848  Listening to vs. listening for

Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 10:38:06 -0800
From: Jonathan Thornton <jnt@NOYAU.COM>
Subject: Listening to vs. listening for

I'm wanting to explore what I think is an important distinction
for dancing. Has anyone had the experience of leading and you could tell
your follower was listening intently for a lead, but otherwise not really
paying attention to what you were expressing? When a lead is recognized
they take it, do the step and then return to listening for the next lead?

For followers would this be that a leader just listens to see if
you've taken the step, finished the weight change and then gives you
another lead without really listening to what you've danced?

Learning to lead and follow of course this is the process. I'm talking
about dancers who have acquired those skills to some threshold that would
allow them to pay attention to other aspects of the dance.

I'm wondering if and how other dancers have experienced being listened to
while they dance, as well as the experience of just having their partner
listening for some salient aspect of the dance. The experience of
"listening to one's partner" seems to me perhaps a good way to get at the
shared communication of the dance. When you listen to what do you "hear".
When you feel listened to what do you experience?

Does this distinction make sense or seem important?

Thanks,

Jonathan Thornton

Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2002 07:35:09 +0900
From: astrid <astrid@RUBY.PLALA.OR.JP>
Subject: Re: Listening to vs. listening for

Has anyone had the experience of leading and you could tell

> your follower was listening intently for a lead, but otherwise not really
> paying attention to what you were expressing? When a lead is recognized
> they take it, do the step and then return to listening for the next lead?
>

When you listen to what do you "hear".

> When you feel listened to what do you experience?
>

There is a big difference between just recognizing which step the leader is
trying to lead and executing it in the way one has learned, and staying
connected all of the time.
Staying connected all of the time is a skill that, in my experience, takes
years of practise and the accompanying body development. I have observed
women who still have trouble holding their balance during the walk, who will
try to minimize the time they are sliding their foot, and accomplish the
weight shift as quickly as possible,and then rest on the other foot. This is
just one exemple of the difficulties that need to be overcome in order to
stay connected. The rest is happening in the back, and is mainly a matter of
body tone and the accompanying balance. Unless their is a strong line of
power going from the physical connection between the partners to the floor
below their feet and vice versa, a strong connection is not possible.
Maybe someone from Argentina could explain the concept of "dormirla" to you
?

Astrid

Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 09:33:09 -0800
From: luda_r1 <luda_r1@YAHOO.COM>
Subject: Re: Listening to vs. listening for

Astrid wrote:

"There is a big difference between just recognizing
which step the
leader is
trying to lead and executing it in the way one has
learned, and staying
connected all of the time.
Staying connected all of the time is a skill that, in
my experience,
takes
years of practise and the accompanying body
development. I have
observed
women who still have trouble holding their balance
during the walk, who
will
try to minimize the time they are sliding their foot,
and accomplish
the
weight shift as quickly as possible,and then rest on
the other foot.
This is
just one exemple of the difficulties that need to be
overcome in order
to
stay connected."

I don't understand what you mean by "still have
trouble". "Still" after what? After five lessons?
After five years?

As for the rest, I agree with you entirely, but my
question is this: are these fine distinctions taught
in the classroom, and are they even teachable, or are
students rushed from step to step without making sure
they had learned the previous step(s) properly? I hear
these complaints all the time, people being rushed to
learn new stuff before they've internalized the old
stuff, or pushed to take workshops with masters for
which they are not ready. They can't remember the
steps they learned three weeks ago because there was
never a review of previous material, a basic component
of the learning process. It becomes a race as to how
many steps you can learn in the shortest period of
time, rather than emphasizing the fundamentals and
allowing students to explore some of the infinite
nuances of the dance. It's happened to me.

It takes an extremely determined person to get what
they want from their tango instruction, it seems. It
isn't handed to them automatically. Unfortunately, not
all of us are very determined, at least some of the
time. :) Besides, you have to know what you want
before you can ask for it.

"When you listen to what do you
"hear".
When you feel listened to what do you experience?"

As for Jonathan's question, I think one such example
is the complete and undivided attention of the other
person, recognizing that for the duration of the
dance, you belong to that person. All the time while
listening to the music. Together. And allowing your
partner to do whatever he/she wishes with it, while
you wait. Patiently. Being in the moment, being
present for each other. Two people moving as one. It's
an art that seems to be mainly lost on "meatmarket
athletes". You can't concentrate on your partner if
your eyes are roaming around the room constantly
looking for the next "morsel" while you dance, and are
too busy executing convoluted acrobatics anyway to pay
much attention to your partner.

"Does this distinction make sense or seem important?"

Yes.

Luda











U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos

Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 22:57:11 +0900
From: astrid <astrid@RUBY.PLALA.OR.JP>
Subject: Re: Listening to vs. listening for

> Astrid wrote:
>
> "There is a big difference between just recognizing which step the leader

is trying to lead and staying

> connected all of the time. I have observed women who still have trouble

holding their balance during the walk, who will try to minimize the time
they are sliding their foot,

Luda asked me:

>
> I don't understand what you mean by "still have trouble". "Still" after

what? After five lessons? After five years?

"Still" simply means that they have not yet achieved sufficient balance. How
long it takes to get there is another matter, which depends entirely on the
individual, her teacher, the floor, her shoes, and whether she has to deal
with a male partner who is unwittingly throwing her off her axis at every
turn or not.
Balance is relative (are we talking about simple weight changes, forward
ochos, or high boleos with other adornos following while making the man wait
for you, and no wobbling nor using him as a balancing pole ?), and also sort
of comes and goes a bit, depending on your physical condition. But all over,
I would say that 5 years is a closer guess than 5 lessons. Duuuuhh.....; )

>
> As for the rest, I agree with you entirely, but my question is this: are

these fine distinctions taught in the classroom ?

Unfortunately in most cases the answer is No. Try Jorge Torres, e.g., if you
want better instruction.

>and are they even teachable ?

Some teachers drill their students in walking and other balancing exercises,
which improves all over dancing, but not all do.

, or are

> students rushed from step to step without making sure
> they had learned the previous step(s) properly?

IMO, this is the easy way out for a teacher. It also meets the expectations
of a lot of students... If the teacher complains that the students only look
at his feet, when they want to learn a step, you know, that he may be one of
the better instructors.

I hear

> these complaints all the time, people being rushed to
> learn new stuff before they've internalized the old
> stuff, or pushed to take workshops with masters for
> which they are not ready. It becomes a race as to how
> many steps you can learn in the shortest period of
> time,

There is learning, and there is learning. When can you "do" a step ? When
you have memorised where to put your foot next,or when you can actually lead
or follow it with an unfamiliar partner, without being warned previously of
what to expect, and execute it beautifully and with elegance at any given
time, and in the individual style that particular man leads it ?

> It takes an extremely determined person to get what
> they want from their tango instruction, it seems. It
> isn't handed to them automatically. Unfortunately, not
> all of us are very determined, at least some of the
> time. :)

The good news is, once a woman knows how to follow and has understood the
underlying structure of the dance, she does not need to memorise any of the
steps. I often get late to lessons, miss the demonstrations, or simply go
blank when the steps are shown. I rely on the men to struggle with the
memorisation, and then I just follow. I can usually "do it" anyway, once we
start dancing.
On the other hand, it takes many months and years of patiently polishing up
your technique as a follower. In the beginning you don't even know what to
polish, as one only becomes aware of the next step when one is almost ready
for it. I already thought, I was pretty good after 6 months. Only in
retrospective does one know what was missing. Gavito said, he has danced for
48 years, and he is still learning. That is just what makes tango so
interesting.

Besides, you have to know what you want

> before you can ask for it.

A good idea is private lessons with a good teacher who will correct your
technique, even if he does not bother much or has no time for that during
group classes. Often one has to actually dance with someone to know what
exactly the problem is.

>

Two people moving as one. It's

> an art that seems to be mainly lost on "meatmarket
> athletes". You can't concentrate on your partner if
> your eyes are roaming around the room constantly
> looking for the next "morsel" while you dance, and are
> too busy executing convoluted acrobatics anyway to pay
> much attention to your partner.

Yes. Avoid the narcists. A man who treats you like a temporary "morsel" gets
you nowhere with tango.
Fortunately I have not encountered men who will let their eyes roam in
search of other women while they dance with me, but I have caught them
watching themselves in the mirror, instead of me.
My teacher explained recently, that Argentine men will show off a woman to
the people sitting, moving in a diagonal walk in front of them, so people
can see her better. The purpose is to impress the other women sufficiently
with his leading skills, so they will accept him at the next tanda. I do not
mind being shown off.

Astrid

Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 11:08:25 -0600
From: Stephen Brown <Stephen.P.Brown@DAL.FRB.ORG>
Subject: Re: Listening to vs. listening for

Astrid wrote:

>Staying connected all of the time is a skill that, in my experience,
>takes years of practise and the accompanying body development.

Yes and no. If one looks upon connection as strictly physical, it is a
skill that takes practice and development. If connection is an expression
of open emotion, it may be available immediately or never.

Abrazos,
Steve

Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 14:33:09 +0900
From: astrid <astrid@RUBY.PLALA.OR.JP>
Subject: Re: Listening to vs. listening for

> Astrid wrote:
> >Staying connected all of the time is a skill that, in my experience,
> >takes years of practise and the accompanying body development.

Steve wrote:

> Yes and no. If one looks upon connection as strictly physical, it is a
> skill that takes practice and development. If connection is an expression
> of open emotion, it may be available immediately or never.

True and not true. Lately I am surprised, what feeling does for the sense of
connection, and what connection does for feeling the partner. It does not
have to be the "perfect man" for me at all, it can happen with a number of
partners at any given night, and sometimes completely unexpected. It may
even happen with tangueros I have known for years, and never paid any
particular attention to, nor developed any particular feeling for when I
happened to dance with them. All of a sudden, we are enjoying each other
vastly. Or it happens with a man, who believes, he cannot dance, and is
happy for me giving him 2 or 3 songs, and all of a sudden, I feel his lead,
I respond, so he responds with a bolder lead, and there we go....

Sergio wrote:
"Some people learned to dance but they never developed Spiritual connection
either with the music or with their partners....These type of dancer is very
frequently found in instructors and organizers
of milongas...As you dance with them you get the feeling that they are
worrying about the
coffee machine running out of water, or the bills that have to be paid the
following day. They follow any move with ease and precision, tango technique
has no secrets for them...but they are spiritually absent.
I do not know you but when this happens to me I feel betrayed. The same as
if I was making love to a woman that is thinking in somebody else...then I
wonder if it is that she does not like dancing with me...

So true. If it is not the coffee machine they think about, it may be how
much they are getting paid to do this job in spite of themselves...Dancing
with man like that can be depressing.
In work psychology, this behaviour is called "mental emigration", I believe.
Tango has lost it's mystery for these people. It is like couples pretending
to be making love, when they are just (cynically? routinely?) going through
the moves. They know all the things to do, and it is all "signifying
nothing".

Astrid

>