4649  Style "vs." technique

Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2006 16:38:25 -0500
From: "Jake Spatz (TangoDC.com)" <spatz@tangoDC.com>
Subject: [Tango-L] Style "vs." technique
To: tango-L@mit.edu

I'm afraid I disagree with much of Nina's argument. And I'm afraid that
means you all get to read about it. (I don't know where she's coming
from exactly, but I offer my views for what they're worth.)

First of all, "technique" is a variety of things, only a small portion
of which are practically fundamental. By "fundamental" I mean
universal-- the elements most styles rely upon most of the time. If you
do enough analysis, you soon realize that nothing is completely
universal, and that very little indeed is commonly used by most dancers.

Secondly, "technique" does not usually match the body's natural
movement, because it is first and foremost a *stylization* of body
movement. If a dancer later learns to economize their movements or make
them more comfortable, that's a refinement. And I notice that this inner
comfort often comes at the cost of bad form and outward sloppiness--
which is equivalent to *bad* technique. Then it requires further work
and refinement, and so on until the end of time.

(On a related note: "equilibrium, axis, flexibility, strength"-- these
are Not natural properties of the body. These are acquired skills, and
not everyone acquires them, let alone works hard to cultivate & maintain
them.)

Thirdly, Galatea wasn't modeled in clay, but sculpted in ivory. (You're
welcome to wear a blindfold if you wish, but I recommend removing it
when you read.)

Fourthly, it is quite impossible to learn "cold technique" in a
stylistic vacuum. As I said, fundamental technique is already one
stylization of movement. And every kind of technique either "belongs" to
a particular style or else leads to one. You cannot learn ochos, and
then "superimpose" a style on top of it, as though these things were
separate objects in a Photoshop layer. (More on this below.)

Lastly, "milonguero style" is just a stupid marketing label, and it's
silly to get upset about it. It's not half as bad as "ocho cortado"
(another Susana Miller misnomer), which is actually a "giro cortado."

Nina's argument boils down to this: "You've gotta dance well, and also
with some flavor." That conclusion is of little help to anyone, and its
premises are no use either. Moreover, the word "style" in a teaching
context refers to a _group_ of particular techniques, and using it to
mean "personality" (etc) fudges the point. The techniques that make up a
style, if matched with the right music, contribute flavor to the dance
even if the dancer is short on it.

For my part, I teach what I consider to be fundamental technique(s), but
to define that for a student, I have to teach multiplicity. There are,
for instance, several ways to lead ochos (e.g., chest rotation vs.
direction of walk), and there are several ways to execute them (e.g.,
body alignment vs. body dissociation vs. leg-crossing under the pelvis).
These various methods ARE various styles. They are not contradictory
because there is no such thing as "pure technique"-- there are only
various options, and it's best to have as many as possible at one's
disposal. A dancer with "good technique" (in my opinion) is one who has
*more than one* efficient way of doing anything.

As Igor points out, style and technique are also allied with the music.
If you dance the same way to Laurenz as to Di Sarli-- i.e., with the
same exact technique-- you've probably learned a particular style of
dancing without even realizing it. In fact, I'd argue that if you dance
to the serenada of a song the same way you dance to the variacion, your
technique is most likely limited. And I'm not talking about vocabulary;
I'm talking about something as primary as the weight-shift.

All of this is also closely related to analysis. (Here's where
everything comes from, in my understanding.) A teacher's favorite
orchestra (or favorite teaching orchestra) is going to shape their
understanding of the walk, and probably also determine what they
consider the most basic structure of the dance. Ever notice how those
who teach beginners "stepping together" favor D'Arienzo in their
classes? Or how those who teach beginners "the connection" use Di Sarli?
Or how Fabian Salas, whose analysis gives special import to the
molinete, typically performs to a turn-favoring vals? Or how Sebastian
Arce's elastic rebote matches the elastic bass lines in nuevo tango
music? (And you can't really use the rebote as a primary idea with Biagi
the way you can with Laurenz... it doesn't feel right, because the
movement style isn't suited to the musical style.)

To reiterate: Style determines technique, and styles are ultimately
related to musicality. Since certain orchestras played in certain clubs
(in the days before DJs), it only makes sense that different barrios
would develop different styles. There's a variety of ways to pivot, just
as there are different ways of walking. If you isolate one of them and
consider it "pure technique," you've made a de facto stylistic decision.
If you've learned to dance under teachers who rely on a single orchestra
or musical type, you've probably had a style imposed on you.

I teach variety to followers because it helps make the dance, with its
variety of partners, more legible. I teach variety to leaders because it
helps their lead become clear and improves their musical sensitivity. I
teach variety to everyone to dispel the false notion that there are
contradictory teachings. There are simply contrary options, due to many
styles both of music and of dance, and none is superior unless you
decide it's just your favorite.

Or are wearing a blindfold.

Jake Spatz
DC

=POSTSCRIPTI've been teaching an intermediate/technique class for 9 weeks now, in
the same room as another class, whose music my students and I have to
"borrow." The music chosen by my fellow teachers, for their class,
influences what I can teach.
For example: if a teacher is using some peppy D'Arienzo, I can't
teach walking to the arrastre, b/c the arrastre isn't prominent (or else
occurs in the piano, where it's a grace note instead of an accelerating
attack). Walking the arrastre to D'Arienzo thus becomes inefficient and
feels wrong. If a teacher is using Di Sarli, I can't teach the steppier
walk that works for D'Arienzo's 2/4 rhythms, b/c THAT isn't there in Di
Sarli, and again feels completely wrong. Which one is "fundamental,"
which "technique," which "style"? I live in the DJ age and like both
orchestras: my answer is, therefore, both.
When I'm in charge of the music, I play a variety of orchestras to
illustrate all this crap. I always have. Only now am I understanding how
this musical variety is identical with a variety of technique and style.
Not being in charge of the music, on the other hand, has become an
interesting challenge for me, and I've come to enjoy tackling it. The
situation both restricts my options and deepens my understanding.
Ultimately, it convinces me further of the truth that all technique has
a notion of musicality behind it, whether the teacher dispensing the
technique is fully cognizant of this factor or not. Certainly the pre-DJ
dancers were, with one orchestra playing at a local club. You dance to
that orchestra, and a style emerges from the sound. I'm happier living
now, with DJs able to play many different styles of music; but I think
it has made the teaching of this dance a little schizophrenic, a little
dogmatic, and a lot ignorant of the clear relationship between sound
texture and body technique.

Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2006 15:40:58 -0700
From: Nina Pesochinsky <nina@earthnet.net>
Subject: Re: [Tango-L] Style "vs." technique
To: TANGO-L@MIT.EDU

Hi, Jake, and everyone,

Here, I quote Voltaire:

"I disagree with everything you say, and to the death I will defend
your right to say it."

Jake, basically you are right. An unfinished piece of ivory (or
clay, since I prefer it) running around the world of myths an fables
can be a pretty ugly thing. And focusing too much on the sculpting
material often makes people miss the whole point of the artwork.

Professional dancers who have studies ballet, modern, etc. know the
difference between style and technique and can recognize them as two
separate entities wherever they see it. Social dancers who have
never bothered to take a classical dance class or learn about the
movement of the body through some other methods, such as yoga,
gyrotonics, etc., are frauds as teachers of dance because they do not
understand that thing that they think they are teaching.

Dancers who have the technique have no problem with "economizing"
their movement or make it more precise and efficient. They do it in
a split second and it is done as soon as their attention is pointed
to it. They also have no problem interpreting DiSarli or Donato in a
technically and stylistically appropriate way. They do not have to
spend years in group classes and private lessons struggling to put
movement to the music. The style becomes effortless when a dancer
knows how to move his or her body in accordance with the requirements
of the dance.

One of the legendary dancers and teachers in Buenos Aires once said
that there is a difference between tango teachers who make dancers
and those who make dance students.

Please carry on with your discussion!

Kindest regards,

Nina




At 02:38 PM 11/4/2006, you wrote:

>I'm afraid I disagree with much of Nina's argument. And I'm afraid that
>means you all get to read about it. (I don't know where she's coming
>from exactly, but I offer my views for what they're worth.)
>
>First of all, "technique" is a variety of things, only a small portion
>of which are practically fundamental. By "fundamental" I mean
>universal-- the elements most styles rely upon most of the time. If you
>do enough analysis, you soon realize that nothing is completely
>universal, and that very little indeed is commonly used by most dancers.
>
>Secondly, "technique" does not usually match the body's natural
>movement, because it is first and foremost a *stylization* of body
>movement. If a dancer later learns to economize their movements or make
>them more comfortable, that's a refinement. And I notice that this inner
>comfort often comes at the cost of bad form and outward sloppiness--
>which is equivalent to *bad* technique. Then it requires further work
>and refinement, and so on until the end of time.
>
>(On a related note: "equilibrium, axis, flexibility, strength"-- these
>are Not natural properties of the body. These are acquired skills, and
>not everyone acquires them, let alone works hard to cultivate & maintain
>them.)
>
>Thirdly, Galatea wasn't modeled in clay, but sculpted in ivory. (You're
>welcome to wear a blindfold if you wish, but I recommend removing it
>when you read.)
>
>Fourthly, it is quite impossible to learn "cold technique" in a
>stylistic vacuum. As I said, fundamental technique is already one
>stylization of movement. And every kind of technique either "belongs" to
>a particular style or else leads to one. You cannot learn ochos, and
>then "superimpose" a style on top of it, as though these things were
>separate objects in a Photoshop layer. (More on this below.)
>
>Lastly, "milonguero style" is just a stupid marketing label, and it's
>silly to get upset about it. It's not half as bad as "ocho cortado"
>(another Susana Miller misnomer), which is actually a "giro cortado."
>
>Nina's argument boils down to this: "You've gotta dance well, and also
>with some flavor." That conclusion is of little help to anyone, and its
>premises are no use either. Moreover, the word "style" in a teaching
>context refers to a _group_ of particular techniques, and using it to
>mean "personality" (etc) fudges the point. The techniques that make up a
>style, if matched with the right music, contribute flavor to the dance
>even if the dancer is short on it.
>
>For my part, I teach what I consider to be fundamental technique(s), but
>to define that for a student, I have to teach multiplicity. There are,
>for instance, several ways to lead ochos (e.g., chest rotation vs.
>direction of walk), and there are several ways to execute them (e.g.,
>body alignment vs. body dissociation vs. leg-crossing under the pelvis).
>These various methods ARE various styles. They are not contradictory
>because there is no such thing as "pure technique"-- there are only
>various options, and it's best to have as many as possible at one's
>disposal. A dancer with "good technique" (in my opinion) is one who has
>*more than one* efficient way of doing anything.
>
>As Igor points out, style and technique are also allied with the music.
>If you dance the same way to Laurenz as to Di Sarli-- i.e., with the
>same exact technique-- you've probably learned a particular style of
>dancing without even realizing it. In fact, I'd argue that if you dance
>to the serenada of a song the same way you dance to the variacion, your
>technique is most likely limited. And I'm not talking about vocabulary;
>I'm talking about something as primary as the weight-shift.
>
>All of this is also closely related to analysis. (Here's where
>everything comes from, in my understanding.) A teacher's favorite
>orchestra (or favorite teaching orchestra) is going to shape their
>understanding of the walk, and probably also determine what they
>consider the most basic structure of the dance. Ever notice how those
>who teach beginners "stepping together" favor D'Arienzo in their
>classes? Or how those who teach beginners "the connection" use Di Sarli?
>Or how Fabian Salas, whose analysis gives special import to the
>molinete, typically performs to a turn-favoring vals? Or how Sebastian
>Arce's elastic rebote matches the elastic bass lines in nuevo tango
>music? (And you can't really use the rebote as a primary idea with Biagi
>the way you can with Laurenz... it doesn't feel right, because the
>movement style isn't suited to the musical style.)
>
>To reiterate: Style determines technique, and styles are ultimately
>related to musicality. Since certain orchestras played in certain clubs
>(in the days before DJs), it only makes sense that different barrios
>would develop different styles. There's a variety of ways to pivot, just
>as there are different ways of walking. If you isolate one of them and
>consider it "pure technique," you've made a de facto stylistic decision.
>If you've learned to dance under teachers who rely on a single orchestra
>or musical type, you've probably had a style imposed on you.
>
>I teach variety to followers because it helps make the dance, with its
>variety of partners, more legible. I teach variety to leaders because it
>helps their lead become clear and improves their musical sensitivity. I
>teach variety to everyone to dispel the false notion that there are
>contradictory teachings. There are simply contrary options, due to many
>styles both of music and of dance, and none is superior unless you
>decide it's just your favorite.
>
>Or are wearing a blindfold.
>
>Jake Spatz
>DC
>
>=POSTSCRIPT>I've been teaching an intermediate/technique class for 9 weeks now, in
>the same room as another class, whose music my students and I have to
>"borrow." The music chosen by my fellow teachers, for their class,
>influences what I can teach.
> For example: if a teacher is using some peppy D'Arienzo, I can't
>teach walking to the arrastre, b/c the arrastre isn't prominent (or else
>occurs in the piano, where it's a grace note instead of an accelerating
>attack). Walking the arrastre to D'Arienzo thus becomes inefficient and
>feels wrong. If a teacher is using Di Sarli, I can't teach the steppier
>walk that works for D'Arienzo's 2/4 rhythms, b/c THAT isn't there in Di
>Sarli, and again feels completely wrong. Which one is "fundamental,"
>which "technique," which "style"? I live in the DJ age and like both
>orchestras: my answer is, therefore, both.
> When I'm in charge of the music, I play a variety of orchestras to
>illustrate all this crap. I always have. Only now am I understanding how
>this musical variety is identical with a variety of technique and style.
> Not being in charge of the music, on the other hand, has become an
>interesting challenge for me, and I've come to enjoy tackling it. The
>situation both restricts my options and deepens my understanding.
>Ultimately, it convinces me further of the truth that all technique has
>a notion of musicality behind it, whether the teacher dispensing the
>technique is fully cognizant of this factor or not. Certainly the pre-DJ
>dancers were, with one orchestra playing at a local club. You dance to
>that orchestra, and a style emerges from the sound. I'm happier living
>now, with DJs able to play many different styles of music; but I think
>it has made the teaching of this dance a little schizophrenic, a little
>dogmatic, and a lot ignorant of the clear relationship between sound
>texture and body technique.
>
>

Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2006 13:07:54 -0500
From: "Jake Spatz (TangoDC.com)" <spatz@tangoDC.com>
Subject: Re: [Tango-L] Style "vs." technique
To: tango-L@mit.edu

Hi Igor,

Thanks for the cheers.

Defining "ocho cortado" around the sidestep (rather than the giro) is
what's stopping you. If you change that sidestep into a pivot (a la
front ochos), then cross, it becomes a "(front) ocho" cortado.

Especially if you lead the first half of a front ocho instead of the
initial rockstep. :-)

Jake


Igor Polk wrote:

> Wonderful writing, Jake !
>
> Very useful and interesting.
>
> Hey, where did you get this [execution of ochos] three ways: "body alignment
> vs. body dissociation vs. leg-crossing under the pelvis" ? That is exactly
> what I am telling to my friends too.
>
> I think your approach to teaching is very right: we do play different music
> at milongas, so we have to know how to dance differently, besides, we meet
> different people, and it adds new dimension to dancing.
>
> "Contrary", yes. That is what I meant writing about contradictory technique.
> Yes, they define different styles, and only contradictory in them is that
> they can not be executed precisely at the same moment.
>
> Thanks,
> Igor
>
> PS. Though I would argue that "ocho cortado" is "Giro cortado". It can be
> both, and there is the whole bunch of other ways to do it - this is one of
> the most variable steps of tango ( with most ancient roots ). To me: it is a
> "side step" with imposed variations. ( I have not yet figured out where is
> the ocho there: is it a side step, or a finalizing cross which is only one
> of the endings... Can someone help me? )
>
>
>
>
>

Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2006 13:31:32 -0500
From: "Jake Spatz (TangoDC.com)" <spatz@tangoDC.com>
Subject: Re: [Tango-L] Style "vs." technique-- 3 ocho styles
To: tango-L@mit.edu

Sorry, I didn't answer the important question...

Those 3 methods of doing ochos derive from the embrace. How did I
explore them? By varying my body tone, as a direct result of following
the music's melody and tone (instead of reducing it to rhythm).

If I prevent my partner from "rolling" (against my chest) within the
embrace, by becoming firmer and increasing the lean pressure a tad, she
stays glued to me (as in apilado embrace), and pivots her hips with more
dissociation. The angle and speed of the walk determine the degree of
her pivot.

If I become even firmer, move more sharply (and with shorter steps), and
keep a sharp angle to the ochos, she'll have to cross her legs under her
hips, without having much chance to pivot properly. (This is a lot of
fun with the zippier passages in Di Sarli, where the arrastre has a lot
of pep.)

If I become looser in the embrace and rotate my chest more fluidly,
she'll feel like rolling too. It all comes down to body tone, and how
well it interprets the music.

Typically, I change styles (and angles, directions, speed, etc) all the
time, sometimes every half-ocho. It lets me navigate at will, dance to
melody (and individual notes, on occasion), and present a ton of variety
without resorting to stupid shit on a crowded floor.

Where did I get this? From taking notes instead of taking classes. From
not second-guessing the teachers I did take classes with. From observing
the variety of ways in which my variety of partners move. From delving
into the fundamentals. From applying one style's techniques to another
style's embrace. (The last of these is a recipe for infinite discovery.)

Jake Spatz
DC


Igor Polk wrote:

> Wonderful writing, Jake !
>
> Very useful and interesting.
>
> Hey, where did you get this [execution of ochos] three ways: "body alignment
> vs. body dissociation vs. leg-crossing under the pelvis" ? That is exactly
> what I am telling to my friends too.
>
> I think your approach to teaching is very right: we do play different music
> at milongas, so we have to know how to dance differently, besides, we meet
> different people, and it adds new dimension to dancing.
>
> "Contrary", yes. That is what I meant writing about contradictory technique.
> Yes, they define different styles, and only contradictory in them is that
> they can not be executed precisely at the same moment.
>
> Thanks,
> Igor
>
> PS. Though I would argue that "ocho cortado" is "Giro cortado". It can be
> both, and there is the whole bunch of other ways to do it - this is one of
> the most variable steps of tango ( with most ancient roots ). To me: it is a
> "side step" with imposed variations. ( I have not yet figured out where is
> the ocho there: is it a side step, or a finalizing cross which is only one
> of the endings... Can someone help me? )
>
>
>
>
>

Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 10:51:46 -0800
From: "Igor Polk" <ipolk@virtuar.com>
Subject: Re: [Tango-L] Style "vs." technique
To: <TANGO-L@mit.edu>

Nina,

You write as if there is only one technique and only one style.
Well, that is good saying to differentiate between people who can dance
good and who can not yet. But everybody else seems to me is talking here
about other styles. The styles which are many.

Do the professional dancers recognize difference in styles of 18th century
and 20th century?

Aaron once pointed out about difference in technique which define difference
in style between russian and french classical ballet schools. And it was
only such a small thing like a movement of a heap done differently.

Even though professional dancers have tremendous advantage over the
commoners in abilities, I do not see much difference in a beginner's class
when they are just learning tango. ( It will come later, but not right
away ).
I saw a documentary when ballet or modern dancers were learning a piece of
Tango for their performance. Hm... I am sorry, when professional dancers not
knowing tango do it, they struggle so much ! They can not understand it -
they have no clue about connection! It looks like clowning. They are trying
to perform ochos and molinetes each by themselves! Well, there is a term in
the professional world for this: "making an impression". "Choreography need
not be authentic to give the impression of time and place [ read: another
dance] " ( in "Building Dances", by Susan McGreevy ). It is still ballet in
the style of Tango. Not a real thing. Give some dramatic quebradas, and here
we are, it is tango!

Nina, please, I'd like you to clarify what is the style and technique in the
professional world? I do not know that. To me the style there is overimposed
upon technique to make a certain visual effect. Tell me if I am wrong. (
Yes, yes, of course, it feels good too.. )

In dancing for pleasure which is Tango, and Flamenco, and Salsa, and Samba,
the style is defined by the music and body-internal basic dance structure.
( And one might say, costumes :) )

Igor.
PS
Jake, Oh. Oh!
I am signing under.

Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2006 14:27:27 -0700
From: Nina Pesochinsky <nina@earthnet.net>
Subject: Re: [Tango-L] Style "vs." technique
To: TANGO-L@MIT.EDU

Hi, Igor and everyone,

I will explain... But first, a little bit of my own background -
Argentine tango was my first dance, modern & ballet came later, along
with other body-centered work. It is important to know from which
context my argument comes from. I am not a classical dancer who
tries to fit tango into a paradigm which ground other dances.

The technique to which I refer to is internal to the dancer. At the
core, it is a dancer's ability to know his or her body and how it
moves in a very intimate way. That means that when a teacher, any
teacher, says something, like "do your ochos in such and such a way",
the dancer instantly has an internal point of reference about what
he/she needs to do and how to achieve that movement.

In tango, the embrace is so essential that it is really not about the
"lean" or a degree of architectural perfection. It is about dancers
being able to embrace each other from the core of their being - body,
spirit, etc. Of course, there is a continuum to how much of
themselves one wants to put into any particular dance
experience. But the only way a dancer can choose that is by
mastering all possibilities.

I advocate technique being something that is about the dancer,
internal. It is NOT about dancer+partner, dancer+music, etc. It is
not about the dance couple. All that comes later. The technique is
about mastering the movement of one's own body to achieve what tango
asks for. It is the intimate knowledge of one's own body.

It is impossible to find that while focusing on the other things,
such as a partner and music because that brings other requirements
and obligations. Also, one's own technique does not fall apart when
dancing with a less skilled dancer. Instead, it allows dancers to
wrap around the imperfections inherent to the social dance.

I hope this explains it. One of the greatest discoveries of tango
may come from taking a beginner modern class and then sitting for may
hours in the cafes of Buenos Aires talking with Argentine people who
do not dance tango.

My best regards to everyone,

Nina





At 11:51 AM 11/5/2006, you wrote:

>Nina, please, I'd like you to clarify what is the style and technique in the
>professional world? I do not know that. To me the style there is overimposed
>upon technique to make a certain visual effect. Tell me if I am wrong. (
>Yes, yes, of course, it feels good too.. )

Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 14:53:06 +0000 (GMT)
From: Lucia <curvasreales@yahoo.com.ar>
Subject: Re: [Tango-L] Style "vs." technique - A correction
To: tango-L@mit.edu



"Jake Spatz (TangoDC.com)" <spatz@tangoDC.com> escribi?:
Secondly, "technique" does not usually match the body's natural
movement, because it is first and foremost a *stylization* of body
movement.

(On a related note: "equilibrium, axis, flexibility, strength"-- these
are Not natural properties of the body. These are acquired skills, and
not everyone acquires them, let alone works hard to cultivate & maintain
them.)
Is someone wouldn't "acquire" equilibrium, axis, etc., he/she will never be able to raise even an arm...
Equilibrium, Axis etc. are universal physical properties. All bodies have them, if inanimate or not, in either a static or dynamic (such as dance, although this is a a stretch) state. Many of the arguments espoused in this thread "fall on their head" because of the fallacy expressed above, and sadly reflect the general ignorance of, and even the attacks upon, the scientific principles...

Lucia ;-(

.


Correo Yahoo!
Espacio para todos tus mensajes, antivirus y antispam ?gratis!