And to correct an earlier inaccuracy (not mine): It is _certainly_
possible to do a "cross-step" stationary weight change, to the same
extent that you can do an open one, and for the same reasons-- the
relationship of the torso with respect to the hips, the direction of the
lead (or "intention"), and the position and orientation of the other
person. All these things are involved in the "regular" steps. To call a
stationary step a non-traveling sidestep doesn't make any more sense
than calling it a non-traveling forward or backward step. It can seem to
represent any of the three, because there's more involved than can be
explained by a lone definition ("cross-step or not").
Not that I'm satisfied calling it anything but a stationary weight
shift. There are reasons not to call it anything else.
> What do you value?
Accuracy of concepts and of description, here. I'm largely an intuitive
thinker, and analysis helps me make sense of what's going on. It helps
me find new possibilities. It alienates me from the familiar, and
encourages me to tackle it afresh, to learn something more about it, to
make it more my own.
> What do you want to DO with the definitions/analysis?
>
Whatever I can. My initial stated purpose, when I asked if anyone had a
tip for transcending the left-right thing, was to arrive at an improved
notational model so I could write down fancy shit that comes up in
practice sessions. The shop-talk tangential to that pursuit has been
stimulating in its own right, of course, and has gotten me trying out
unfamiliar things on the floor. What do I want to DO, then? Make shit
up, write shit down, dance shit through.
> For example, while it is curious to me and can be entertaining in a left-brain sort of way to debate various definitions of when a step is open or crossed or neither, what's the point?
It's not enough that it's both curious and entertaining? Well, there's
always the "increase of knowledge" thing, for any who give a damn. As
for the poor left brain-- why does it always get such a bad rap? And are
we semi-/ambidextrous people the only ones who consider that whole
pop-psych dichotomy to be bullshit? Can't we use the entire organ?
> I'd love for someone to give me an example of how it can be helpful in learning, teaching, or dancing (which are the things I value) to know whether a given step is "open" or "crossed."
>
Well, to stick with sacadas, you've got very different consequences
depending on whether the trailing leg is open, behind your partner, or
in front of your partner (and crossing the embrace). And depending on
which of those steps you're entering with. If you're in a modified
embrace, it saves you a lot of trouble to have worked through these, no?
And if two men are dancing, or two women, these concepts can illuminate.
So long, that is, as you actually examine and _test_ things like
"Theorem #1," instead of lying down sheep-like before everything with
the superficial appearance of a "rule."
On the very practical level of this particular concept: If you're using
change-of-direction to set up a gancho, knowing whether your partner is
"in" a cross-step or not (and thus holding a high degree of torsion
that's about to be unleashed) can save you (or not) a kick in the nuts.
Conversely, knowing whether or not You're "in" an open step can save you
>from hurting her foot against your knee.
As regards teaching, I prefer teaching concepts (such as this one)
instead of sequences, because a sequence is easily forgotten (and is
choreography besides), whereas a concept is far more easily retained and
useful for improv and that sort of mischief.
> If the whole point is to use words to describe a step or sequence of steps (ie without doing a demonstration or drawing a picture), and you might want to say something like, "leader takes a right forward open step," then the
> real measure of worth IMO is whether that description is superior in any way to a definition based on for example Jeff Gaynor's proposal, which might describe the same step by saying, "leader takes a right step to 12:00." My
> personal opinion: it is not. I find Jeff's system completely adequate and unambiguous.
>
First off, notation isn't the only or even ultimate point of analysis.
Secondly, I don't imagine a single method (verbal) could be wholly
sufficient and have not even argued on behalf of verbal description
(unless I'm mistaken). Thirdly, I don't find Jeff's system completely
adequate for the couple, because one dancer has to read the clock
upside-down, and that's not fair (my original issue). (It also comprises
coordinates instead of analysis.) Fourthly, I do like Jeff's tabulature
for the individual student note-taker (insofar as they're notating
sequences)-- although I don't see any point myself for noting rhythm
there, and would actually discourage the practice.
I have one student who writes notes on a steno pad, reserving one side
for the follower and the other for the leader. I like that idea too.
> In addition, I really liked Jeff's analysis of possible ways of stepping, and the need to describe the differences between pivoting on one foot vs. twisting on two, and between stepping by lifting-placing vs. sliding the
> foot.
I'm going out on a limb here, but I do believe that 90% of "two-foot
twisting" is, or at least results in, bad form. If you don't collect as
a leader, you probably aren't leading your partner to collect either. If
she's really sensitive to your lead, she'll twist on two feet with you,
because certain moves (I don't like them very much, personally, but they
exist) require that. So unless you're trying to lead that stuff, the
only dancers you'll be able to lead successfully (from your perspective
as a leader) are the ones who aren't good enough to follow you.
Arguments to the contrary?
I feel I should re-reiterate here that I'm getting a lot out of this
discussion, even if others have ceased to; that I don't care if it's not
useful in a class; that I don't ask analysis to replace teaching or
practice (or talent), but that I do ask it to be accurate and
consistent. And I'm very happy that I stumbled upon the diachronic
(hours:minutes) notation mentioned in an earlier post, because I think
THAT is actually very useful. At least for leaders, who are often
dancing diachronically (leading in one direction while moving in another).
And if any of this junk leads to a real live _good_ system of
choreographic notation for tango, that'll be a definite advance on
current knowledge. Perhaps no one on this list would have use of such a
creature; but there are plenty of people who might.
Jake Spatz
DC
> I'd struggled with that too, and his is the first time I've seen it addressed (Thanks, Jeff).
>
> J
> www.TangoMoments.com
>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 15:57:06 -0500
From: "Jacob Eggers" <eggers@brandeis.edu>
Subject: Re: [Tango-L] Direction: Theorem #1
To: tango-L@mit.edu
<dfa4cf020611281257k3f5a00dfnd331c691fb89d0b@mail.gmail.com>
I think that the reason people use the front cross - back cross - open
notation is because from any position, you can write down virtually any
random sequence like:
(leader - follower)
f - b
f - o
b sacada - f
o - b
And then theoretically do it. It opens up all of these amazing
possibilities, some of which are near impossible. (or impossible, e.g. you
get stuck trying to do that sequence in cross system, unless you allow for
weight changes). Of course the notation doesn't describe a unique sequence,
but that just adds to a little of the fun.
A couple here in Boston (Tova and Carlos) once did a tango twister game
using these principles. I unfortunately missed it, but heard that it was
both fun and extremely difficult.
j
On 11/27/06, Jake Spatz (TangoDC.com) <spatz@tangodc.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Huck,
>
> I don't think my position here is quite understood. I already use the
> open-cross step definitions for what they're worth. I'm asking if we can
> find something with More worth. My objections to the "open step"
> definition of 8CB #1 deal with the "default to open" problem... Just
> because a step isn't crossed, I'm arguing, doesn't mean it must
> therefore be open.
>
> Also, I know the "face each other" test thing is just a test. My point
> is that it tests (and tells us about) a modified position, not the
> actual step taken by the dancers.
>
> As for Theorem #1... Any sacada (front or back) of the follower's
> sidestep, starting from parallel system (in a normal embrace), has the
> follower taking an open step and the leader in a crossed step. If the
> move commences from cross-system, both partners are taking open steps
> during the leader's front sacada.
>
> You got a Theorem #2?
>
> Jake Spatz
> DC
>
> p.s. Thanks for picking this discussion up again!
>
>
> Huck Kennedy wrote:
> > Martin Nussbaum writes:
> >
> >> Jake, what you are calling a "neither" step, ie a straight back step
> for
> >> leader in "normal" (parallel)leader steps back with right, follower
> steps
> >> forward with left, or leader steps back with left and follower matches
> with
> >> forward step with right and vice versa, is an open step, for both,
> under
> >> Gustavo/Chicho/Fabian system, (GCF ? )
> >>
> >
> > That's three votes, counting Brian!
> >
> > Jake Spatz writes:
> >
> >
> >> 2. The "salida"
> >> Yes, you're using the Spanish term more correctly. I'm using it to mean
>
> >> 8-count basic,
> >>
> >
> > Okay, that's what I thought.
> >
> >
> >> which I take to be entirely in parallel system,
> >>
> >
> > Well the so-called "right basic" is, but the
> > so-called "left basic" switches back and forth
> > between the parallel and crossed.
> >
> >
> >> and will henceforth switch to the abbreviation 8CB or "basic 8"
> >> when referring to that particular thing.
> >>
> >
> > Many thanks!
> >
> >
> >> 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?
> >>
> >
> > No, maybe I didn't make myself clear enough--the
> > stopping and pivoting isn't for real-life dancing--it's
> > just a test you can interrupt yourself with to do during
> > analysis in a practica to help you determine if you just
> > took an open step or a closed step.
> >
> >
> >> 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.)
> >>
> >
> > As a brief aside, thanks for calling it the 8CB,
> > and now thanks for finally clearing up in my mind
> > your numbering system. While most Argentines I've met
> > who actually teach the 8CB do number the steps that way,
> > many teachers don't.
> >
> >
> >> 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.
> >>
> >
> > You've lost me. Let me just say that for your
> > Step #1 of the 8CB, it's just an open step under the
> > GFC system. As Brian mentioned, any step that isn't
> > a crossed step defaults to being an open step, which
> > means that when you and your partner are directly
> > facing each other, your thighs are not crossed (note
> > that hers might be, in which case she just took
> > a closed step as opposed to your open). And as for
> > the little test I mentioned, for Step #1 of the 8CB,
> > you're already facing each other, so there's no need
> > to pivot to face each other. Your thighs aren't crossed,
> > so you just took an open step.
> >
> >
> >> This kind of analysis distorts all data until the data
> >> matches its cute little reductive cubby-holes.
> >>
> >
> > Well this kind of analysis is exactly what
> > Gustavo, Fabian, and Chicho use to explain what
> > they mean by an "open step" and a "crossed step."
> > I didn't make up that little test, they did (or
> > one of them did).
> >
> >
> >> 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?
> >>
> >
> > I guess you must hate topology then, which
> > can't tell the difference between a coffee cup
> > and a doughnut. :) I do agree with you that
> > you need to know a lot more than open/closed to
> > notate precise choreography.
> >
> > Actually, the whole GFC open/crossed thing
> > is very much like a topological concept, when you
> > think about it. When you do the little test where
> > you and your partner stop for a moment and pivot on
> > both feet to directly face each other to see if
> > your thighs are open or crossed, that is very much
> > like topological deformation.
> >
> > Now for some fun: Let's try on some theorems
> > for size!
> >
> > Theorem #1: If you're in the parallel system
> > and both you and your partner take a step, either
> > you'll both be taking an open step, or you both
> > will be taking a closed step. Likewise, if you're
> > in the crossed system and you both take a step,
> > one of you will be taking an open step while the
> > other will be taking a closed step.
> >
> > Huck
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 14:09:48 -0800 (PST)
From: Rick Jones <rwjones52@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [Tango-L] Direction: Theorem #1
To: tango-L@mit.edu
Do I have this right...people are actually using the word "theorem" and the word "tango" in the same sentence?
LOL!
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 20:20:33 -0600
From: "Christopher L. Everett" <ceverett@ceverett.com>
Subject: Re: [Tango-L] Direction: Theorem #1
To: spatz@tangoDC.com
Cc: Tango-L <tango-l@mit.edu>
People, this is what Labanotation is for.
Christopher
