2491 shorter
Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2004 02:38:19 -0700
From: H Dickinson <hyladlmp@YAHOO.COM>
Subject: shorter
Hey folks,
After scrolling through my own horribly long post
three times in the last digest, I hereby resolve to
really really really try hard to keep them shorter.
Wish me (and all of us verbose tango fanatics) lots of
luck.
Hyla
Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 7:53 PM
Subject: [Tango-L] Words are cheap: seeing is believing...and shorter...
"Jake Spatz (TangoDC.com)" <spatz@tangoDC.com> escribi?: Trini,
I write this without having read the subsequent posts, perhaps to my
peril. See below.
Trini y Sean (PATangoS) wrote:
> Hi Jake,
>
> Trini, here. I think we need to clarify how we do ochos. It sounds as if
> you do ochos by disassociating at the waist and using the impetus from
> the hip to make the pivot.
I don't do that when I follow, and I seldom lead that way unless I want
my partner to NOT pivot her hips and to cross her thighs just below the
pelvis, which is perhaps a 1% variation, which I teach anyway (just in
case my students run into it, or into poor leading).
I otherwise don't lead a pivot with "impetus." If I lead a pivot in one
direction, there's no telling what comes next. I could very well lead a
pivot in the opposite direction. Or pause. Or whatever.
That is what I mean when I argue that a pivot is distinct from a step,
and from all the parts of a step. As from a pause, jump, or pose-- and
that rather exhausts the possibilities of movement in this dance.
> In this scenario, your analysis of the pivot being separate from a "step"
> would be correct.
Rather, in the 1% scenario aforementioned, there is no pivot, and there
is (perforce) no differentiation from the step. Picture a drastic step
diagonally, in an "ocho" direction, very sharp, no time to pivot. It
fits the music from time to time, which is why I include it when
discussing pivoting technique. But I always introduce this as a rare
option, because it's quite uncomfortable to follow unless the lead
demands it (and because if you do it all the time, regardless of the
lead, it is, in a word, SLOP dancing). (I call it such because, while
temporarily convenient, it limits one as a dancer. A full half of the
shit I can lead, easily, in close embrace, is unavailable-- considering
HER comfort-- if my partner uses that BAD technique as a default. That
is why it is bad.)
> (Do you, per chance, dance mostly open, which often uses this type of
> ocho?)
>
No.
I love dancing open and finding new shit, but only with people who can
handle that, and mostly (nowadays) not on the social floor. Nor do I
think there's much distinction b/w the varieties of ocho one does in an
open vs. a close (even apilado) embrace; all the types remain available
to those who can tell the difference.
I wrote a prior post on 3 kinds of ochos, some months ago, related to
this same point.
> We prefer to treat ochos differently, using torsion from high up in the
> back to direct the leg.
I teach my students to pivot their waist, not their hips. Or, to
elaborate: since I teach close embrace first, I teach them to pivot from
the connection (follower's sternum) down, which amounts to what you
describe.
I think...
Whether the pivot, thereafter, SEEMS to occur in the hips or in the
spine depends on whether the leader permits any rotation in the
follower's torso. But willy-nilly, the pivot must occur in the spine,
there being ZERO joints anywhere else that would effect such a lateral
turn way down there in the shoe.
Except at the hip socket, which I've discussed above, and which,
overdone, is hazardous to one's health.
Your familiarity with Alexander Technique there in Pittsburgh should've
clarified all this a long time ago.
> In effect, the leg becomes a direct extension of the spine. It's
> direction is determined by the torsion through the upper body, rather
> than a separate pivoting of the hips, unless additional pivoting is
> needed (e.g., overturned ochos).
"In effect," my partner's leg is an extension of my grounded foot (and
the ostinato upbeat, if present), for that matter. I think you're
fudging anatomy here: there is no possible pivot of the hips without a
pivot of the spine, unless you do pivots the Whole Body way (i.e., no
dissociation, i.e., Fabian Salas style, at least 2 years ago).
Overturned pivots don't present any difference in this regard. They're a
matter of degree, not kind. 180 degrees is an arbitrary spot, as is 90,
as is 45. Such numbers are good for training and for cultivating
technical exactitude, but they are meant to be surpassed.
> As each vertebrae spirals, it creates potential energy stored in the spine
> which is released after one changes weight.
It need not. Joint flexion is not necessarily stored energy, nor does a
weight change necessarily signal anything but a change of weight.
> The result is a natural unraveling of the spine back to its normal
> position, which turns the hips back to the partner.
Perhaps. But this all depends on body tone as well. It is perfectly
possible to let the energy escape or "die" (or even hold) while the
spine is thus spiraled. Good (honest) boleos even _depend_ on the energy
escaping completely at the "peak" of the pivot. (Except in the case of a
freeze at the peak, in which case it might well be "stored" for a moment.)
I hope you understand where I'm coming from, based on the above remarks.
Technique, to me, ought to be something that _liberates_ us into
possibilities, not something that loads the dice.
> So, with regard to ochos, the pivot does become a part of the step,
> although I am using the term loosely here to include torsion.
What you are talking about is what I have called a "legato" aesthetic--
motions blurred into one another. I dance that way frequently. But for
all that it remains a choice. And the choice is to BLEND. But you must
know what is being blended, or else you're dancing your way into a box.
Furthermore, to have one "way" of doing anything is tantamount to
choreography, in the restrictive sense of that word.
> After all, before I can ocho I need to know where my partner wants me to
> end up, right?
>
No.
Neither on the first "step" of an ocho nor on the second. The pivot is
its own element-- and this I argue AGAINST the common perspective of
"leaders." (Cf. my quick-quick vs. slow-slow attitude in a recent post.)
You might do well, additionally, as a follower, to treat your dance as
something with more integrity and pride.
> For women who dance close-embrace, this torsion gives a more sensual
> experience to your partner.
"Sensual" is not always the lead (of the leader, of the music), in close
embrace or otherwise. In fact, I find this "torsion," as a default,
quite fucking annoying. I prefer partners with more imagination and
sensitivity.
> And it will tell the man exactly where you will end up, so he can adjust
> his lead as necessary.
Above you argued that this way of pivoting follows the lead more
accurately ("I need to know where he wants me to end up.") But now he
needs to adjust because you can't tell, while he allegedly can. So, is
it that clarity has been sacrificed to the "sensual," or that clarity
isn't worth the trouble?
I hasten to add that clarity, in adventurous open-embrace dancing, can
be the difference between a follower's sacada and a Comme il Faut in the
nuts.
Not exactly a splitting of hairs, in my opinion.
> It also keeps the woman from overturning her ocho (a common occurrence in
> beginning women taught to disassociate).
>
I can't say I've ever seen this. Nor do I think it would be hard to
correct, compared to women who do "shortcut" pivots (i.e., non-pivots)
routinely, to their own hip sockets' chagrin, and to their leaders' dismay.
I'm sorry, Trini, but I have to conclude from your write-up that you're
shortchanging yourself with this "our way" of doing ochos (pivots). And
I do believe the wrinkle is not distinguishing pivots from walking
steps-- an issue ubiquitous, I've noticed, among dancers in the "let's
go organic" US, although less frequently so among those who have learned
in Europe or the "other" America. I'm ignorant of Canada, the Far East,
Africa, and Australia.
That said, the information in your post in certainly valuable (to some,
I'm sure), and I hope no one condemns it unthinkingly in light of my
very particular criticism. My perspective is all I can offer; and I do
hope it's worth something to someone.
Spatz
DC
Pregunt?. Respond?. Descubr?.
Todo lo que quer?as saber, y lo que ni imaginabas,
est? en Yahoo! Respuestas (Beta).
Probalo ya!
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.5.4/768 - Release Date: 19.04.2007
05:32
