4665  Directional notation

Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 19:12:07 -0500
From: "Jake Spatz (TangoDC.com)" <spatz@tangoDC.com>
Subject: [Tango-L] Directional notation
To: tango-L@mit.edu

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

Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 12:44:32 -1200
From: "Michael" <tangomaniac@cavtel.net>
Subject: Re: [Tango-L] Directional notation
To: spatz@tangoDC.com, tango-L@mit.edu
Cc: tangomaniac@cavtel.net

Jake:
A dancer's direction is based on the direction their hips
are facing. (My ballroom teacher says direction is based on
the direction my feet are facing.)
For example, let's say I'm going to do front sacadas while
the woman does a molinete to my right. To begin, I lead her
in a front ocho to my left. After her pivot on her left
foot, she steps (to my right) forward on her right foot. I
step forward toward her trailing foot. Both of us are
stepping forward but our forward is in a different
direction. It's like cars on the Washington Beltway. The
cars are going forward on both sides of the median strip.
Some are going clockwise and some are going
counterclockwise, but the cars are going forward. Now, for a
New York example. The Staten Island ferry only goes forward
because wheelhouses are built at both ends. It NEVER has to
be turned around.

Michael Ditkoff
Washington, DC
Away from Washington for the holidays. Amtrak was only 30
minutes late today into New Haven.

> 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
>
>

I'd rather be dancing Argentine Tango

Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 20:26:41 -0700
From: "David Liu" <dwyliu@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Tango-L] Directional notation
To: spatz@tangodc.com
Cc: tango-l@mit.edu
<30ad4e030611211926p36051c47t5290ad8ec48f0022@mail.gmail.com>

Interesting question.

I guess you could use items in the room as cardinal directions (towards or
away from the door, towards or away from the mirror).

I'm eager to see what others say.

Best,
David

On 11/21/06, Jake Spatz (TangoDC.com) <spatz@tangodc.com> wrote:

>
> 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
>
>
>

Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 03:29:52 +0000
From: rockies@comcast.net
Subject: Re: [Tango-L] Directional notation
To: spatz@tangoDC.com, tango-L@mit.edu
Cc: "Jake Spatz \(TangoDC.com\)" <spatz@tangodc.com>
<112220060329.21023.4563C430000597E50000521F22069997350101009B9D@comcast.net>


Jake,

For absolute beginners, I don't think what you're asking is going to be possible, you'll probably have to settle for giving two explanations (one for follower, one for leader), like everyone else does. For anyone with one class or more of experience you could describe all the steps relative to the follower, since the leader has to know what the follower's steps are at all times anyway. This is how Daniel Trenner does it. It's very effective. For example, as he coaches how to lead a molinette, he is telling the leaders in the class to think and say (initially) 'forward step, side step, back step, side step,' etcetera, as they are simply rotating right or left on the spot.

Randy F

Portland OR.


-------------- Original message ----------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 01:34:45 -0500
From: "WHITE 95 R" <white95r@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Tango-L] Directional notation
To: spatz@tangoDC.com, tango-L@mit.edu

>From: "Jake Spatz (TangoDC.com)" <spatz@tangoDC.com>

(There being, to my knowledge, no cross-system salida.)


Hi Jack,
If you would like and if there is ever a chance, I'd be happy to show a
number of those. I find myself doing things like that all the time.....

View Athletes Collections with Live Search
https://sportmaps.live.com/index.html?source=hmemailtaglinenov06&FORM=MGAC01

Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 03:25:41 -0500
From: "Jake Spatz (TangoDC.com)" <spatz@tangoDC.com>
Subject: Re: [Tango-L] Directional notation
To: tango-L@mit.edu

Respondents:

Let me try to be a little clearer. Forgive my terseness in spots.
(Caveat: the further you read, the complicateder it gets.)

A. I'm trying to get BEYOND "left" and "right," as well as "forward" and
"backward," since these words have opposite meanings to dancers in an
_en face_ embrace. Front sacadas notwithstanding: Both dancers are
moving "forward" in that case, yes; and also both clockwise (or vice
versa); but there is this big minute-hand called "the extended human
arm" which the follower is moving AWAY from and which the leader is
moving TOWARDS (or vice versa), and that is the index of actual motion,
which anyone who has both led and followed a front sacada is certainly
aware of.

B. I'm not after a set of cardinal directions relative to the room (as
specified). I'm after something that can be cardinal with respect to the
embrace, yet not oriented by one dancer (to the other's confusion).

C. My name is Jake (Jacob), not Jack (John).

D. The 8-count salida, in standard or default form, as I know it, is
entirely in parallel system. I can put all of it, or part of it, into
cross-system just like anyone else; but when I refer to steps 2 and 7,
most dancers are going to understand I mean back-n-forth sidesteps in
parallel system. Denoting all the basic steps in parallel-system walking
is the only real use of that salida in the first place. (See Postscript
below for more on this.)

I've spent about an hour toying around with various attempts at a real
"cross system salida," and I've come up short. Just for the sake of
analysis. If anyone out there has coined one, which is not just the
normal salida with an extra weight change here & there, please let me
know about it. My experience led me to believe it would have to involve
a lot of curves & circularity, as opposed to the clean linearity of the
standard salida. (For a better idea of what I was after with That sally,
again, please see the Postscript.)

Perhaps I should have noted earlier that I'm looking for a new language
here, so that complex open-embrace maneuvers don't require such
cumbersome , two-part descriptions. I'm looking for something that, as I
noted, can clearly describe an over-turned back ocho. In that case, the
whole couple is moving "back" (i.e., to the leader's aft-side, unlike
typical back ochos, which travel "horizontally" or else to the leader's
fore.) (And "horizontally" is incorrect too, for that matter.) Of
course, if the pivot is Really over-turned, and involves a soltada or
crosses the leader's body, then the couple is traveling to the leader's
fore-side again; and yet the leader will have to move much differently,
not only to travel with the follower, but to lead that 270+ degree
pivot. Here, "left" and "right" are as hopelessly inadequate as
"derecho" and "atras." Well, then what IS the better way to notate these
things?

I ask this knowing there might not be an answer.

Also, I'm not necessarily interested in developing a new system of
description & notation for _teaching_ purposes, because I don't really
teach advanced choreography (in the loose sense of that term:
"sequential vocabulary"). If I arrive at a new terminology, and it
clarifies things for my students, that will be a nice side-effect. I'm
doing this (a) for the sake of a more comprehensive analysis; (b) so I
can record any weird shit my partners and I develop during practicas, in
case we want to work on (or better understand) those bits again later;
and (c) so that the List has something more interesting to talk about
than certain members not having anything interesting to talk about.

The systems of non-tango dance notation I've looked at (Labanotation
being one of them) are extensive and curious, but they refer to
individual movement only, and they still use left & right, forward &
backward. I want to erase the individual from the directions, and insert
the _en face_ couple. Why? I'd like to be able to describe over-rotated,
or counter-turning, or soltada positions & movements more clearly. The
couple's original orientation seems like a good way to do it, because
usually there's only one partner who's at variance from the embrace,
while the other keeps things "at home." If both partners run errant,
it's even more important to have a *unified* sense of where they're going.

Likewise: if Sergio and I are dancing together, the direction of salida
step #2 is going to vary depending on which one of us has his left arm
out.* "My left," "his left," and such terms are silly. It should be
"_our_ [something]." I want a descriptive system free of these damn
possessive pronouns.

* Provided we don't dip into deliberate backleading, which is a
possibility I mentioned in my much-abhorred little "Prologue" of a few
months back, and here ignore, because it doesn't make a difference
unless we base the directions on the leader or follower exclusively.

I've considered using "port" and "starboard," which construes the couple
as a ship relative to the ronda; but that's really more of the same. It
also doesn't make sense, because on a crew team, the coxswain (usually a
chick) is facing fore, while the men are facing aft; meanwhile, the man
is typically (too typically) facing fore in the ronda, while the chick
is facing aft.

Well prior to finding myself as a dancer, I began a short parable about
a young monk who goes mad trying to imagine the apple of Eden from all
sides at once. My present effort is starting to remind me of him.

Jake
DC

=POSTSCRIPT: About the 8-count salidaI don't know the full history of this thing's use, but I've always
encountered it with every step in parallel system. I.e., the leader
walks to the follower's cross, and changes his weight WITH her (#5 being
a step in place). In group classes, I revive this thing for the express
purpose of introducing cross-system variations, or mirroring the whole
thing, or getting the guy (or the girl) to do every step with the same
foot while their partner proceeds as usual, or reversing all the steps
so that the leader leads himself into his own cross, etc.
That said...
The salida is much-hated nowadays, but has its purpose. It presents
all the possible parallel-system steps (not including counterpointed
steps), except it has a wrinkle.
DIGRESSION:
If we consider that a step may be (1) sideways, (2) forward, (3)
backward, or (4) in place; and that a step may be taken with either the
left or the right leg, then we have 8 possible basic steps. (END)
Steps #4 and #6, because of the stationary weight change done at the
cross (and because of the cross), are identical, if we disregard the
alignment issue. Thus, there must be one basic step missing from the
8-count salida, if one step is done twice.
The missing step pops in and out at #8. If you do #8 as a step in
place, you're missing the (leader's) backward step with his left foot.
If you do #8 as a backward step (making the salida one big cadena, or
continuous figure), then you're missing the weight-shift onto the
leader's left foot.
I've tried modifying the salida to include every possible step in
one iteration, but it wasn't simple enough for my tastes, or clear as a
teaching instrument. Basically, I turned #6 into the leader's back step
(the follower's front ocho opening). It's useful for pattern-breaking in
followers, since it's only "half an ocho," but it's otherwise ugly and
not very useful.
What I was looking for in the cross-system salida (which I failed to
find) was a similar "catalog" of walking, which would include every
basic cross-system step in a not-too-unmemorable pattern. As I explored
the matter, there were just too many pivots (and possible directions)
for me to make it work.
I may have stumbled on something similar to such a pattern at a
recent leader's workshop I led. It was the typical cross-system walk
(out of alignment), only with the leader alternating back and forward
crosses, thus replicating the molinete while the follower does back
ochos. This easily spills into the follower's molinete, once the leader
establishes a fulcrum and stops traveling. It can be done to either side.
I've heard this "linear molinete" (as done by the follower) described
as the "original grapevine," and also as what the walk looked like in
canyengue. I can't verify either statement myself. I'd welcome anyone
who can.

=POST-POSTSCRIPT Backup argument for the 8-count salida in parallel:
Every odd-numbered step is taken onto the leader's right leg
(follower's left); every even step is onto the leader's left (follower's
right). The cross does not change this, because both partners take a
step in place.
The most shocking mental breakthrough I've had in my tango study
(and perhaps this is the real, subjective reason behind my assertion)
was around my fourth or fifth outing, in Brooklyn. I asked my teacher
(Jose Fluk, for those who care) to show me how to improvise and
navigate. He wanted to teach me something else. I refused. He conceded.
He partnered me with his girlfriend of the time (I haven't seen
either of them in years; I presume perhaps erroneously they're still
together), and started calling out random numbers between 1 and 8
(inclusive). I did that salida step. They were all out of order. After
about three minutes of this, I was free.
To my recollection, he continued calling out numbers for another 10
seconds, and then saved his breath as I moved around the floor freely.
We drank beer for the rest of the lesson-time, and I paid him in full.
Until I figured out that the odd & even steps alternate feet, I
thought that Jose was either a computational genius or had a secret
trick for deciding which number to call out. (This shit was rapid-fire;
maybe 8 steps every 10 seconds.) Now I know what his trick was: he
simply alternated even and odd. Working out the cross was my problem; if
she crossed, yippee; if not, we did a stationary weight-shift together
anyway. No big deal.
I haven't used this method with a student myself, because no one has
ever come to me and demanded a definite topic before. But if I ever have
a leader who's as stubborn as I am, and who wants that particular
breakthrough, well, I'm prepared.

Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 05:59:19 -0700
From: "Brian Dunn" <brian@danceoftheheart.com>
Subject: Re: [Tango-L] Directional notation
To: <tango-L@mit.edu>

Hi Jake,

I've been studying the efforts along similar lines undertaken by Gustavo
Naveira, Fabian Salas, Chicho Frumboli, Luciana Valle, Dina Martinez,
Mauricio Castro, and a loose collection of fellow travelers who used to hang
out in Buenos Aires at Cochabamba 444 the late '80s and early '90s. Gustavo
and Fabian were the initial ringleaders and organizers. They would toss
around questions like yours late into the night for months at a time.

The focus of the work, as I understand it, was to create a systematic
analysis of social tango dancing possibilities using "lead-follow
communication" in an asymmetrical embrace ("open-side/closed-side") where
partners face each other. Given these "limitations", many purely
choreographic/gymnastic issues were considered uninteresting (e.g., "how can
we do this with her standing on top of my head?").

While an exhaustive and integral examination of the history of their work
awaits a forthcoming book or two among some of the principals, a few of
their terminology choices and working strategies may provide some food for
thought:

1) They seemed to abandon the directionality-in-the-room frame of reference
(i.e., "Forwards", "Backwards", "Sideways") almost completely, as if it were
sort of trivial. After all, they seemed to conclude, in social tango
dancing you're going to either stand still, rotate on a point individually
or together, or move from your current position into the next available
space in the ronda, no matter where it is in the room. Instead they focused
on the frame of reference of the couple, and the relative positions and/or
movements of their legs, that they would need to use to "get there", and how
the leader would use the connection to guide the follower through those
possibilities.

2) The possibilities for stepping were thus reduced to only three possible
steps, describing transitory relative positions of the four legs of the
couple in question:

- One partner sees the other partner's legs crossing: one moving in front of
the other (i.e., the moving partner is doing a "Front Cross" or "Cruce
Adelante" step);
- One partner sees the other partner's legs crossing: one moving in back or
behind of the other (i.e., "Back Cross" or "Cruce Atras");
- One partner sees the other partner's legs opening wider apart without
crossing (i.e., "Open Step" or "Apertura")

This creates (3x2=) six basic "steps": three for the left leg, three for the
right leg. These are independent of the room's frame of reference - I can
go "frontwards" (easy), "sideways" (easy) or "backwards" (harder) using a
front cross step, for example. Leader's and follower's steps may occur
together, or one partner may be stepping alone while the other remains with
weight on the standing leg, creating a common "turning" situation.

3) If partners are stepping together, they are either stepping with opposite
feet (LEFT/right, RIGHT/left, leader in caps) or with the same foot
(LEFT/left, RIGHT/right). From this they named these two systems of
walking: the first was called "normal" or "parallel", the second "crossed"
(if you walk this way, in the "normal way" the legs on the same side of the
embrace (i.e., my left, her right) are parallel, in the "other" way they are
"crossed".

4) If one partner is stepping and the other is not, one partner is by
necessity "orbiting" the other, creating a center-and-circumference
situation. The direction of that turn is commonly referred to as "to the
left" or "to the right" of whichever partner is in the center. For the less
typical case of the couple rotating as a unit while moving together, the
frame itself is referred to as rotating clockwise or counterclockwise.

Adapting these terms and concepts as their foundation, they created a very
powerful and economical method of inquiry into the fundamental structure of
tango possibilities.

To me the most interesting quality of these terminology choices is that,
like tango, they are all implicitly relationship-oriented. Terms like
"parallel/crossed" or steps like "front cross" cannot even be described as a
"third-person singular" phenomenon - the plurality of the "partner's
perspective" is build into the definition.

As your work continues, I'll be interested to see if you come to the same
conclusion: that the more our fundamental terms depend on the underlying
"coupleness" of the dance ("it takes two to tango"), the more useful they
will be.

All the best,
Brian Dunn
Dance of the Heart
Boulder, Colorado USA
www.danceoftheheart.com
"Building a Better world, One Tango at a Time"



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

Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 1:26 AM
To: tango-L@mit.edu
Subject: Re: [Tango-L] Directional notation

Respondents:

Let me try to be a little clearer. Forgive my terseness in spots.
(Caveat: the further you read, the complicateder it gets.)

A. I'm trying to get BEYOND "left" and "right," as well as "forward" and
"backward," since these words have opposite meanings to dancers in an
_en face_ embrace. Front sacadas notwithstanding: Both dancers are
moving "forward" in that case, yes; and also both clockwise (or vice
versa); but there is this big minute-hand called "the extended human
arm" which the follower is moving AWAY from and which the leader is
moving TOWARDS (or vice versa), and that is the index of actual motion,
which anyone who has both led and followed a front sacada is certainly
aware of.

B. I'm not after a set of cardinal directions relative to the room (as
specified). I'm after something that can be cardinal with respect to the
embrace, yet not oriented by one dancer (to the other's confusion).

C. My name is Jake (Jacob), not Jack (John).

D. The 8-count salida, in standard or default form, as I know it, is
entirely in parallel system. I can put all of it, or part of it, into
cross-system just like anyone else; but when I refer to steps 2 and 7,
most dancers are going to understand I mean back-n-forth sidesteps in
parallel system. Denoting all the basic steps in parallel-system walking
is the only real use of that salida in the first place. (See Postscript
below for more on this.)

I've spent about an hour toying around with various attempts at a real
"cross system salida," and I've come up short. Just for the sake of
analysis. If anyone out there has coined one, which is not just the
normal salida with an extra weight change here & there, please let me
know about it. My experience led me to believe it would have to involve
a lot of curves & circularity, as opposed to the clean linearity of the
standard salida. (For a better idea of what I was after with That sally,
again, please see the Postscript.)

Perhaps I should have noted earlier that I'm looking for a new language
here, so that complex open-embrace maneuvers don't require such
cumbersome , two-part descriptions. I'm looking for something that, as I
noted, can clearly describe an over-turned back ocho. In that case, the
whole couple is moving "back" (i.e., to the leader's aft-side, unlike
typical back ochos, which travel "horizontally" or else to the leader's
fore.) (And "horizontally" is incorrect too, for that matter.) Of
course, if the pivot is Really over-turned, and involves a soltada or
crosses the leader's body, then the couple is traveling to the leader's
fore-side again; and yet the leader will have to move much differently,
not only to travel with the follower, but to lead that 270+ degree
pivot. Here, "left" and "right" are as hopelessly inadequate as
"derecho" and "atras." Well, then what IS the better way to notate these
things?

I ask this knowing there might not be an answer.

Also, I'm not necessarily interested in developing a new system of
description & notation for _teaching_ purposes, because I don't really
teach advanced choreography (in the loose sense of that term:
"sequential vocabulary"). If I arrive at a new terminology, and it
clarifies things for my students, that will be a nice side-effect. I'm
doing this (a) for the sake of a more comprehensive analysis; (b) so I
can record any weird shit my partners and I develop during practicas, in
case we want to work on (or better understand) those bits again later;
and (c) so that the List has something more interesting to talk about
than certain members not having anything interesting to talk about.

The systems of non-tango dance notation I've looked at (Labanotation
being one of them) are extensive and curious, but they refer to
individual movement only, and they still use left & right, forward &
backward. I want to erase the individual from the directions, and insert
the _en face_ couple. Why? I'd like to be able to describe over-rotated,
or counter-turning, or soltada positions & movements more clearly. The
couple's original orientation seems like a good way to do it, because
usually there's only one partner who's at variance from the embrace,
while the other keeps things "at home." If both partners run errant,
it's even more important to have a *unified* sense of where they're going.

Likewise: if Sergio and I are dancing together, the direction of salida
step #2 is going to vary depending on which one of us has his left arm
out.* "My left," "his left," and such terms are silly. It should be
"_our_ [something]." I want a descriptive system free of these damn
possessive pronouns.

* Provided we don't dip into deliberate backleading, which is a
possibility I mentioned in my much-abhorred little "Prologue" of a few
months back, and here ignore, because it doesn't make a difference
unless we base the directions on the leader or follower exclusively.

I've considered using "port" and "starboard," which construes the couple
as a ship relative to the ronda; but that's really more of the same. It
also doesn't make sense, because on a crew team, the coxswain (usually a
chick) is facing fore, while the men are facing aft; meanwhile, the man
is typically (too typically) facing fore in the ronda, while the chick
is facing aft.

Well prior to finding myself as a dancer, I began a short parable about
a young monk who goes mad trying to imagine the apple of Eden from all
sides at once. My present effort is starting to remind me of him.

Jake
DC

=POSTSCRIPT: About the 8-count salidaI don't know the full history of this thing's use, but I've always
encountered it with every step in parallel system. I.e., the leader
walks to the follower's cross, and changes his weight WITH her (#5 being
a step in place). In group classes, I revive this thing for the express
purpose of introducing cross-system variations, or mirroring the whole
thing, or getting the guy (or the girl) to do every step with the same
foot while their partner proceeds as usual, or reversing all the steps
so that the leader leads himself into his own cross, etc.
That said...
The salida is much-hated nowadays, but has its purpose. It presents
all the possible parallel-system steps (not including counterpointed
steps), except it has a wrinkle.
DIGRESSION:
If we consider that a step may be (1) sideways, (2) forward, (3)
backward, or (4) in place; and that a step may be taken with either the
left or the right leg, then we have 8 possible basic steps. (END)
Steps #4 and #6, because of the stationary weight change done at the
cross (and because of the cross), are identical, if we disregard the
alignment issue. Thus, there must be one basic step missing from the
8-count salida, if one step is done twice.
The missing step pops in and out at #8. If you do #8 as a step in
place, you're missing the (leader's) backward step with his left foot.
If you do #8 as a backward step (making the salida one big cadena, or
continuous figure), then you're missing the weight-shift onto the
leader's left foot.
I've tried modifying the salida to include every possible step in
one iteration, but it wasn't simple enough for my tastes, or clear as a
teaching instrument. Basically, I turned #6 into the leader's back step
(the follower's front ocho opening). It's useful for pattern-breaking in
followers, since it's only "half an ocho," but it's otherwise ugly and
not very useful.
What I was looking for in the cross-system salida (which I failed to
find) was a similar "catalog" of walking, which would include every
basic cross-system step in a not-too-unmemorable pattern. As I explored
the matter, there were just too many pivots (and possible directions)
for me to make it work.
I may have stumbled on something similar to such a pattern at a
recent leader's workshop I led. It was the typical cross-system walk
(out of alignment), only with the leader alternating back and forward
crosses, thus replicating the molinete while the follower does back
ochos. This easily spills into the follower's molinete, once the leader
establishes a fulcrum and stops traveling. It can be done to either side.
I've heard this "linear molinete" (as done by the follower) described
as the "original grapevine," and also as what the walk looked like in
canyengue. I can't verify either statement myself. I'd welcome anyone
who can.

=POST-POSTSCRIPT Backup argument for the 8-count salida in parallel:
Every odd-numbered step is taken onto the leader's right leg
(follower's left); every even step is onto the leader's left (follower's
right). The cross does not change this, because both partners take a
step in place.
The most shocking mental breakthrough I've had in my tango study
(and perhaps this is the real, subjective reason behind my assertion)
was around my fourth or fifth outing, in Brooklyn. I asked my teacher
(Jose Fluk, for those who care) to show me how to improvise and
navigate. He wanted to teach me something else. I refused. He conceded.
He partnered me with his girlfriend of the time (I haven't seen
either of them in years; I presume perhaps erroneously they're still
together), and started calling out random numbers between 1 and 8
(inclusive). I did that salida step. They were all out of order. After
about three minutes of this, I was free.
To my recollection, he continued calling out numbers for another 10
seconds, and then saved his breath as I moved around the floor freely.
We drank beer for the rest of the lesson-time, and I paid him in full.
Until I figured out that the odd & even steps alternate feet, I
thought that Jose was either a computational genius or had a secret
trick for deciding which number to call out. (This shit was rapid-fire;
maybe 8 steps every 10 seconds.) Now I know what his trick was: he
simply alternated even and odd. Working out the cross was my problem; if
she crossed, yippee; if not, we did a stationary weight-shift together
anyway. No big deal.
I haven't used this method with a student myself, because no one has
ever come to me and demanded a definite topic before. But if I ever have
a leader who's as stubborn as I am, and who wants that particular
breakthrough, well, I'm prepared.

Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 06:18:43 -0700
From: "Brian Dunn" <brian@danceoftheheart.com>
Subject: Re: [Tango-L] Directional notation - correction
To: <tango-L@mit.edu>

Hi Jake again,

Last post, I wrote:

>>>

4) If one partner is stepping and the other is not, one partner is by
necessity "orbiting" the other, creating a center-and-circumference
situation. The direction of that turn is commonly referred to as "to the
left" or "to the right" of whichever partner is in the center.
<<<

After re-reading I'd change #4 to be as follows:
4) If one partner is stepping and the other is not, one partner is by
necessity "orbiting" the other, creating a center-and-circumference
situation. The direction of that turn is commonly referred to as "to the
left" or "to the right" of THE LEADER. If the leader is in the center, the
follower is going to his left or to his right around him; if the leader is
on the circumference, he is going to his left or to his right around her
while facing her...

I know you were looking to avoid "left/right" designations, but since the
leader is architecting the dance for the follower, maybe it's still useful
to grant him the convenience of that mental tool in our terminology.
Anyway, she shouldn't have to think about where his left or his right is, IF
his lead is clear - but that, as they say, is another story ;>.

All the best,
Brian Dunn
Dance of the Heart
Boulder, Colorado USA
www.danceoftheheart.com
"Building a Better world, One Tango at a Time"

Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 18:16:05 +0000
From: "Jay Rabe" <jayrabe@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Tango-L] Directional notation
To: tango-L@mit.edu

Like you said, Jake, it may not be possible to find such a universal
notation. In my own studies, I've defaulted to "leader does this, follower
does that."

A couple of points, however:

* I have no problem using the terms "forward" and "backward" to describe
step directions. I use them to always refer to the step direction in
relation to the person stepping. So if the leader is facing line of dance,
then his forward step and the follower's backward step are both in line of
dance.

* I try to avoid using the terms left and right as directions. I use left
and right to refer to which foot I'm talking about, and there does not seem
to be room for ambiguity in that, except for those people who say they have
"two left feet". So I might indicate a leader stepping L-side, and while
that does mean a step to his left, really the "left" as a direction is
redundant information, since the step is fully specified by saying he is
stepping with his left foot and moving to the side.

* However when either leader or follower is stepping "outside," I find it
useful to say things like, "leader steps r-fwd outside of follower's right."
And while I would agree with you if you find such description cumbersome, at
least it is not ambiguous.

* I use the terms CW=clockwise and CCW=counter-clockwise to clarify
direction of turns. I'd think there would never be any doubt that CW and CCW
refer to direction around axis of rotation, while 'right' and 'left' could
by convention refer to either leader's or follower's frame of reference.

* 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)

* 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----

Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 13:39:41 -0500
From: "Nussbaum, Martin" <mnussbau@law.nyc.gov>
Subject: Re: [Tango-L] Brian and Jake Directional Notation Analysis
To: tango-l@mit.edu
<1A48EE91A5DFFC4BB2FC91C122470E3105066E1F@lawman-ex01.lawlan.nycnet>

This discussion is by far the most interesting I have seen on this list in
ages, and a useful frame of reference for anyone interested in studying with
any of the named superstars in Brian's post.
I have a question for Brian and Jake: why not simply use the term clockwise
and counter-clockwise, not just for the situation where both are turning,
but also for the center and circumference situation described in paragraph 4
of Brian's post ? If one person is not stepping that must already be noted,
thus anything the partner does at that point can be thought of as part of a
turn around the stationary, just as would be noted in any other move, and
the clock reference seems to universally apply. Also, Brian, have you seen
Chico's old video on changes in direction? I was under the impression he
spoke of it as you did in the first draft of par 4, from the point of
reference of the person in the center of the turn, rather than the leader.
Seems more intuitive to analyze from the center of the turn, as he explains
what is done to shift to a new center at any given point. Please correct me
if Im wrong.
Martin

Brian Wrote:
After re-reading I'd change #4 to be as follows:
4) If one partner is stepping and the other is not, one partner is by
necessity "orbiting" the other, creating a center-and-circumference
situation. The direction of that turn is commonly referred to as "to the
left" or "to the right" of THE LEADER. If the leader is in the center, the
follower is going to his left or to his right around him; if the leader is
on the circumference, he is going to his left or to his right around her
while facing her...

Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 19:36 +0000 (GMT Standard Time)
From: "Chris, UK" <tl2@chrisjj.com>
Subject: Re: [Tango-L] Directional notation
Cc: tl2@chrisjj.com

Jake

> If anyone out there has coined [a "cross system salida"],
> which is not just the normal salida with an extra weight change here &
> there, please let me know about it.

OK.

Do your 'standard or default form' (parallel) salida, but at #3, instead
of stepping her back and you stepping forward, first pivot her to your
left, pivoting with her, then step her back without yourself stepping. So
#3 continues the direction of #2. Then proceed with #4 and #5 in crossed.

Note: No extra weight change.

It is said this was popular in milongas where the guy and girl would meet

>from the center and edge of the floor respectively, because from that

initial orientation it conveniently turns the couple into the line of dance.

> About the 8-count salida ... I've always encountered it with every step
> in parallel system. ... In group classes ...

I guess you're unlikely to encounter the above in the typical group class,
because it only really works in close embrace.

> The salida is much-hated nowadays, but has its purpose. It presents
> all the possible parallel-system steps

Though often claimed by teachers, it is untrue. E.g. consider steps where
he/she sidesteps while she/he changes weight.

Chris

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

*Subject:* Re: [Tango-L] Directional notation
*From:* "Jake Spatz (TangoDC.com)" <spatz@tangoDC.com>
*To:* tango-L@mit.edu
*Date:* Wed, 22 Nov 2006 03:25:41 -0500

Respondents:

Let me try to be a little clearer. Forgive my terseness in spots.
(Caveat: the further you read, the complicateder it gets.)

A. I'm trying to get BEYOND "left" and "right," as well as "forward" and
"backward," since these words have opposite meanings to dancers in an
_en face_ embrace. Front sacadas notwithstanding: Both dancers are
moving "forward" in that case, yes; and also both clockwise (or vice
versa); but there is this big minute-hand called "the extended human
arm" which the follower is moving AWAY from and which the leader is
moving TOWARDS (or vice versa), and that is the index of actual motion,
which anyone who has both led and followed a front sacada is certainly
aware of.

B. I'm not after a set of cardinal directions relative to the room (as
specified). I'm after something that can be cardinal with respect to the
embrace, yet not oriented by one dancer (to the other's confusion).

C. My name is Jake (Jacob), not Jack (John).

D. The 8-count salida, in standard or default form, as I know it, is
entirely in parallel system. I can put all of it, or part of it, into
cross-system just like anyone else; but when I refer to steps 2 and 7,
most dancers are going to understand I mean back-n-forth sidesteps in
parallel system. Denoting all the basic steps in parallel-system walking
is the only real use of that salida in the first place. (See Postscript
below for more on this.)

I've spent about an hour toying around with various attempts at a real
"cross system salida," and I've come up short. Just for the sake of
analysis. If anyone out there has coined one, which is not just the
normal salida with an extra weight change here & there, please let me
know about it. My experience led me to believe it would have to involve
a lot of curves & circularity, as opposed to the clean linearity of the
standard salida. (For a better idea of what I was after with That sally,
again, please see the Postscript.)

Perhaps I should have noted earlier that I'm looking for a new language
here, so that complex open-embrace maneuvers don't require such
cumbersome , two-part descriptions. I'm looking for something that, as I
noted, can clearly describe an over-turned back ocho. In that case, the
whole couple is moving "back" (i.e., to the leader's aft-side, unlike
typical back ochos, which travel "horizontally" or else to the leader's
fore.) (And "horizontally" is incorrect too, for that matter.) Of
course, if the pivot is Really over-turned, and involves a soltada or
crosses the leader's body, then the couple is traveling to the leader's
fore-side again; and yet the leader will have to move much differently,
not only to travel with the follower, but to lead that 270+ degree
pivot. Here, "left" and "right" are as hopelessly inadequate as
"derecho" and "atras." Well, then what IS the better way to notate these
things?

I ask this knowing there might not be an answer.

Also, I'm not necessarily interested in developing a new system of
description & notation for _teaching_ purposes, because I don't really
teach advanced choreography (in the loose sense of that term:
"sequential vocabulary"). If I arrive at a new terminology, and it
clarifies things for my students, that will be a nice side-effect. I'm
doing this (a) for the sake of a more comprehensive analysis; (b) so I
can record any weird shit my partners and I develop during practicas, in
case we want to work on (or better understand) those bits again later;
and (c) so that the List has something more interesting to talk about
than certain members not having anything interesting to talk about.

The systems of non-tango dance notation I've looked at (Labanotation
being one of them) are extensive and curious, but they refer to
individual movement only, and they still use left & right, forward &
backward. I want to erase the individual from the directions, and insert
the _en face_ couple. Why? I'd like to be able to describe over-rotated,
or counter-turning, or soltada positions & movements more clearly. The
couple's original orientation seems like a good way to do it, because
usually there's only one partner who's at variance from the embrace,
while the other keeps things "at home." If both partners run errant,
it's even more important to have a *unified* sense of where they're going.

Likewise: if Sergio and I are dancing together, the direction of salida
step #2 is going to vary depending on which one of us has his left arm
out.* "My left," "his left," and such terms are silly. It should be
"_our_ [something]." I want a descriptive system free of these damn
possessive pronouns.

* Provided we don't dip into deliberate backleading, which is a
possibility I mentioned in my much-abhorred little "Prologue" of a few
months back, and here ignore, because it doesn't make a difference
unless we base the directions on the leader or follower exclusively.

I've considered using "port" and "starboard," which construes the couple
as a ship relative to the ronda; but that's really more of the same. It
also doesn't make sense, because on a crew team, the coxswain (usually a
chick) is facing fore, while the men are facing aft; meanwhile, the man
is typically (too typically) facing fore in the ronda, while the chick
is facing aft.

Well prior to finding myself as a dancer, I began a short parable about
a young monk who goes mad trying to imagine the apple of Eden from all
sides at once. My present effort is starting to remind me of him.

Jake
DC

=POSTSCRIPT: About the 8-count salidaI don't know the full history of this thing's use, but I've always
encountered it with every step in parallel system. I.e., the leader
walks to the follower's cross, and changes his weight WITH her (#5 being
a step in place). In group classes, I revive this thing for the express
purpose of introducing cross-system variations, or mirroring the whole
thing, or getting the guy (or the girl) to do every step with the same
foot while their partner proceeds as usual, or reversing all the steps
so that the leader leads himself into his own cross, etc.
That said...
The salida is much-hated nowadays, but has its purpose. It presents
all the possible parallel-system steps (not including counterpointed
steps), except it has a wrinkle.
DIGRESSION:
If we consider that a step may be (1) sideways, (2) forward, (3)
backward, or (4) in place; and that a step may be taken with either the
left or the right leg, then we have 8 possible basic steps. (END)
Steps #4 and #6, because of the stationary weight change done at the
cross (and because of the cross), are identical, if we disregard the
alignment issue. Thus, there must be one basic step missing from the
8-count salida, if one step is done twice.
The missing step pops in and out at #8. If you do #8 as a step in
place, you're missing the (leader's) backward step with his left foot.
If you do #8 as a backward step (making the salida one big cadena, or
continuous figure), then you're missing the weight-shift onto the
leader's left foot.
I've tried modifying the salida to include every possible step in
one iteration, but it wasn't simple enough for my tastes, or clear as a
teaching instrument. Basically, I turned #6 into the leader's back step
(the follower's front ocho opening). It's useful for pattern-breaking in
followers, since it's only "half an ocho," but it's otherwise ugly and
not very useful.
What I was looking for in the cross-system salida (which I failed to
find) was a similar "catalog" of walking, which would include every
basic cross-system step in a not-too-unmemorable pattern. As I explored
the matter, there were just too many pivots (and possible directions)
for me to make it work.
I may have stumbled on something similar to such a pattern at a
recent leader's workshop I led. It was the typical cross-system walk
(out of alignment), only with the leader alternating back and forward
crosses, thus replicating the molinete while the follower does back
ochos. This easily spills into the follower's molinete, once the leader
establishes a fulcrum and stops traveling. It can be done to either side.
I've heard this "linear molinete" (as done by the follower) described
as the "original grapevine," and also as what the walk looked like in
canyengue. I can't verify either statement myself. I'd welcome anyone
who can.

=POST-POSTSCRIPT Backup argument for the 8-count salida in parallel:
Every odd-numbered step is taken onto the leader's right leg
(follower's left); every even step is onto the leader's left (follower's
right). The cross does not change this, because both partners take a
step in place.
The most shocking mental breakthrough I've had in my tango study
(and perhaps this is the real, subjective reason behind my assertion)
was around my fourth or fifth outing, in Brooklyn. I asked my teacher
(Jose Fluk, for those who care) to show me how to improvise and
navigate. He wanted to teach me something else. I refused. He conceded.
He partnered me with his girlfriend of the time (I haven't seen
either of them in years; I presume perhaps erroneously they're still
together), and started calling out random numbers between 1 and 8
(inclusive). I did that salida step. They were all out of order. After
about three minutes of this, I was free.
To my recollection, he continued calling out numbers for another 10
seconds, and then saved his breath as I moved around the floor freely.
We drank beer for the rest of the lesson-time, and I paid him in full.
Until I figured out that the odd & even steps alternate feet, I
thought that Jose was either a computational genius or had a secret
trick for deciding which number to call out. (This shit was rapid-fire;
maybe 8 steps every 10 seconds.) Now I know what his trick was: he
simply alternated even and odd. Working out the cross was my problem; if
she crossed, yippee; if not, we did a stationary weight-shift together
anyway. No big deal.
I haven't used this method with a student myself, because no one has
ever come to me and demanded a definite topic before. But if I ever have
a leader who's as stubborn as I am, and who wants that particular
breakthrough, well, I'm prepared.

Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 12:40:30 -0700
From: "Brian Dunn" <brian@danceoftheheart.com>
Subject: Re: [Tango-L] Brian and Jake Directional Notation Analysis
To: "'Nussbaum, Martin'" <mnussbau@law.nyc.gov>, <tango-l@mit.edu>

Martin, you wrote:

>>>

I have a question for Brian and Jake: why not simply use the term clockwise
and counter-clockwise, not just for the situation where both are turning,
but also for the center and circumference situation described in paragraph 4
of Brian's post ?
<<<

I agree that using CW/CCW more universally would make a certain amount of
sense. Perhaps what happened historically was that, since this was a bunch
of leaders (including women leaders), trying to figure out how to simply
express these concepts, it was easy to leave it at first as "Leader's left"
and "Leader's right", since that frame of reference is more readily
available in the moment to most leaders. As a result, it would be far
easier to teach than CW/CCW - and a primary goal of the group, as I
understand it, was to simplify and accelerate the teaching of tango,
especially in the face of the incredible demand from portenos for tango
instruction in Buenos Aires in the 1980's.

I do remember that when we studied changes of direction with Gustavo in
2003-2004, he had started using CW/CCW as a way of distinguishing the
couple's "frame rotation direction" from the other question of naming a turn
to the left or a turn to the right.

(I'd have to check my notes, but in that class I think there was an
interesting case where one person seems to be going around the other in one
direction, say CW, while the couple's frame is rotating CCW...but maybe
memory fails...)

>>>

Also, Brian, have you seen Chico's old video on changes in direction? I was
under the impression he spoke of it as you did in the first draft of par 4,

>from the point of reference of the person in the center of the turn, rather

than the leader. Seems more intuitive to analyze from the center of the
turn, as he explains what is done to shift to a new center at any given
point. Please correct me if Im wrong.
<<<
No, you're right - my copy of those Chicho videos doesn't have a publication
date, but I think they were taped around 1999-2000. I haven't looked at it
in awhile, but you're prompting me to reexamine it (soon, soon).

Of course, in describing turn directions, both the perspective of the
"center partner" and the perspective of the "leader" are equally "valid" -
but since in tango the leader is the "architect of spontaneity", for
training purposes it may be more useful to allow the leader to conceptualize
what's going on with leader-centric "to-the-left/to-the-right" rotational
terms, easily grasped without retraining.

All the best,
Brian Dunn
Dance of the Heart
Boulder, Colorado USA
www.danceoftheheart.com
"Building a Better World, One Tango at a Time"

Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 14:46:21 -0500
From: "WHITE 95 R" <white95r@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Tango-L] Brian and Jake Directional Notation Analysis
To: mnussbau@law.nyc.gov, tango-l@mit.edu

While this is an interesting discussion, I question the value of developing
and dwelling in a complicated system of nomenclature. I think that all these
things are quite useful and perhaps even invaluable to the advanced (I mean
"really" advanced) dancer, they are wasted or even an impediment to the
beginner or even intermediate dancers.

Having taken many workshops with Gustavo, Chicho and Fabian, I too became
interested in the subject of positional descriptions. I had the most
problems understanding Chicho's descriptions of "crossed" and "open" steps
as they relate to the leaders position. Eventually I found this to be
interesting and useful but at first, I was mostly lost in the maze of
possibilities and names of steps that Chicho described and discussed as he
moved around Lucia while producing the most elegant and difficult sacadas,
ganchos and boleos with seemingly effortless ease...

It seems that a simple way to describe relative positions of the man and
woman is by alluding to the "open" or 'closed" side of the embrace (left or
right of the man). Alternatively one could establish that "right" and "left"
are the mans right and left sides. As for the denomination of the steps, I
much prefer to use the basic code of the tango which is that the woman
generally dances around the man, and the man dances around the pista.
Furthermore, the woman turns around the man in either direction by using the
grapevine or "molinete" steps (Open, front cross, open, back cross, etc.)

This would theoretically simplify things a good bit, but in reality, even
this concepts prove to be open to argument and might cause confusion. For
instance, the old argument about how to lead the cross step from the 8CB
salida (or even whether it's a led step or not...), we can obviously (?) see
how the code works. The man leads the woman to take an open step her
right... If he stayed in place and turned to his left her next step would
inevitably be (due to the embrace) a back cross followed by an open step,
followed by a front cross step, etc. After the salida, the code requires the
next step to be a "back cross" step, but since the man has moved toward the
woman, her steps appears to be a "back step".. as he keeps moving the next
"open" appears to be another "back step" and the "front cross" step occurs
in line producing the familiar "cross on the 5".....

Now, if one plays around with this and the man moves to different sides of
the woman at each step (you have to stop at each step of course) and
considers in which direction the woman would move next, a big range of
opportunities become available and that particular step could be any of the
three steps available in the grapevine.... Of course, if you try to explain
to a beginner woman that the 3rd and 4th steps of the 8CB are really a "back
cross" and an "open step", you might just produce a big confusion.....

Simplified dancing for all,

Manuel

visit our webpage
www.tango-rio.com

>From: "Nussbaum, Martin" <mnussbau@law.nyc.gov>
>To: tango-l@mit.edu
>Subject: Re: [Tango-L] Brian and Jake Directional Notation Analysis
>Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 13:39:41 -0500
>
>This discussion is by far the most interesting I have seen on this list in
>ages, and a useful frame of reference for anyone interested in studying
>with
>any of the named superstars in Brian's post.
>I have a question for Brian and Jake: why not simply use the term clockwise
>and counter-clockwise, not just for the situation where both are turning,
>but also for the center and circumference situation described in paragraph
>4
>of Brian's post ? If one person is not stepping that must already be
>noted,
>thus anything the partner does at that point can be thought of as part of a
>turn around the stationary, just as would be noted in any other move, and
>the clock reference seems to universally apply. Also, Brian, have you
>seen
>Chico's old video on changes in direction? I was under the impression he
>spoke of it as you did in the first draft of par 4, from the point of
>reference of the person in the center of the turn, rather than the leader.
>Seems more intuitive to analyze from the center of the turn, as he explains
>what is done to shift to a new center at any given point. Please correct me
>if Im wrong.
>Martin
>
>Brian Wrote:
>After re-reading I'd change #4 to be as follows:
>4) If one partner is stepping and the other is not, one partner is by
>necessity "orbiting" the other, creating a center-and-circumference
>situation. The direction of that turn is commonly referred to as "to the
>left" or "to the right" of THE LEADER. If the leader is in the center, the
>follower is going to his left or to his right around him; if the leader is
>on the circumference, he is going to his left or to his right around her
>while facing her...
>

View Athletes Collections with Live Search
https://sportmaps.live.com/index.html?source=hmemailtaglinenov06&FORM=MGAC01

Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 13:15:36 -0700
From: "Brian Dunn" <brian@danceoftheheart.com>
Subject: Re: [Tango-L] Directional notation
To: <tango-L@mit.edu>

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----

Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 16:21:11 EST
From: Euroking@aol.com
Subject: Re: [Tango-L] Directional notation
To: spatz@tangoDC.com, tango-L@mit.edu

Jake,

Interesting thread. It has raised several questions.

1. Who is the audience for the end result of your quest? (agreeing with you,
if there is an answer)

2. Simplicity or the basic KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) principle seems
operative with most of us, until we want to communicate a specific idea or
principle among individuals of like interest. I.e. front, back, forward, in place
work with the basic beginner with the caveat the follower is moving the
opposite direction, with the exception of the cross, the steps for Ochos are
independent and associated solely with the person or persons doing them. {at the
basic beginning level, where information overload is the norm]

3. The progression of a student's learning curve starts to complicated the
foregoing, as the interaction between the dancers become more and more
interrelated and complex. But at this juncture is it the verbal description that
helps the dancer or the visual demonstration that helps the pair move forward.
Or is a combination of both? I would think it is latter and the learning
styles of the individuals would determine the balance between the verbal and
visual.

4. The other factor is that dance steps of partners are not always mirror
images of the other. Thus trying to describe the actions of the couple as one
string of verbiage might be by almost definition impossible as they are doing
different actions. Example during a molinete, the follow is doing a set
pattern, while the lead pivots, their feet are doing completely different actions,
the relationship of the upper body is where there is symmetry.

I find the comments made to be informative and though provoking but I am
trying to set a context.

Just some thoughts,

Bill in Seattle

Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 21:52:46 -0000
From: "John Ward" <johnofbristol@tiscali.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [Tango-L] Directional notation
To: <tango-L@mit.edu>

Suppose you treated the couple as a boat, with the outstretched arms
(leader's left, follower's right) as the prow? Then, assuming the leader is
facing the line of dance, "ahead" would be towards the centre of the room,
"astern" to the wall, "port" along the line of dance, and on this particular
occasion "starboard" would be forbidden.

John Ward
Bristol, UK

Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 09:20:21 +1000
From: John Lowry <john@lowry.com.au>
Subject: [Tango-L] Directional notation
To: tango-L@mit.edu

I was told years ago that the convention is to describe the direction

>from the lady's perspective. It's a nice courtesy anyway. Works

fine when you remember :).
John

Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 19:12:07 -0500
From: "Jake Spatz (TangoDC.com)" <spatz@tangoDC.com>
Subject: [Tango-L] Directional notation
To: tango-L@mit.edu

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. <snip>

Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 18:11:43 -0700
From: "Brian Dunn" <brian@danceoftheheart.com>
Subject: Re: [Tango-L] Brian and Jake Directional Notation Analysis

Hi Manuel!

>>>

While this is an interesting discussion, I question the value of developing
and dwelling in a complicated system of nomenclature. I think that all these

things are quite useful and perhaps even invaluable to the advanced (I mean
"really" advanced) dancer, they are wasted or even an impediment to the
beginner or even intermediate dancers.
<<<

Well, that's not our experience. Total beginners get parallel/crossed,
open/closed side of the embrace, and the "three-step" framework in the first
or second lesson, and tend to jump on it like water in the desert - they
start using it right away. Since the definitions in this terminology imply
a partnership, it seems to fit a real need they have to explain to
themselves what is happening in the "partner dancing" thing (people with
previous partner-dance experience don't jump on it quite so much, laden as
they are with previous frameworks).

As for the system being complicated - I bet Gustavo and Fabian would be the
first to agree with you that it took them a lot of work to come up with the
scheme - but then they were doing the hard work of deciding what to name
things, and what was most important. They were building conceptual
frameworks, teaching tools. A well-designed tool can make your life easier,
and the best tools are intuitive and easy to use - but it doesn't mean the
process that produced that tool was simple or fast. Think of how much
easier it is to use a good hammer than it would be to design and produce one

>from scratch.

>>>

It seems that a simple way to describe relative positions of the man and
woman is by alluding to the "open" or 'closed" side of the embrace (left or
right of the man).
<<<
I agree - we use "open/closed side" terminology all the time - it's clear
and unambiguous as long as we're using the conventional frame ("whoever has
their left hand up high is the leader", as Gavito would say).

>>>

As for the denomination of the steps, I much prefer to use the basic code of
the tango which is that the woman generally dances around the man, and the
man dances around the pista.
<<<
These are common preferences, and they are in frequent use for sure - but I
don't find them very useful for describing the cases of two-step colgadas,
contra boleos, leader's sacadas, calesitas, or many shared-axis turns around
the follower, for example. So I wouldn't find them comprehensive enough for
an interesting general framework - although they can effectively convey
choices that define a style.

The other terminology we use a lot is one we were given first by Daniel
Trenner in 1997, if memory serves. Namely, describing the possibilities of
leg and foot positions in the walking systems as "2-track/4-track"
(parallel)" or "3-track (crossed)". "3-track" and "4-track" are further
specified by saying that the leader is on the "open side" or "closed side"
of the embrace. Some of my favorite teachers don't like this "n-track" idea,
but we find it really useful shorthand in our classes for describing
possibilities in the walk. Maybe it's because analogies using ski-tracks
play well here in Colorado...;>

All the best,
Brian Dunn
Dance of the Heart
Boulder, Colorado USA
www.danceoftheheart.com
"Building a Better World, One Tango at a Time"

Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 18:32:33 -0700 (MST)
From: Huck Kennedy <huck@eninet.eas.asu.edu>
Subject: Re: [Tango-L] Directional notation
To: tango-l@mit.edu

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 11:16:03 +0800
From: Kace <kace@pacific.net.sg>
Subject: Re: [Tango-L] Directional notation
To: tango-l@mit.edu

I agree the words Open and Closed are confusing because of their many
definitions
in context. Let me share my own vocabulary that I use in my classes:

- Open / Close = refers to distance between partners in the embrace.
Range from
very open (loose arms) to medium (salon, no chest contact) to very
close (chest to
chest contact).

- Side step = no direction needed, since only one side step direction is
possible at
any one time

- Inside, outside, blindside = placement of feet during walk, relating
the leader's track and the
follower's track

- Parallel / Crossed = refers to the relationship between leaders' feet
and follower's feet,
left-with-right or left-with-left.

- Cruzada = a close step with overlapped knees. I don't call it crossed
to avoid confusion with
the above "crossed step".

- Pivot forward and backward = I know the nuevo term is cross forward
and back, but
since the "unwound" position of a couple always faces each other, the
"wound" version
by definition must be a cross step. I also call them ocho forward
and back
because they are clear to beginners.

- Clockwise and Anticlockwise turns = clearer than "turn to the left" or
"turn to the right".

- Step into Line of dance or Against line of dance = no confusion here

- Floor side or Wall side = in the perimeter of a studio, one side
is the wall and the
other side the floor

Now for the debate on open-side and closed-side.

I don't recall having to use those terms very often once you have other
other ways to indicate
directions.

But if I absolutely must coin a term I would probably say "hand-side" or
"arm-side",
since that is meaningful to both dancers.

Kace

Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 11:01 +0000 (GMT Standard Time)
From: "Chris, UK" <tl2@chrisjj.com>
Subject: Re: [Tango-L] Brian and Jake Directional Notation Analysis
Cc: tl2@chrisjj.com

Manuel wrote:

>> they are wasted or even an impediment to the beginner or even
>> intermediate dancers.

Agreed.

Brian disagreed:

> Well, that's not our experience. Total beginners get parallel/crossed,
> open/closed side of the embrace, and the "three-step" framework in the
> first or second lesson

That is sad to hear. Because it overlooks tango's true basic step (change
of weight) and obfuscates the foundation of all steps.

For example, here's one misunderstandings it promotes:

> 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,

Conceptually "not going anywhere" is not pretty trivial. It is fundamental
to the dance. Too often class teachers generate beginners that can go
forward, back and side, but not change weight.

Thankfully this is less of a problem hereabouts (Europe) than it might be.
Virtually no-one (including visitors from abroad) teaches this three-step
framework.

Chris








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

*Subject:* Re: [Tango-L] Direction: Step descriptors...
*From:* "Brian Dunn" <brian@danceoftheheart.com>
*To:* <tango-L@mit.edu>
*Date:* Wed, 22 Nov 2006 23:39:05 -0700

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"

Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 08:51:31 -0700
From: "Brian Dunn" <brian@danceoftheheart.com>
Subject: Re: [Tango-L] Brian and Jake Directional Notation Analysis

Hola Manuel!

You wrote:

>>>

I must congratulate you on your incredible results.
<<<
Aw, shucks - it's not that we're tall, it's that we stand on the shoulders
of giants! ;> ;>

>>>>

I have not heard those kinds of results with total beginners since the
earlier days of the apilado style miracle system (-;
<<<<
Whoa! No point getting carried away. We're talking about *graceful and
productive introductions* here, not mastery.

>>>

My experience is that there is no short cut, miracle teaching system that
gets total beginners dancing tango in one or two lessons.
<<<
Agreed, of course. We're not aiming so much in the first lesson or two to
give people tango as a completed product they can safely put on the shelf,
sitting next to "driving a jeep" and "swimming the butterfly stroke" - we're
trying to invite them to join us in a process of collaborative mastery.
Martial Arts analogies are often close in flavor.

Our goal in these beginner classes is to give people a foundation that will
make them reasonably safe and fun to be around in the milonga right away,
will give them things to think about and chew on productively when they come
to their first practica, will let them discuss with us what they are doing
in mutually meaningful terms, will give them a doorway into the music, and
will also not trap them in a simple pattern right away just to give them a
step or two. We want to give them enough of a feeling of success to
persuade them to start their first steps on the long road to tango
mastery...and in our experience, these concepts we're discussing *are*
valuable tools to share in the first two lessons.

I'm a big fan of a certain very successful and influential author of
philosophical and psychological works. Reading his stuff, I'd find myself
thinking, "I'd love to teach this guy to tango!" As fate would have it, in
2003 we got a chance to meet him on several occasions, and discuss in some
depth our interest in sharing the passion of tango with people. At one
point the magic question pops from his mouth: "OK, so how long would it take
for someone to get good enough to have some of these powerful experiences
you're talking about?" Well, OK, put up or shut up. At that time we'd been
teaching as well we knew how for a few years already, but...my mind raced
back to my own initial learning experiences some six years before, and I
remembered when the first feeling of real social tango confidence took hold
of me at a practica, and the first time I felt the tinges of "tango
trance"..."Ummm, maybe four months??"

The light in his eyes shuttered closed. I think I heard him say to himself,
"I don't have that kind of time." Ouch.

Ever since, we've been on something of a full-time mission, driven to come
up with, not just a "workable" way to "teach tango", but the absolute
*fastest* way to do so. If we've managed some progress toward this
(admittedly, quixotically ambitious) goal, we're grateful to all our
teachers first and foremost, since they are the ones who inspire us...who
knows, we may yet be able to persuade that author to give us another shot
;>.

All the best,
Brian Dunn
Dance of the Heart
Boulder, Colorado USA
www.danceoftheheart.com
"Building a Better World, One Tango at a Time"

Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 11:00:32 -0700
From: "Brian Dunn" <brian@danceoftheheart.com>
Subject: Re: [Tango-L] Brian and Jake Directional Notation Analysis

Chris, you wrote:

>>>>

[Brian wrote:]

> Well, that's not our experience. Total beginners get parallel/crossed,
> open/closed side of the embrace, and the "three-step" framework in the
> first or second lesson

That is sad to hear. Because it overlooks tango's true basic step (change
of weight) and obfuscates the foundation of all steps.
<<<<

Cheer up! In order to introduce parallel/crossed transitions, we drill the
"4 weight shift combinations" in the first or second lesson too. ;>

>>>>

Thankfully this is less of a problem hereabouts (Europe) than it might be.
Virtually no-one (including visitors from abroad) teaches this three-step
framework.
<<<<
I don't have a complete list, of course, but...Brigitta Winkler, one of the
founders of the Berlin tango scene, has been using these concepts for at
least fifteen years or so. Luciana's been to London and Spain; Gustavo,
Fabian and Chicho use it all the time in almost annual visits to Spain,
France, Germany, Sweden, Italy, Greece...but if you don't take fundamentals
classes, you may have missed it - that's often where it's emphasized.

All the best,
Brian Dunn
Dance of the Heart
Boulder, Colorado USA
www.danceoftheehart.com
"Building a Better World, One Tango at a Time"








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

*Subject:* Re: [Tango-L] Direction: Step descriptors...
*From:* "Brian Dunn" <brian@danceoftheheart.com>
*To:* <tango-L@mit.edu>
*Date:* Wed, 22 Nov 2006 23:39:05 -0700

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"

Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 15:45:33 -0500
From: "WHITE 95 R" <white95r@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Tango-L] Brian and Jake Directional Notation Analysis

>Hi Manuel!
>
> >>>
>While this is an interesting discussion, I question the value of developing
>and dwelling in a complicated system of nomenclature. I think that all
>these
>
>things are quite useful and perhaps even invaluable to the advanced (I mean
>"really" advanced) dancer, they are wasted or even an impediment to the
>beginner or even intermediate dancers.
><<<
>
>Well, that's not our experience. Total beginners get parallel/crossed,
>open/closed side of the embrace, and the "three-step" framework in the
>first
>or second lesson, and tend to jump on it like water in the desert - they
>start using it right away.

Hi Brian,

I must congratulate you on your incredible results. I have not heard those
kinds of results with total beginners since the earlier days of the apilado
style miracle system (-;
Believe me, we've been studying tango from the faguchi trio for many years
and we've been teaching for many years as well. My experience is that there
is no short cut, miracle teaching system that gets total beginners dancing
tango in one or two lessons. With very few notable exceptions, most people
find it difficult to dance tango even after many lessons. Even after taking
lots of lessons from their local teachers and intensive workshops with
Gustavo, Fabian or Chicho, most beginners cannot dance tango very well at
all.

Personally, I've seen people struggle tremendously to master an arrepentida
and a simple walk with weight changes, let alone perform all sorts of Nuevo
Tango excercises like a duck taking to water. While I find this discussion
interesting and provocative in an intellectual sort of way, I still think
it's an excercise in polemics and fairly useless for teaching basic,
traditional social tango. Actually, I think this whole topic is degenerating
into some sort or analyses of tango steps for it's own sake. Personally I
much rather dance with a woman who can follow simple leads smoothly and
feels the tango than with an expert who can recite and diagram every
possible permutation of steps and delights in the mechanical repetition of
colgadas, soltadas, volcadas, ganchos and boleos.

Of course, this is just my opinion and preference. Although I'm a great
admirer of Gustavo Naveira, Fabian Salas and Chicho, I make no apology for
my predilection of traditional tango danced to traditional tango music, at
least for social dancing at the milongas. For that, it's not necessary to
develop an entire nomenclature just to describe the position of ones legs
during a salida.....

Sincerely,

Manuel

visit our webpage
www.tango-rio.com

Share your latest news with your friends with the Windows Live Spaces
friends module.
https://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?href=https://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=create&wx_url=/friends.aspx&mk

Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 23:32:21 -0500
From: "Jake Spatz (TangoDC.com)" <spatz@tangoDC.com>
Subject: Re: [Tango-L] Brian and Jake Directional Notation Analysis
To: tango-L@mit.edu

Hey Manuel,

I don't mean to be annoying or anything, but...

WHITE 95 R wrote:

> Actually, I think this whole topic is degenerating
> into some sort or analyses of tango steps for it's own sake.
>

... that Was my stated purpose in starting the discussion...

Happy Thanksgiving,

Jake
DC

Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 08:20:27 -0500
From: andrea <ako31@nyc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: [Tango-L] Brian and Jake Directional Notation Analysis
(Jake Spatz (TangoDC.com))
To: tango-l@mit.edu

> Hey Manuel,
>
> I don't mean to be annoying or anything, but...
>
> WHITE 95 R wrote:
>> Actually, I think this whole topic is degenerating
>> into some sort or analyses of tango steps for it's own sake.
>>
> ... that Was my stated purpose in starting the discussion...

u guys sound like a blast to dance with...yawn

jorge torres will be over in a little while to give me a lesson

he will spend a very long minute after the music starts sensing my
body state and how he will proceed dancing, feeling this through his
left hand, my right.

it is just not about steps.

the sooner u guys get this the better, for everyone here and out there.

a in nyc

Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 08:13:54 -0700
From: "Brian Dunn" <brian@danceoftheheart.com>
Subject: Re: [Tango-L] Brian and Jake Directional Notation Analysis
To: "'andrea'" <ako31@nyc.rr.com>, <tango-l@mit.edu>

Dear List,

andrea, you wrote:

>>>

u guys sound like a blast to dance with...yawn
<<<
Ouch, ouch - come on, andrea, cut us some slack. We're doing this for you,
you know ;>

One of the many things I always thank Daniel Trenner for is that he taught
men to follow and women to lead in his fundamentals classes - in part to
develop empathy in both leaders and followers for the demands and
difficulties of the opposite role.

I might think car mechanic's training seminars are pretty dull, but I sure
like how my car runs better when my mechanic does his training homework.

>>>

jorge torres will be over in a little while to give me a lesson...
he will spend a very long minute after the music starts sensing my
body state and how he will proceed dancing, feeling this through his
left hand, my right.
<<<
Sounds like a great dancer...maybe HE would find parts of this discussion
interesting - but I bet he doesn't expect you to think so, right? He
probably knows you don't hire him to work on your leading...;>

>>>

it is just not about steps.
the sooner u guys get this the better, for everyone here and out there.
<<<
If you ever get a chance, watch Luciana Valle follow a really good leader on
a social dance floor sometime, with radiant grace, effortless connection,
breathtaking expressiveness and superb technique - then listen to her deeply
brilliant "leader's analyses" of topics like these, at speeds so fast it
makes your neck snap - then let's talk about this again, OK?

We're not trying to force you to wallow in stuff you find boring - you can
always hit delete when you read the subject line. Or why not take some time,
dig deep into YOUR feelings and experiences, and craft a message to share
with us about the things in tango that YOU think are important? Many of us
would very much like to read that message, honestly.

All the best,
Brian Dunn
Dance of the Heart
Boulder, Colorado USA
www.danceoftheheart.com
"Building a better World, One Tango at a Time"

Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 14:13:48 -0500
From: Jeff Gaynor <jjg@jqhome.net>
Subject: Re: [Tango-L] Directional notation
To: Tango-L <tango-l@mit.edu>

Being a total amateur with a knack for footwork, I thought I'd give you
what I use and see if it helps any of you.

There are only a basic few ways to locomote.

** no feet on the ground **
-- this is jumping and does not happen in tango (or most other places)

** one foot on the ground **
-- walking (so one foot passes the other), alias stepping
-- shuffling draw one foot to the other, step with the other foot,
[e.g. drag your left foot to your right, shift weight to your left foot,
step with your right]
-- pivot, here the axis of your hips change, one foot stays fixed
while the other moves

** both feet on the ground **
-- twist your hips so the angle of your hips changes. Colloquially,
tell people to point their navels in a different direction.

Twists are similar to pivots, except the former has you two-footed, the
latter has you one footed. The difference is that you cannot really ever
draw much power from the ground when you are one-footed. Technical
aside: most leads who are getting steps wrong, I have observed in many a
CE workshop, do so because they pivot when they should twist and
consequently have body movements substantially different from what their
instructors show.

Now, pretend you are standing dead center on a clockface. To give a
direction, list the time
E.g.

* Step left foot to 12
* Shuffle to 11 right to left (with preceeding step, your legs are
crossed, right behind left).

This gives you a very simple way to write down footwork for future
reference and works for most other activities that require locomotion. I
use a tablature, i.e., a listing of where to put the feet when that
looks like

duration : direction : action: comment

duration is given relative to the music's basic pulse, with 1 = beat.
E.g. The pattern of quick-quick-slow would be written 1/2 - 1/2 - 1.

E.g. Walking to the cross in close embrace.

1 : 12 : Step left : start walking to the cross
1 : 12 : step right : twist upper body to 2 o'clock
1 : 12 : step left : keep twist
1 : 12 shuffle R to L : square shoulder before stepping.

The point is I can pull out my old notes from past workshops and recover
many nifty ideas. Works for me...

Jeff