4681 Hucks theorem #1, Jake's Steno pad.
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 15:01:35 -0500
From: "Nussbaum, Martin" <mnussbau@law.nyc.gov>
Subject: Re: [Tango-L] Hucks theorem #1, Jake's Steno pad.
To: <tango-l@mit.edu>
<1A48EE91A5DFFC4BB2FC91C122470E310546BB51@lawman-ex01.lawlan.nycnet>
Huck Wrote: " Theorem #1: If you're in the parallel system
and both you and your partner take a step, either
you'll both be taking an open step, or you both
will be taking a closed step. Likewise, if you're
in the crossed system and you both take a step,
one of you will be taking an open step while the
other will be taking a closed step. Huck"
Sorry Huck, but this theorem is invalid. Either type can be led from
either system, in both close embrace or open embrace, and not just in
the sacada example Jake gave. All it requires is a bit of disassociation
between upper torso, which does the leading, and what your (leaders)legs
do.
Jake, I just slapped my head so hard for not thinking of something as
ridiculously obvious as that 2-column Steno pad ! Please keep the
notational ideas coming! Yes indeed, there are people on this list
for whom the most efficient notation is essential to quickly jot down
ideas and concepts we "got" in workshops, or stumbled onto in a
practica, and due to insufficient practice burn-in time, forgot weeks
later, (for me, even hours later.) I apologize to any followers who
find this discussion boring, or useless, but believe me this is all done
to increase variety and creativity (without sacrificing connection and
musicality- they are not mutually exclusive !)which not only makes tango
so much fun for me, but also increases the fun of the followers I dance
with.
Martin
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 16:07:31 -0500
From: "Jake Spatz (TangoDC.com)" <spatz@tangoDC.com>
Subject: Re: [Tango-L] Hucks theorem #1, Jake's Steno pad.
To: tango-L@mit.edu
A few points from the sidelines of these topics...
1. Women take notes. I've looked at them in workshops. I can't always
decipher others' notation, but I can't always decipher my own cartoons
either. In any case, these things don't pertain to men (or leaders)
alone. The desire for knowledge, or at least a record of kinesthetic
acts, has no demographic.
2. The steno pad wasn't my idea. It's just the result of me repeating
(to my own boredom) how important note-taking is. One of my students
tried out several different methods, before arriving at this one. I'm
just passing it on to anyone who wants to see how well it works for
themselves. (Let me know too: I don't use it.) I prefer writing on
fine-ruled graph paper or else blank drawing paper.
3. Awhile back there was a hiccup regarding notes vs. videotape. I think
the recent discussion proves the utility of notes, in that they
encourage critical thought, analysis, and experiment. (Even failed
experiment, in the case of Theorem #1, has its purpose.) Videos, in my
experience, encourage mimicry (not entirely bad in itself),
name-dropping (pointless), and self-evaluation (invaluable). Just wanted
to clarify what we're all up to here.
4. There's nothing wrong with multiple notational methods, so long as
you can figure out what the hell you wrote down. Shorthand is one thing;
graphics another; analysis something else still; and full choreography
(most strict sense: graphic record of dance movements) is something
different again. Da Vinci wrote forwards when he cared to.
5. Other notational ideas...
I recently started playing around with dotted vs. solid lines, when
drawing foot patterns, to indicate the starting and ending positions of
pivoted movements. I've considered using colored pencils to
differentiate left and right feet (or leader and follower); but I don't
like colored pencils (they're a pain; I write & usually draw
left-handed, so I'm picky about it), and don't carry any. I've also
considered varying the thickness (visual weight) of arrows, to indicate
motion quality (e.g., related to the arrastre), but haven't yet figured
out the best way to associate the graphic with the kinetic reality.
6. The stationary-step thing remains a topic of interest to me. Anyone
wanna pick that one up?
Jake Spatz
DC
Nussbaum, Martin wrote:
>
> Huck Wrote: " Theorem #1: If you're in the parallel system
> and both you and your partner take a step, either
> you'll both be taking an open step, or you both
> will be taking a closed step. Likewise, if you're
> in the crossed system and you both take a step,
> one of you will be taking an open step while the
> other will be taking a closed step. Huck"
>
> Sorry Huck, but this theorem is invalid. Either type can be led from
> either system, in both close embrace or open embrace, and not just in
> the sacada example Jake gave. All it requires is a bit of disassociation
> between upper torso, which does the leading, and what your (leaders)legs
> do.
> Jake, I just slapped my head so hard for not thinking of something as
> ridiculously obvious as that 2-column Steno pad ! Please keep the
> notational ideas coming! Yes indeed, there are people on this list
> for whom the most efficient notation is essential to quickly jot down
> ideas and concepts we "got" in workshops, or stumbled onto in a
> practica, and due to insufficient practice burn-in time, forgot weeks
> later, (for me, even hours later.) I apologize to any followers who
> find this discussion boring, or useless, but believe me this is all done
> to increase variety and creativity (without sacrificing connection and
> musicality- they are not mutually exclusive !)which not only makes tango
> so much fun for me, but also increases the fun of the followers I dance
> with.
> Martin
>
>
>
>
>
>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 15:36:33 -0500
From: Jeff Gaynor <jjg@jqhome.net>
Subject: Re: [Tango-L] Hucks theorem #1, Jake's Steno pad.
To: Tango-L <tango-l@mit.edu>
I'm going to have to jump in as a professional here... I'm a
Mathematician (evil laughter). Notations generally can be made quite
inclusive, so that everything is written down. They also then
practically become extremely cumbersome and are therefore abandoned.
(Trivia, in India Math was classically notated with different colors
rather than variables which makes the manuscripts strikingly beautiful
and almost incomprehensible.) Pretty much any practical notation will
be "lossy" (rhymes with posse and is from the word "loss" meaning that
some information is not preserved). A good example is English, where the
letter sort of represent the words spoken (it's not phonetic) and
nuances such as pitch and duration are absent. This is why there is high
art to reading Shakespeare.
Anywho, you have to keep this in mind for whatever you decide upon, what
you plan on losing. Is it more important to be able to notate in real
time, so that you can make a quick scribble during class? Do you want
something that leaves nothing to the imagination? Are you ready to spend
hours at your lecturn to pull this off? What is the least you can get
away with? I settled on where the feet go and at what time [ummm, this
idea is actually taken from 17th century German organ music] and rely on
the fact that tango is by default some form of walking. Comments then
are intended to replace a whole bevy of notations for things that would
be too complex and time consuming to write.
The open-closed and crossed/parallel feet systems folks have mentioned
also work fine, although I do not like the fact they lack rhythmic
notation and the notations overlap, meaning that some notations are
equivalent to others. That is not bad, just unclean (says he sniffily as
a Mathematician ;-) ).
Just my $.02
Jeff
Jake Spatz (TangoDC.com) wrote:
>A few points from the sidelines of these topics...
>
>1. Women take notes. I've looked at them in workshops. I can't always
>decipher others' notation, but I can't always decipher my own cartoons
>either. In any case, these things don't pertain to men (or leaders)
>alone. The desire for knowledge, or at least a record of kinesthetic
>acts, has no demographic.
>
>2. The steno pad wasn't my idea. It's just the result of me repeating
>(to my own boredom) how important note-taking is. One of my students
>tried out several different methods, before arriving at this one. I'm
>just passing it on to anyone who wants to see how well it works for
>themselves. (Let me know too: I don't use it.) I prefer writing on
>fine-ruled graph paper or else blank drawing paper.
>
>3. Awhile back there was a hiccup regarding notes vs. videotape. I think
>the recent discussion proves the utility of notes, in that they
>encourage critical thought, analysis, and experiment. (Even failed
>experiment, in the case of Theorem #1, has its purpose.) Videos, in my
>experience, encourage mimicry (not entirely bad in itself),
>name-dropping (pointless), and self-evaluation (invaluable). Just wanted
>to clarify what we're all up to here.
>
>4. There's nothing wrong with multiple notational methods, so long as
>you can figure out what the hell you wrote down. Shorthand is one thing;
>graphics another; analysis something else still; and full choreography
>(most strict sense: graphic record of dance movements) is something
>different again. Da Vinci wrote forwards when he cared to.
>
>5. Other notational ideas...
>
>I recently started playing around with dotted vs. solid lines, when
>drawing foot patterns, to indicate the starting and ending positions of
>pivoted movements. I've considered using colored pencils to
>differentiate left and right feet (or leader and follower); but I don't
>like colored pencils (they're a pain; I write & usually draw
>left-handed, so I'm picky about it), and don't carry any. I've also
>considered varying the thickness (visual weight) of arrows, to indicate
>motion quality (e.g., related to the arrastre), but haven't yet figured
>out the best way to associate the graphic with the kinetic reality.
>
>6. The stationary-step thing remains a topic of interest to me. Anyone
>wanna pick that one up?
>
>Jake Spatz
>DC
>
>
>Nussbaum, Martin wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Huck Wrote: " Theorem #1: If you're in the parallel system
>>and both you and your partner take a step, either
>>you'll both be taking an open step, or you both
>>will be taking a closed step. Likewise, if you're
>>in the crossed system and you both take a step,
>>one of you will be taking an open step while the
>>other will be taking a closed step. Huck"
>>
>>Sorry Huck, but this theorem is invalid. Either type can be led from
>>either system, in both close embrace or open embrace, and not just in
>>the sacada example Jake gave. All it requires is a bit of disassociation
>>between upper torso, which does the leading, and what your (leaders)legs
>>do.
>>Jake, I just slapped my head so hard for not thinking of something as
>>ridiculously obvious as that 2-column Steno pad ! Please keep the
>>notational ideas coming! Yes indeed, there are people on this list
>>for whom the most efficient notation is essential to quickly jot down
>>ideas and concepts we "got" in workshops, or stumbled onto in a
>>practica, and due to insufficient practice burn-in time, forgot weeks
>>later, (for me, even hours later.) I apologize to any followers who
>>find this discussion boring, or useless, but believe me this is all done
>>to increase variety and creativity (without sacrificing connection and
>>musicality- they are not mutually exclusive !)which not only makes tango
>>so much fun for me, but also increases the fun of the followers I dance
>>with.
>>Martin
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 08:36:33 -0500
From: Jeff Gaynor <jjg@jqhome.net>
Subject: Re: [Tango-L] Hucks theorem #1, Jake's Steno pad.
To: Tango-L <tango-l@mit.edu>
Jake Spatz (TangoDC.com) wrote:
> Hi Jeff,
>
> Good points all around. But please bear in mind that the open-crossed
> (step) and parallel-cross (joint motion) systems are analysis, not
> notation.
ok
> (Your clock directions are, by comparison, denotation.) You can write
> with whatever shorthand you like. I dislike the term overlap too, though.
>
> How do you notate a stationary step in your tab? "0"?
Normally this gets a beat and a comment, e.g. (remember duration :
direction : movement : comment -- you could use another punctuation mark
instead of a :, like a | if you want)
1/2 : 12 : step left
1/2 : stay : shift weight to right
1 : 0 : shuffle left to right <-- actually, I write 0 for the center
of the clock at such times.
does a rock step and returns to start.
> What about differentiating a pause from a stationary weight-shift?
There are a couple of these. Here might be a suspension as you slowly
turn CW
1 : 12 : step left
3 : 3 : twist CW
1 : 12 : shuffle left to right
means step to 12 o'clock then slowly twist (both feet on the floor) to 3
o'clock over the next 3 beats, then close. Note that the directions are
always relative to your direction, so once you have twisted in the
second part, your new orientation is now your direction of travel. This
is old hat to folks like me who are used to it ("local coordinates" in
Geometry) but might take some getting used to.
Staying put (how often do we do that in tango?) would be something like
4 : stay
so you come to a dead stop for 4 beats.
> (We need more than one kind of zero, perhaps... tango analysis
> generally neglects pauses,
And I think that playing with the beat by pauses and suspensions is
where some little art is needed. If done well it looks oh so sexy and if
done badly just looks like you forgot what you were up to. One plus with
notation is that you can see the relations with the times and
directions. You can then more easily think about variations in duration
and direction. Really an awful lot of tango boils down to rocks, steps
and partial turns (ochos are two partial turns, e.g.). Another plus is
that you can write out several patterns and see where they can be
combined. This is an aid for those of us who are slaves to the printed word.
> or what a math-head might call an "identity transformation.") Do you
> keep a second tab for the second dancer, or have you not had any need
> for that?
Sure! The follower gets his/her own tablature as well in a double column
entry (yup, I use steno pads too.) No difference needed in notation.
However, to save space the follower is assumed to be mirroring the lead,
so not so much has to go into the second column.
Thanks for your interest in what I wrote and your insightful commentary.
I'm just a beginner so this is very good for me and I do appreciate your
feedback!
Jeff
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 14:12:34 -0500
From: Jeff Gaynor <jjg@jqhome.net>
Subject: Re: [Tango-L] Hucks theorem #1, Jake's Steno pad.
To: Tango-L <tango-l@mit.edu>
Jay Rabe wrote:
> Several points/questions:
>
> 1:
> Need some clarification to understand your notation, Jeff.
>
> [correct me if I'm wrong]
> Direction is noted by position on a clock face that is oriented as
> if the clock were attached to the dancer's chest/torso/shoulders.
> If a dancer is facing a north wall, with no twist/dissociation, so
> that his chest/torso and his hips all face the north wall, then a step
> to direction 12 will be straight forward towards the north wall.
> If the dancer twists his torso 90deg CC so that his torgo faces
> the west wall, keeping his hips facing the north wall, then a (left)
> step to direction 12 will be a step with his left foot towards the
> west wall (basically a "side" step from the perspective of his hips).
> [/correct me if I'm wrong]
>
>
Correct. This is a convention that I follow my nose because that is what
is normally done in tango, unless you are trying to walk with some
crossed boady position. Conventions are what you do the most and
comments let you take up the slack, so you could note the twist and
state that the direction of travel is left/right/backwards etc.
> 2:
> Comment: your use of "duration" is consistent with the
> "quick-quick-slow" terminology.
Yes, but not synonymous with it. Consider a vals. The QQS terminology, I
have observed, is the source of a lot of bad dancing because there are 3
counts to a basic beat, e.g.
2 : 12 : step left
1 : 12 : step right
1 : 12 : step left
2: 12 : step right
2 : 12 : step left
1 : 12 : step right
1 : 12 : step left
2: 12 : step right
(note the spacing of blank lines between bigger beats, this is often
useful.) This gets you walking with two standard rhythms in vals. Many
people do duple time when they dance vals because their teacher said QQS
and this makes them plod rather than lilt. You can even try walking to
Libertango's infamous rhythm
3/8 : 12 : step left
3/8 : 12 : shuffle right
2/8 : 11 : step left
3/8 : 1 : step right
3/8 : 11 :step left
2/8 : 12 : shuffle right
which puts you briefly in back ochos... If you have an advanced follower
-- preferably with a strong musical background -- try it some time,
she'll probably find it groovy.
> 3:
> I'm not completely satisfied by your description of this step:
>
> "Here might be a suspension as you slowly turn CW
> 1 : 12 : step left
> 3 : 3 : twist CW
> 1 : 12 : shuffle left to right "
> -----
>
> My problem with it is: This step pattern requires that the first step
> left is not a complete weight change. The trailing right foot is not
> collected and retains some weight, so that, after the twist, there is
> space between the feet (that is subsequently closed by the "shuffle
> left to right.")
>
>
Yup, if you are doing a slow turn as you move your chest your feet are a
bit apart because you need the leverage off the floor. Going CCW might
be easier to envision, since it is an elegant way to put her into back
ochos with a slow chest turn.
> So how would you denote a "1 : 12 : step left" when the intention is
> to fully transfer weight and collect trailing right to beside the left?
>
>
1 : 12 : step left
1 : 12 : shuffle right : keep weight on left
This is why there are comments. I'm admitting up front I don't want 100
noodly notations (like Labanotation) which just obfuscate the movement.
I've toyed with the idea of having a direction of 0 for shuffling
because we close so much. YMMV...
Cheers,
Jeff
