3785 Slow, slow, quick-quick slow
Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 16:05:26 -0700
From: Evan Wallace <evan@TANGOING.COM>
Subject: Slow, slow, quick-quick slow
I have the most distressingly simple question that, after 10 years of
dancing, I am almost embarrassed to ask, but I can't come up with a
completely satisfactory answer. I haven't been on the list in several years,
so forgive me if this topic has been discussed recently.
To explain the question, imagine the following five-step sequence of walking
steps that any beginner might learn in the first week or two of their first
class: "Left, right, left-right-left," with the left-right-left done in
place as a double-time rock step. If we were to count this to music, we
could notate it as follows (L = left, R = right):
1 2 3-and-4
L R L R L
The double-time rock step comes on the "three and four", stepping with the
left foot on the three, rocking back to the right foot on the "and", and
rocking forward to the left foot on four. OK, so far, so good.
Now, the rhythm of this sequence is almost universally described by
instructors as "Slow, slow, quick-quick slow," i.e.,
1 2 3-and-4
S S Q Q S
This is where it gets confusing. Steps one, two, and three all occupy a full
beat of music (step one lands on the "1", step two lands on the "2", and
step three lands a full beat later on the "3"). Steps four and five each
have a duration of a half beat, with step four landing a half beat later on
the "and", and step five landing a half beat later on "4".
So here's my question: Since it is the fourth and fifth steps that are
shorter in duration, why isn't this rhythm described as "Slow, slow, slow,
quick-quick"?
It is tempting to say the words "slow" and "quick" are imprecise from a
musical perspective, and perhaps should be discarded in favor of the more
precise and unambiguous count of the music, but if you dance a given phrase
as "S S QQ S" it feels different than the same phrase danced "S S S QQ",
even though the count is the same. This is especially true when applying the
same analysis to the typical rhythm of a molinetta.
So what's going on here? Are the words slow and quick more descriptive of
something else, say foot speed, than actual counts of music? Or am I missing
something really obvious?
Evan Wallace
Seattle, WA
www.tangoing.com
Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 20:28:49 -0400
From: Martin Waxman <martin@WAXMAN.NET>
Subject: Re: Slow, slow, quick-quick slow
Sequences? Sequences?
Who is teaching/doing sequences?
It's Argentine Tango!
Only one step at a time, and improvisational.
Just listen to the music, and watch out for other couples on the floor.
If you do a sequence, you'll might run into them.
What will you do if you can't complete a sequence because of a
crowded dance floor?
Have mercy on other couples -- don't do sequences at a milonga.
Although, you might do them if you have the entire floor or stage to yourself.
Marty
At 07:05 PM 9/10/2005, Evan Wallace wrote:
>I have the most distressingly simple question that, after 10 years of
>dancing, I am almost embarrassed to ask, but I can't come up with a
>completely satisfactory answer. I haven't been on the list in several years,
>so forgive me if this topic has been discussed recently.
>
>To explain the question, imagine the following five-step sequence of walking
>steps that any beginner might learn in the first week or two of their first
>class: "Left, right, left-right-left," with the left-right-left done in
>place as a double-time rock step. If we were to count this to music, we
>could notate it as follows (L = left, R = right):
>
>1 2 3-and-4
>L R L R L
>
>The double-time rock step comes on the "three and four", stepping with the
>left foot on the three, rocking back to the right foot on the "and", and
>rocking forward to the left foot on four. OK, so far, so good.
>
>Now, the rhythm of this sequence is almost universally described by
>instructors as "Slow, slow, quick-quick slow," i.e.,
>
>1 2 3-and-4
>S S Q Q S
>
>This is where it gets confusing. Steps one, two, and three all occupy a full
>beat of music (step one lands on the "1", step two lands on the "2", and
>step three lands a full beat later on the "3"). Steps four and five each
>have a duration of a half beat, with step four landing a half beat later on
>the "and", and step five landing a half beat later on "4".
>
>So here's my question: Since it is the fourth and fifth steps that are
>shorter in duration, why isn't this rhythm described as "Slow, slow, slow,
>quick-quick"?
>
>It is tempting to say the words "slow" and "quick" are imprecise from a
>musical perspective, and perhaps should be discarded in favor of the more
>precise and unambiguous count of the music, but if you dance a given phrase
>as "S S QQ S" it feels different than the same phrase danced "S S S QQ",
>even though the count is the same. This is especially true when applying the
>same analysis to the typical rhythm of a molinetta.
>
>So what's going on here? Are the words slow and quick more descriptive of
>something else, say foot speed, than actual counts of music? Or am I missing
>something really obvious?
>
>
>Evan Wallace
>Seattle, WA
>www.tangoing.com
>
Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 00:52:50 +0000
From: Jay Rabe <jayrabe@HOTMAIL.COM>
Subject: Re: Slow, slow, quick-quick slow
Hi Evan,
I think this is a figure-ground thing.
You say, "Steps one, two, and three all occupy a full
beat of music (step one lands on the "1", step two lands on the "2", and
step three lands a full beat later on the "3"). Steps four and five each
have a duration of a half beat, with step four landing a half beat later on
the "and", and step five landing a half beat later on "4"."
when you say that the "step ... occupies a full beat," you are thinking of
the foot movement, and it finishes when the foot lands on the beat. Where
does it start? In this schema, it starts when the previous step ends. So
technically, you don't have enough information to say that step 1 is a slow,
because you don't know whether or not the previous step landed on the final
beat 4 or whether it was on a 4-and.
I think the answer is to switch the figure/ground and think of the
"slow-quick" descriptor as referring to the time that Starts on the landing
of the step being described, and ends on the next step. So really it is
describing the duration before the next step lands. So Step 3, which starts
on count 3, is a "quick" because step 4 lands on 3-and.
J in Portland
www.TangoMoments.com
----Original Message Follows----
Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 01:55:56 +0000
From: Sergio Vandekier <sergiovandekier990@HOTMAIL.COM>
Subject: Slow, slow, quick-quick slow
I never saw an Argentine instructor to teach musicality in that form.
But if I was to teach a sequence as the one described before I would step
all the steps as "slows" and then when I wanted to do a rocking step I would
do the two components as Q-Q.
So I would be walking s-s-s s- as many times as want, (no fixed pattern, no
fixed number of s) and then when I want to syncopate I do a rocking step
q-q. Otherwise sount step 1 and 2 as slows then double time the rocking
step q-q . In this last form the q-q will be right-left then the next
sequence could be (rt.slow) (lt.slow) q-q for another rocking step.
Best wishes, Sergio.
Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 22:03:31 -0400
From: Victor Crichton <victor_vsc@HOTMAIL.COM>
Subject: Re: Slow, slow, quick-quick slow
Hello Evan,
I have read a number of replies to your question, and though they all
have some validity, the simple answer to your question is still missing.
Regardless of whether you are improvising this movement of doing it as a
figure, there is a very basic mistake to how you are describing the music
and the numbers.
When you have an '&' as you describe "3 & 4", musically, the & is taken
from the preceding beat, not the following. So it is the 3 that is divided
in half, not the 4. That is why it would be correctly counted as S S q q S.
If you have any doubts about this, just contact a piano (or other music)
teacher to get an explanation of the music without any necessary connection
to Tango dancing.
Hope this helps.
Victor
Tampa Bay, Florida
Victor Crichton
https://www.tampatango.com
>From: Evan Wallace <evan@TANGOING.COM>
>Reply-To: Evan Wallace <evan@TANGOING.COM>
>To: TANGO-L@MITVMA.MIT.EDU
>Subject: [TANGO-L] Slow, slow, quick-quick slow
>Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 16:05:26 -0700
>
>I have the most distressingly simple question that, after 10 years of
>dancing, I am almost embarrassed to ask, but I can't come up with a
>completely satisfactory answer. I haven't been on the list in several
>years,
>so forgive me if this topic has been discussed recently.
>
>To explain the question, imagine the following five-step sequence of
>walking
>steps that any beginner might learn in the first week or two of their first
>class: "Left, right, left-right-left," with the left-right-left done in
>place as a double-time rock step. If we were to count this to music, we
>could notate it as follows (L = left, R = right):
>
>1 2 3-and-4
>L R L R L
>
>The double-time rock step comes on the "three and four", stepping with the
>left foot on the three, rocking back to the right foot on the "and", and
>rocking forward to the left foot on four. OK, so far, so good.
>
>Now, the rhythm of this sequence is almost universally described by
>instructors as "Slow, slow, quick-quick slow," i.e.,
>
>1 2 3-and-4
>S S Q Q S
>
>This is where it gets confusing. Steps one, two, and three all occupy a
>full
>beat of music (step one lands on the "1", step two lands on the "2", and
>step three lands a full beat later on the "3"). Steps four and five each
>have a duration of a half beat, with step four landing a half beat later on
>the "and", and step five landing a half beat later on "4".
>
>So here's my question: Since it is the fourth and fifth steps that are
>shorter in duration, why isn't this rhythm described as "Slow, slow, slow,
>quick-quick"?
>
>It is tempting to say the words "slow" and "quick" are imprecise from a
>musical perspective, and perhaps should be discarded in favor of the more
>precise and unambiguous count of the music, but if you dance a given phrase
>as "S S QQ S" it feels different than the same phrase danced "S S S QQ",
>even though the count is the same. This is especially true when applying
>the
>same analysis to the typical rhythm of a molinetta.
>
>So what's going on here? Are the words slow and quick more descriptive of
>something else, say foot speed, than actual counts of music? Or am I
>missing
>something really obvious?
>
>
>Evan Wallace
>Seattle, WA
>www.tangoing.com
>
Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 19:45:49 -0700
From: "Trini y Sean (PATangoS)" <patangos@YAHOO.COM>
Subject: Re: Slow, slow, quick-quick slow
Hi Evan,
It's an easy dance teaching strategy (used in
ballroom, too). And I suspect that is has more to do
with the movements than with the music itself (i.e,
SSQQS wording is probably not used by musicians that
much but that is just a guess since I am not a
musician). Here are a few ideas.
First, "slow" has a long vowel sound, whereas "quick"
has a short vowel sound. So it actually takes longer
to say "slow" than "quick", just like the time it
takes between the steps you described.
Second, it reminds the student what he/she is supposed
to do on that particular beat.
I find it interesting that many Argentines I have met
seem to have a different way of describing tango
rhythm than North Americans. A "taka-taka-ta" with an
occasional "boom-ba". I haven't figured out yet
whether the extra syllables indicates something I am
not hearing.
Trini de Pittsburgh
--- Evan Wallace <evan@TANGOING.COM> wrote:
>
> Now, the rhythm of this sequence is almost
> universally described by
> instructors as "Slow, slow, quick-quick slow," i.e.,
>
> 1 2 3-and-4
> S S Q Q S
>
>>
> So here's my question: Since it is the fourth and
> fifth steps that are
> shorter in duration, why isn't this rhythm described
> as "Slow, slow, slow,
> quick-quick"?
>
PATangoS - Pittsburgh Argentine Tango Society
Our Mission: To make Argentine Tango Pittsburgh's most popular social dance.
https://www.pitt.edu/~mcph/PATangoWeb.htm
Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 22:20:34 -0600
From: Tom Stermitz <stermitz@TANGO.ORG>
Subject: Re: Slow, slow, quick-quick slow
I think your confusion is warranted and correct. Dance language is
ambiguous, possibly wrong, even if it is fairly universal.
I might put forward the following mnemonic to more correctly count
things the way a musician would, which corresponds to your L-R-LRL.
S-S-SQS
In other words, the S's belong to the moments of the regular, walking
beat.
The Q belongs to the half-time step.
Several thoughts from this:
(1) Speaking the mnemonic as SSQQS provides the listener a little
anticipation of the half-time step.
(2) Psychologically, it is easier to do a quick step if you think of
it belonging to the slow step immediately FOLLOWING the quick, rather
than the preceding slow.
(3), The actual meanings of the words are less useful than the feel
of the rhythm evoked by the mnemonic. So, other words are just as
useful:
Rump, Pumb, Pump-P-Pumb.
Watch someone "count" in an african dance class. The drum sound
carries meaning not counting or words.
On Sep 10, 2005, at 5:05 PM, Evan Wallace wrote:
> I have the most distressingly simple question that, after 10 years of
> dancing, I am almost embarrassed to ask, but I can't come up with a
> completely satisfactory answer. I haven't been on the list in
> several years,
> so forgive me if this topic has been discussed recently.
>
> To explain the question, imagine the following five-step sequence
> of walking
> steps that any beginner might learn in the first week or two of
> their first
> class: "Left, right, left-right-left," with the left-right-left
> done in
> place as a double-time rock step. If we were to count this to
> music, we
> could notate it as follows (L = left, R = right):
>
> 1 2 3-and-4
> L R L R L
>
> The double-time rock step comes on the "three and four", stepping
> with the
> left foot on the three, rocking back to the right foot on the
> "and", and
> rocking forward to the left foot on four. OK, so far, so good.
>
> Now, the rhythm of this sequence is almost universally described by
> instructors as "Slow, slow, quick-quick slow," i.e.,
>
> 1 2 3-and-4
> S S Q Q S
>
> This is where it gets confusing. Steps one, two, and three all
> occupy a full
> beat of music (step one lands on the "1", step two lands on the
> "2", and
> step three lands a full beat later on the "3"). Steps four and five
> each
> have a duration of a half beat, with step four landing a half beat
> later on
> the "and", and step five landing a half beat later on "4".
>
> So here's my question: Since it is the fourth and fifth steps that are
> shorter in duration, why isn't this rhythm described as "Slow,
> slow, slow,
> quick-quick"?
>
> It is tempting to say the words "slow" and "quick" are imprecise
> from a
> musical perspective, and perhaps should be discarded in favor of
> the more
> precise and unambiguous count of the music, but if you dance a
> given phrase
> as "S S QQ S" it feels different than the same phrase danced "S S S
> QQ",
> even though the count is the same. This is especially true when
> applying the
> same analysis to the typical rhythm of a molinetta.
>
> So what's going on here? Are the words slow and quick more
> descriptive of
> something else, say foot speed, than actual counts of music? Or am
> I missing
> something really obvious?
>
>
> Evan Wallace
> Seattle, WA
> www.tangoing.com
>
> -
> LISTSERV@MITVMA.MIT.EDU.
> -
>
>
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 15:00:48 -0700
From: Daniel Lapadula <clubstyletango@YAHOO.COM>
Subject: Re: Slow, slow, quick-quick slow
Hi Evan....Who said that you have to do slow,slow, before a synchopation or quick,quick,slow?
Regards.
Daniel.
"Trini y Sean (PATangoS)" <patangos@YAHOO.COM> wrote:
Hi Evan,
It's an easy dance teaching strategy (used in
ballroom, too). And I suspect that is has more to do
with the movements than with the music itself (i.e,
SSQQS wording is probably not used by musicians that
much but that is just a guess since I am not a
musician). Here are a few ideas.
First, "slow" has a long vowel sound, whereas "quick"
has a short vowel sound. So it actually takes longer
to say "slow" than "quick", just like the time it
takes between the steps you described.
Second, it reminds the student what he/she is supposed
to do on that particular beat.
I find it interesting that many Argentines I have met
seem to have a different way of describing tango
rhythm than North Americans. A "taka-taka-ta" with an
occasional "boom-ba". I haven't figured out yet
whether the extra syllables indicates something I am
not hearing.
Trini de Pittsburgh
--- Evan Wallace wrote:
>
> Now, the rhythm of this sequence is almost
> universally described by
> instructors as "Slow, slow, quick-quick slow," i.e.,
>
> 1 2 3-and-4
> S S Q Q S
>
>>
> So here's my question: Since it is the fourth and
> fifth steps that are
> shorter in duration, why isn't this rhythm described
> as "Slow, slow, slow,
> quick-quick"?
>
PATangoS - Pittsburgh Argentine Tango Society
Our Mission: To make Argentine Tango Pittsburgh's most popular social dance.
https://www.pitt.edu/~mcph/PATangoWeb.htm
Daniel Lapadula
ClubStyleTango@yahoo.com
www.tangoestilodelcentro.com
Yahoo! for Good
Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.
