The Random Tango Thoughts Thread

[Peaches]

Seems to me, it'd be good to have a wandering thread for stuff that doesn't quite fit with other threads, but would be silly to limit to a thread all of it's own. So here we have it.

My wandering thoughts for the day:

This past weekend I went dancing and got to dance with a lot of people I otherwise don't. It was interesting. I danced with one guy, who I'd always thought was pretty good...but I wasn't impressed. He seemed very pleased with my dancing, though, so I suppose that's worth something. The problem I had with him is that he never seemed to finish transferring his weight. Either that, or there was something off (either him or me) which made it exceptionally hard for me to completely change my weight onto each next step. I found that I had a very hard time keeping consistent connection with him.

All of this made me start thinking about how much having a good connection is dependent on one's partner. (Not much of a revelation, I know, and kind of dimwitted in that it's just dawning on me now, after three years of this. "Still waters run deep, chief.") But it's an interesting change, to go from thinking that there's always something I can do to make it "perfect" to starting to think that perhaps it's not always my fault. But what can I do to make things better? Do you all have any tips for keeping that connection solid, and even? So far, for lack of any better ideas of what to do, I've tended to just up the amount of "pressure" in the connection, so that even when it varies it's still pretty solid. I'm wary, though, of increasing the pressure in the connection too much. (If a guy isn't used to apilado, it seems a good way to create problems...or just get annoying.) But what else could I do?

At the other end of the spectrum, I was asked to dance by a tall, thin gentleman. Now, my default is to go for close embrace, but his body language seemed to me that he would be more comfortable with open. Which was fine, and I could follow him just fine. But it seemed like he kept trying to pull me closer. Not in an icky way (it didn't seem), but just wanting to close the distance. To the point of taking every opportunity to get his right arm further around my back, and then kind of hooking his fingers around my side when he'd gotten it all the way around. It made dancing very very difficult. Again, it didn't seem icky at the time, just rather inconsiderate. I suppose the question would be, why didn't I just dance close embrace? Well, I was thinking about that (it was a long tanda), and I just couldn't figure out how. Stupid, I know. But he was tall, and thin, and had sort of a collapsed posture. I couldn't figure out how to do close embrace and fit my body to his with that. Not without pulling my head back, or leaning back, or something. Have other ladies here dealt with this (either situation, really)? How do you handle it???

And, lest you all think I've got nothing but complaints from that night, I danced with one guy who professed to know nothing, but who had the absolute most amazing connection. He said he's been at it about 3.5 years, which seems about right, I guess. It.was.PERFECT!!! He felt solid as a rock, a beautiful feeling walk (which let me walk in such a way that felt wonderful--hope it looked good), just...*melt*. :D And then another guy, who was incredible for his 1.5 years of dancing...not a terrific connection, but an awesome embrace. Very snuggle-y, and he brought his left hand in to his chest and we danced that way. *swoon* I actually danced most of the time with my eyes closed, too.

[bastet]

Seems to me, it'd be good to have a wandering thread for stuff that doesn't quite fit with other threads, but would be silly to limit to a thread all of it's own. So here we have it.

My wandering thoughts for the day:

This past weekend I went dancing and got to dance with a lot of people I otherwise don't. It was interesting. I danced with one guy, who I'd always thought was pretty good...but I wasn't impressed. He seemed very pleased with my dancing, though, so I suppose that's worth something. The problem I had with him is that he never seemed to finish transferring his weight. Either that, or there was something off (either him or me) which made it exceptionally hard for me to completely change my weight onto each next step. I found that I had a very hard time keeping consistent connection with him.

All of this made me start thinking about how much having a good connection is dependent on one's partner. (Not much of a revelation, I know, and kind of dimwitted in that it's just dawning on me now, after three years of this. "Still waters run deep, chief.") But it's an interesting change, to go from thinking that there's always something I can do to make it "perfect" to starting to think that perhaps it's not always my fault. But what can I do to make things better? Do you all have any tips for keeping that connection solid, and even? So far, for lack of any better ideas of what to do, I've tended to just up the amount of "pressure" in the connection, so that even when it varies it's still pretty solid. I'm wary, though, of increasing the pressure in the connection too much. (If a guy isn't used to apilado, it seems a good way to create problems...or just get annoying.) But what else could I do?

At the other end of the spectrum, I was asked to dance by a tall, thin gentleman. Now, my default is to go for close embrace, but his body language seemed to me that he would be more comfortable with open. Which was fine, and I could follow him just fine. But it seemed like he kept trying to pull me closer. Not in an icky way (it didn't seem), but just wanting to close the distance. To the point of taking every opportunity to get his right arm further around my back, and then kind of hooking his fingers around my side when he'd gotten it all the way around. It made dancing very very difficult. Again, it didn't seem icky at the time, just rather inconsiderate. I suppose the question would be, why didn't I just dance close embrace? Well, I was thinking about that (it was a long tanda), and I just couldn't figure out how. Stupid, I know. But he was tall, and thin, and had sort of a collapsed posture. I couldn't figure out how to do close embrace and fit my body to his with that. Not without pulling my head back, or leaning back, or something. Have other ladies here dealt with this (either situation, really)? How do you handle it???

And, lest you all think I've got nothing but complaints from that night, I danced with one guy who professed to know nothing, but who had the absolute most amazing connection. He said he's been at it about 3.5 years, which seems about right, I guess. It.was.PERFECT!!! He felt solid as a rock, a beautiful feeling walk (which let me walk in such a way that felt wonderful--hope it looked good), just...*melt*. :D And then another guy, who was incredible for his 1.5 years of dancing...not a terrific connection, but an awesome embrace. Very snuggle-y, and he brought his left hand in to his chest and we danced that way. *swoon* I actually danced most of the time with my eyes closed, too.

Well- I can give you my opinion on the tall close embrace guy...I don't know if he was going for a flat on style in the embrace but a "v" would probably work better in the case of not so hot posture. Incedintally, it also helps with guys who "hook their fingers" around you sides. I find that uncomfortable as well as it keeps pulling me off to the closed side of the embrace anyway and makes it very difficlt for me to maintain a straight on embrace...so I usually don't bother trying, I just make some minor shifts to feel a little more like a "v". Granted, this isn't helping him understand he's being uncomfortable, but it will at least get you through the tanda. I guess you'd have to decide if he asked why you shifted positions what would be the right thing to say...honesty or something else. :)

On the embrace and solidity from a partner...I have the same issue sometimes and anxiously await others advice. I seem to get creamed one way or the other on the decisions I make..either go "heavier" to increase the connection and get a complaint or go lighter to match what I feel and also get a complaint....

[Peaches]

Well- I can give you my opinion on the tall close embrace guy...I don't know if he was going for a flat on style in the embrace but a "v" would probably work better in the case of not so hot posture. Incedintally, it also helps with guys who "hook their fingers" around you sides. I find that uncomfortable as well as it keeps pulling me off to the closed side of the embrace anyway and makes it very difficlt for me to maintain a straight on embrace...so I usually don't bother trying, I just make some minor shifts to feel a little more like a "v". Granted, this isn't helping him understand he's being uncomfortable, but it will at least get you through the tanda. I guess you'd have to decide if he asked why you shifted positions what would be the right thing to say...honesty or something else. :)With the tall guy, it was strange. He never spoke. At all, really. I started to introduce myself after the first song, but if he didn't hear me or what, his attention was pretty much elsewhere and seemed to have no interest in the usual getting-to-know chit-chat between songs. Very off-putting.

On the embrace and solidity from a partner...I have the same issue sometimes and anxiously await others advice. I seem to get creamed one way or the other on the decisions I make..either go "heavier" to increase the connection and get a complaint or go lighter to match what I feel and also get a complaint....Well, I'm glad to know it's not just me. :)

[tangonuevo]

... The problem I had with him is that he never seemed to finish transferring his weight. Either that, or there was something off (either him or me) which made it exceptionally hard for me to completely change my weight onto each next step. I found that I had a very hard time keeping consistent connection with him. ...

Did he actively block you from completing your weight transfer?? My expectation is that I initiate the lead but that the follow arrives on her own axis herself without me pushing or otherwise compelling her to go there. "The man proposes, the woman disposes".

Perhaps the two of you had different expectations??

[Peaches]

I'm not sure exactly what's going on. I'll have to think a bit and try to refine what I'm feeling before I get back to you.

[Zoopsia59]

Did he actively block you from completing your weight transfer?? My expectation is that I initiate the lead but that the follow arrives on her own axis herself without me pushing or otherwise compelling her to go there. "The man proposes, the woman disposes".

Perhaps the two of you had different expectations??

Sometimes what happens is the leader initiates a lead, but doesn't follow through enough himself for the follower to transfer her weight. I see this all the time with back ochos. The leader initiates an ocho sequence, but because he tries to stay in one place and just let his arms go back and forth, the follower can't take her upper body with her lower body through the ocho. Then a pendulum effect occurs for the follower and she is falling back on each step rather than reaching back.

In fact, I see fairly frequent problems of leaders not "allowing" the follower to complete the move he led because she's supposed to "go with him" and he doesn't go. Its usually more of a problem with leaders who overuse their arms and don't know to lead with their body.

To the follower, it feels like he's had to abort the move (maybe due to a possible collision) and so she aborts as well. Then he gets annoyed, frustrated or at least perplexed that she didn't do what he "led". Depending on his attitude, he then either corrects her, or asks about it. Or he just decides she's not a good follow and doesn't ask her to dance again and continues to lead badly.

You are correct in that you shouldn't have to push, compell, cajole, or otherwise force the follower to go where you want. But there are many leaders who unintentionally make it very hard for the follower to go where they want.

[Peaches]

Sometimes what happens is the leader initiates a lead, but doesn't follow through enough himself for the follower to transfer her weight. [...snip...] In fact, I see fairly frequent problems of leaders not "allowing" the follower to complete the move he led because she's supposed to "go with him" and he doesn't go. [...snip...] To the follower, it feels like he's had to abort the move
Yep. But I don't notice it so much with back ochos--more on plain forward (for the guy) walks, or if he leads a rock step where there's too much transfer for just a rock but not enough to actually step and then step back. It's like I feel this intention to move...so I "reach" back with my free leg, we start to transfer weight together...and then it's like he's stopped short. Maybe I'm just taking too big of a step and getting away from him. (That would be kinda funny...I start the thread talking about how I'm realizing it's not always my fault, when it actually is.) It's like he's gotten more vertical or something, or arrived over his heel and never came forward that last little bit. I end up in an odd position with most of my weight on the receiving foot, but not that last little bit to fully be on my axis with a clean transfer. I feel like I've got to abruptly finish the weight transfer (and pull away a bit, and did I mention "abrupt?"), or not transfer and end up sort of leaning on him, or do wonky things with my own posture.

It's not that they actually prevent me from transferring weight (holding, etc.), it's that there's something going on that prevents me from doing it cleanly while maintaining the connection. Or something. (I'm sorry I can't be more helpful, I really just can't figure out what's going on, or how to put it into words. I can't brain today, I have the dumb. :rolleyes:)

You are correct in that you shouldn't have to push, compell, cajole, or otherwise force the follower to go where you want. But there are many leaders who unintentionally make it very hard for the follower to go where they want.Very true.

[dchester]

Not in an icky way
OK, since this thread is for random thoughts, I prefer to dance in close embrace (partially because I've realized I'm not nearly as good in open). What tips do you (or others) have to keep me from being "icky"?

[Lilly_of_the_valley]

OK, since this thread is for random thoughts, I prefer to dance in close embrace (partially because I've realized I'm not nearly as good in open). What tips do you (or others) have to keep me from being "icky"?

Hmmm... Go to milongas where the floor is small, hence everybody there dances close embrace. :)

[bastet]

OK, since this thread is for random thoughts, I prefer to dance in close embrace (partially because I've realized I'm not nearly as good in open). What tips do you (or others) have to keep me from being "icky"?

Just don't grab??? :D

Since our bodies are supposed to be the places where we are feeling the most connection in close embrace, I'd just be sure you aren't inadvertently flexing or pulling with the hands...resting comfortably is what I always say....

If the picture in the avatar is you, then are you quite tall? The lady is quite a bit shorter and you are thankfully not trying to reach all the way around her, which would be uncomfortable. The way I've been taught what to do with a tall lead and short follow is what you seem to be doing, drop the arm down to block your side so she can't get drift too much and don't try to get all the way around like you'd be able to with someone taller. (she might be more comfortable with her head turned the other way though...)

[Peaches]

Just don't grab??? :DI second this. If you sense your partner trying to keep distance, respect that. Also, don't caress, don't leer. You know, act like a gentleman.

[bastet]

Ok- random thoughts...this kind of goes back to peaches first post and connection.

Sometimes I get the impression (!!) that more than just a few guys out there expect that the follower is somehow responsible for a good connection and that if they are just standing there, weight forward, hips over balls of feet, shoulders over hips and not pulled back, that they are "doing their part" and the rest is the follows responsiblity....

I know what I do as a follow to try to connect, over and above the previous sentance...so...for those who lead...what else do you provide to the partnership or do with yourself (abs, torso, intention and so forth) to really provide connection to the follow over and above having decent dance posture? Because I feel like that is only half the picture and isn't really enough in itself.

I've danced with leads who have so so posture and good connection, or good posture but unreliable connection and guys with great posture and great connection (and bad posture and bad connection but we won't go there...)

So leads and follows what do you think is the missing piece? The embrace is more than just good posture. (I think I already know Steve's answer! :-) )

[Peaches]

Sometimes I get the impression (!!) that more than just a few guys out there expect that the follower is somehow responsible for a good connection and that if they are just standing there, weight forward, hips over balls of feet, shoulders over hips and not pulled back, that they are "doing their part" and the rest is the follows responsiblity....

I know what I do as a follow to try to connect, over and above the previous sentanceUm...could you enlighten me as to what it is that you do, as you put it, over and above what you've stated?

[bastet]

Um...could you enlighten me as to what it is that you do, as you put it, over and above what you've stated?


Well- in addition to just trying to keep a good dance posture, I also keep tone in my abs, keep them lifted and acticely focus my center towards my partner. I try to keep from pulling my head back in a close embrace because any little change like that can be felt by the partner as "backwards" weight shifting. Arm positioning can also be a problem. If you aren't used to keeping your torso engaged and toned, having low arms can cause the torso to collapse (moving your center away from your partner or at the very least- giving you a floppy, disengaged core)....so all these things are additional things I think of when I am in an embrace. There's probably more but I amhaving trouble thinking right now.

[Peaches]

Well- in addition to just trying to keep a good dance posture, I also keep tone in my abs, keep them lifted and acticely focus my center towards my partner. I try to keep from pulling my head back in a close embrace because any little change like that can be felt by the partner as "backwards" weight shifting. Arm positioning can also be a problem. If you aren't used to keeping your torso engaged and toned, having low arms can cause the torso to collapse (moving your center away from your partner or at the very least- giving you a floppy, disengaged core)....so all these things are additional things I think of when I am in an embrace. There's probably more but I amhaving trouble thinking right now.Thank you!

And now, back to our regularly scheduled discussion! :)

[dchester]

Just don't grab??? :D

Since our bodies are supposed to be the places where we are feeling the most connection in close embrace, I'd just be sure you aren't inadvertently flexing or pulling with the hands...resting comfortably is what I always say....

If the picture in the avatar is you, then are you quite tall? The lady is quite a bit shorter and you are thankfully not trying to reach all the way around her, which would be uncomfortable. The way I've been taught what to do with a tall lead and short follow is what you seem to be doing, drop the arm down to block your side so she can't get drift too much and don't try to get all the way around like you'd be able to with someone taller. (she might be more comfortable with her head turned the other way though...) The picture is of my wife and myself. No problems there, as she loves close embrace. I'm 6'1", so I'm taller than most followers.

[Angel HI]

You know, act like a gentleman.

Yes. "Icky" is often not what you do, but the intent with which you do it.

[Steve Pastor]

"But it's an interesting change, to go from thinking that there's always something I can do to make it "perfect" to starting to think that perhaps it's not always my fault."

It sure is!

"But what can I do to make things better? Do you all have any tips for keeping that connection solid, and even? "

As I got more consistent in my dancing, I was corrected less and less during my lessons. I will still occassionally "break" my posture, and find myself leaning over forward from the waist, or with my center behind my feet.
But the biggest frustration became not getting enough "energy" from my partner to be able to lead much of anything. I asked several times what I could to to get more from my partners, and never found anything that worked consistently for more than a short time.
I would work my way through a short mental checklist of things I was supposed to be doing, and after checking things off, guess what I had to conclude?

One thing that hasn't been mentioned regarding getting that apilado connection (if you go apilado in your close embrace, which doesn't always happen) is "sinking into your knees" to bring your weight further forward.
I have yet to ask someone to "give me more forward pressure" (and then did it) who didn't then find it easier to follow me.
One other thing that usually works is if I can get them to take smaller steps. Or think more about their standing, weighted leg, rather than the leg they are stepping with.

Men and women both have to same quandry about trying to determine how much weight their partner wants.
I've concluded, and actually had it confirmed by my "favorite" insturctors, that, as the leader, all you can do is "make yourself available" to your parnter. I am almost always taller, heavier, and stronger than my partners. I can only share or give them the same amount of weight that they give me.

So, if she is light and barely gives me any weight, I have to "hold back" and be light.

I try to keep in mind though, as I've been taught, that the woman has to feel comfortable trusting me with her balance. Although we give each other an equal amount of weight during the embrace, I give proportionally less (although there are times I would literally fall over without her being there to support me). So, she's more out there than I am.

So, yeah, it's sort of like, if I let you determine the embrace, and the extent of it, and you don't share your weight with me... I don't know what else to do other than be as steady and predictable as I can, and maybe you will come to trust me.
Or maybe not.
The last time I danced with one woman, we had danced open, and just sort of fell into a close embrace on the last song of the tanda. I wasn't aware of doing anything different.

[Steve Pastor]

"It's like he's gotten more vertical or something, or arrived over his heel and never came forward that last little bit. I end up in an odd position with most of my weight on the receiving foot, but not that last little bit to fully be on my axis with a clean transfer. I feel like I've got to abruptly finish the weight transfer (and pull away a bit, and did I mention "abrupt?"), or not transfer and end up sort of leaning on him, or do wonky things with my own posture. "

It is also possible, as you already seem to know, that he's not yet very good at controlling his own axis, so that he "wobbles" as he moves forward. He may not be able to feel that you haven't been able to finish your step.
I have to say though, that I have been accussed of this by women after spending the whole time thinking that SHE is the one who is, again as you say, taking steps that are longer than mine at which point I had to "wobble" because her weight would be there then not be there. One woman in particular seemd very sure of herself. But you know, she almost always danced with the same guy, and I wasn't having this probelm with anyone else at the time. One of the things she told me was that my steps didn't match the size of my "intent". I could have told her that she was supposed to follow my body, not my "intent", or what she though it was. But it didn't take long for me to decide that any discussion was pointless.
(No, I didn't dance with her again.)

That brings us back to the fact that you can only fix yourself.
Check your posture.
Try taking slightly smaller steps.
Try thinking more about staying in place.
Add all the other things you''ve been taught about what makes a good follower.

If none of that works, maybe it isn't you.

[Zoopsia59]

One of the things she told me was that my steps didn't match the size of my "intent". I could have told her that she was supposed to follow my body, not my "intent".

Where does your intent make itself known if not in your body? Aren't they the same thing? (Or should be?)

Ok.. that was more or less a rhetorical question because there are so many leaders whose steps actually DON'T match their intent. That is, there steps don't match their body (or the body doesn't match their steps)

I'm assuming though that you aren't one of those leaders.

[Tarakatango]

Ok- random thoughts...this kind of goes back to peaches first post and connection.

Sometimes I get the impression (!!) that more than just a few guys out there expect that the follower is somehow responsible for a good connection and that if they are just standing there, weight forward, hips over balls of feet, shoulders over hips and not pulled back, that they are "doing their part" and the rest is the follows responsiblity....

I know what I do as a follow to try to connect, over and above the previous sentance...so...for those who lead...what else do you provide to the partnership or do with yourself (abs, torso, intention and so forth) to really provide connection to the follow over and above having decent dance posture? Because I feel like that is only half the picture and isn't really enough in itself.

I've danced with leads who have so so posture and good connection, or good posture but unreliable connection and guys with great posture and great connection (and bad posture and bad connection but we won't go there...)

So leads and follows what do you think is the missing piece? The embrace is more than just good posture. (I think I already know Steve's answer! :-) )

Hi All,

I have been enjoying reading all the great postings by all of you... thank you so much. I'm new to this dance forum so this is my virgin post :banana:
I have been dancing for almost 2 years now and I love close embrace more than any other. Posture and connection with my lead are often my main challenges, especially with someone I have not danced with before. Whether I am dancing with a new beginner or a seasoned one, one thing always keep presenting itself... It is where my (or my partner's) presence is.

I have dancers who are so in their head about how good they are, they became "top heavy" or they are mentally trying to work out the steps that they are not 100% present with me. The techniques may be good but it feels "hollow" because his mind is somewhere else or in some future moment. How often do we have a good connection when either ourself or our partner is distracted and not there fully? Our right posture naturally correct itself when we are fully present and conscious of our body.

Having said that, Tango is more than a just physical dance to me, and my connection with my partner usually goes beyond the mind and the body. The deep link between 2 people in that 12 min tanden can melt into one great experience when the 2 dancers disappeared (physically and mentally) and became the flow and the dance itself.

Isn't this the "tango high" that most of us, having experienced once, will always be chasing after? After much discussions with fellow tango enthusiasts, I'm aware that this high is known by many names... some say they melt into "nothingness" or a "void", every move is in "total alignment", while others claimed their experience expanded beyond their body and locality, like a "cosmic connection" with everything around them.

Expert scientists call this a "peak experience" where everything is in total order and perfection, void of all fear and worries, 100% present and fully aware!!

Now, is it safe to say if this is more than our capacity to grasp mentally (the structure and know-hows) and physically (the techniques and physiological differences), then if there's anything missing, it would be a spiritual connection?

I am blessed to have practiced meditation for the last 9 years so tango is like a meditation in movement for me, completely flowing in the Stillness and Silence within.

Phew!! I can ramble on and on (haha!!) but this is my 2 cents worth. Hope this post clarifies how I feel about this favorite passion of mine!! :D

[Angel HI]

Welcome to the DF, Taraka. Your post is great, and timely, as I was about to post that too often we focus so hard on "what" to do, that we forget the how. Yes, they are different. Posture and connection can be discussed infinitum because they change constantly according to partner, mood, etc., ...and are all correct. The part of connection that we often miss is that which you have spoken to. Of course, there is a correct way to acheive things, but once having applied these basics, oen must strive to achieve what you have posted about, or the full connection is just not met.

Your 2 + my 2 = almost a nickle's worth. :)

[Steve Pastor]

"Where does your intent make itself known if not in your body? Aren't they the same thing? (Or should be?)"
Without opening the dictionary, I think to intent as something that hasn't happened yet. Sort of like, "This is what I'm going to do".
Or rather, in dancing, as when we talk to each other, there's an element of "Is that where you are going with this?", or a filling in the space of what is about to happen.

And that is always open to interpretation, and misinterpretation.

At the CW place, there's a woman who (she informed me) had a broken foot and hasn't been dancing for a while. She's pretty rough right now, and is doing a very poor job of guessing where I am going to lead her. I KNOW she's seen me dance, and she should know that I rarely do plain vanilla anything. But she THINKS she knows where she's supposed to go.
And the only way she is going to get with me is if she just waits and sees where it is I'm aksing her to go next.

Another way to think of it is this is what he is doing
It ISN'T, He's doing this and it's going to go there.
In even other words, there is no anticipation.
There is only this moment and what is happening now.

It IS possible to "fake" in the sense that a movement is very suddenly reversed or halted, and it is beyond the point of reason to expect a partner to stay with that movement and not continue with any momentum you've given her.
And once you can consciously do this, it sems like you might know what NOT to do to routinely confuse your partner and make it hard for her to dance with you.

I'm sure it must be confusing and frustrating for many intermediate women to try and follow varying degrees of connection that you get when the music surges, then becomes lighter. I usually don't even bother to ask anyone when that stuff comes on.

Intitially, this is what we strive for.
"He said he's been at it about 3.5 years, which seems about right, I guess. It.was.PERFECT!!! He felt solid as a rock, a beautiful feeling walk (which let me walk in such a way that felt wonderful--hope it looked good), just...*melt*. :grin:"

I can only tell you that I THINK I know what I'm doing. Scarey, huh?

[Heather2007]

Hi All,

//////////////////////////

Now, is it safe to say if this is more than our capacity to grasp mentally (the structure and know-hows) and physically (the techniques and physiological differences), then if there's anything missing, it would be a spiritual connection?

I am blessed to have practiced meditation for the last 9 years so tango is like a meditation in movement for me, completely flowing in the Stillness and Silence within.

Phew!! I can ramble on and on (haha!!) but this is my 2 cents worth. Hope this post clarifies how I feel about this favorite passion of mine!! :D

Brilliant post. You have it ALL down pat !!! :banana:

[Peaches]

A couple of thoughts from tonight's non-adventure.

I'm finding that I have more trouble than I'd like dancing and connecting with guys who are either much shorter or much taller than me. (In heels, of course.) Along with that, if a guy isn't particularly thin (specifically, if he carries most of his extra weight in his belly) I find it very difficult to connect well. One guy tonight was several inches shorter than me, with a belly, and...jeez oh man, that's hard. Another guy was so tall that even in my highest heels my head still fit under his chin. Again, very difficult. (Also, he was emaciatedly thin--I felt like I was going to break him.)

Do you ladies have any suggestions for dealing with this?

Also, someone (Zoo? Bastet?) mentioned still not feeling good about their forward walks. I was thinking about this tonight. It seems to me that, while a lot is the girl's responsibility, it can be hard to do well if the guy is "falling back" into their step. There's nowhere for your leg to go! Makes me think that perhaps men should spend time practicing walking backward some. Also, given that (for me) one of the things that makes it feel "right" when walking forward is to really drive the movement and "push" the guy, if the guy isn't receptive to that...well, it makes life difficult.

Edit to add: I realized that it sounds like I'm blaming the guys for everything. That really isn't how I meant it to come across. I honestly mean it in the spirit of having noticed certain things, and wondering what I can do to make things better--for both of us.

[newbie]

The techniques may be good but it feels "hollow" because his mind is somewhere else

Some Youtube sample?

[Steve Pastor]

I'm feeling "chatty" this morning, I guess...
(Peaches and others already know most of this, I'm pretty sure.)

Asking the woman to walk forward...
Last time I hooked into a new AT partner she prefaced our tanda with "I don't know the fancy stuff yet." My reply was that it didn't matter because if you dance musically, and have good basics, AT is pretty fullfilling, and I don't usually lead "fancy stuff". (Course, to me that means things that have to be explained or learned specifically, rather than being a result of applying basic principles.)
Well, turns out she had good basics, and obviously hears the music (she said her teacher has strated telling her to listen to it more), and I'm looking forward to dancing with her again.
Anyhow...
There was a point there where she obviously didn't want to step where I had tried to lead her. We got a chance to talk about it, and it may just have been that - my foot was still there.
I told her that if I ask her to step there, and my foot is still there, I have absolutely no problem with her stepping on me.

Over the months and years (wow! has it been that long?) we've talked repeatedly about center of gravity and where the unweighted foot is.
Let's make it torso to torso, apilado. I think this is the "stripped bare", eaisest to visualize way to think about it.
There we are, motionless. I begin to move my torso back, "away" from my partner. Think of this as an incremental thing: the pressure between our bodies (shared weight) lessens, she begins moving forward with me.
OK. If I fell that she is NOT moving forward with me - the pressure between our bodies becomes less, I can either move some more, and hope that she will get it, or I stop right there thinking, "she's not going to follow me there so I'm not going there".

So far, no one's feet have moved. That doesn't happen until I know that I have her weight, and more importantly, she will help me complete my step backwards, just as the leader gives his energy to the follower when he steps forward.
(OK, I know many people don't learn it that way, or dance it that way, but there it is.)

Does it feel like I am "falling backward" to my partner? Most definately. But really, I'm asking her to come with me.
At a certain not well defined point in that falling backward, my unweighted foot will move backward, just as my partner's foot will move forward at some point. If this doesn't happen, we'd just fall over.

For the guys it's good to practice "stepping backward", but not by themselves. You have to learn to feel the changes in pressure involved in the lead, and know how to handle the woman's energy when you get it.

Hey, this just came to mind...
Last week I went to the Skywalk at the Grand Canyon http://www.grandcanyonskywalk.com/
If you want (and if you don't want, you can save yourself about $80) you can step off of "solid ground" and onto a pane of glass through which you can see 2,000 feet down into the Canyon. I was out there for 25 minutes and to the very end each time I went to step onto that glass, my brain shouted at me, DON'T STEP THERE. Sort of like my partner the other week. With eyes closed, or focused on the horizon, I think it would have been pretty simple, but not much fun.

[bastet]

A couple of thoughts from tonight's non-adventure.

I'm finding that I have more trouble than I'd like dancing and connecting with guys who are either much shorter or much taller than me. (In heels, of course.) Along with that, if a guy isn't particularly thin (specifically, if he carries most of his extra weight in his belly) I find it very difficult to connect well. One guy tonight was several inches shorter than me, with a belly, and...jeez oh man, that's hard. Another guy was so tall that even in my highest heels my head still fit under his chin. Again, very difficult. (Also, he was emaciatedly thin--I felt like I was going to break him.)

Do you ladies have any suggestions for dealing with this?

Also, someone (Zoo? Bastet?) mentioned still not feeling good about their forward walks. I was thinking about this tonight. It seems to me that, while a lot is the girl's responsibility, it can be hard to do well if the guy is "falling back" into their step. There's nowhere for your leg to go! Makes me think that perhaps men should spend time practicing walking backward some. Also, given that (for me) one of the things that makes it feel "right" when walking forward is to really drive the movement and "push" the guy, if the guy isn't receptive to that...well, it makes life difficult.

Edit to add: I realized that it sounds like I'm blaming the guys for everything. That really isn't how I meant it to come across. I honestly mean it in the spirit of having noticed certain things, and wondering what I can do to make things better--for both of us.

I haven't been in this thread for some time...and stopped in for a look...please remember that anything I say is going to be with reference to flat on close embrace.

I quite like walking forward (in the rare instances I am given a chance). I find I prefer dancing with guys who are near my height, or if they are tall...well..as long as they know how to connect, I've had some nice dances that way...but taller seems to be more difficult for me. Slightly shorter with belly..no problem!

On guys steps: One thing I've come across (my other half and i discussed at length why sometimes ladies may interpret a step backwards as a volcada, when it wasn't intended as one) is the leads have 2 ways they can take a step backwards...

If they want to take you with them, then I actually find they need to leave enough of their torso "in your way" for lack of a better word and go backwards with the body initiated first.

If they step away from you leg, then body...you kind of end up feeling like it shuld be a volcada....becasue only their upper torso has stayed in contact.

This discussion came up from leading rock turns to the right with steps backwards as the lady squares up, which also can feel a lot like a lead for a volcada...expecially if the guy hasn't waited for the ladies hips to square up to the torso before starting the step back.

Now, that's me rambling...and probably has nothing to do with your comment....except for noting that guys have 2 ways to step backwards depending on what they want.

So I am trying to figure out how this works in to your comment....and I'll probably have to think some more, though I do think I figured out one of the problems you had with some leaders when you commented some time ago about being out dancing and feeling like the lead was coming up short, and was asking you to take one step size, but then taking another size himself...and so causing a jerky feeling....

I've found the biggest culprit on this is boot-skootin'/shuffling/scuffing the floor with the toe...their body is trying to initiate the movement, but they end up grounding their own energy and movement in to the floor with boot-skootin' or what I call "moseying"...which feels dreadful from the follow side...

Now I'll have to go think about guys blocking ladies forward steps...my first thought is going to be...are you talking about inside or outside partner? If they are asking you to step outside partner (on the right) then it's quite easy for a lead to block the follow if they aren't rotating the torso and are "leaving the door closed" in effect...so you can't get through properly...and there's no space for your leg to pass through.

If it's inside partner, my guess would be depend on the feeling of it...ie if you feel like you are running them down...then they are probably shortening their back step (no bad thing in a crowded space- but if they are leading a big step to you and then taking a small one...well that's a problem) or if you feel like you are coming apart and they are going further than you...then you need to (forgive my words)...just mow him down...give him what he wants...so my fix would be to practice how to have a smaller size forward step that has enough power in it to be "direct" to him rather than a huge step...which means moving forward through your torso....ie...**lead him to a back step**.

By doing this if he means a smaller step then you aren't taking a big step anyway, just supplying some extra "directness" (and not moseying) and you should be in control enough not to be mowing him down...if however, he really means a big step...then applying a very direct forward step should give enough extra momentum to be able to go with him to take a big step without the two of you falling apart...

[Zoopsia59]

There we are, motionless. I begin to move my torso back, "away" from my partner. Think of this as an incremental thing: the pressure between our bodies (shared weight) lessens, she begins moving forward with me.
OK. If I fell that she is NOT moving forward with me - the pressure between our bodies becomes less, I can either move some more, and hope that she will get it, or I stop right there thinking, "she's not going to follow me there so I'm not going there".

So far, no one's feet have moved. That doesn't happen until I know that I have her weight, and more importantly, she will help me complete my step backwards, just as the leader gives his energy to the follower when he steps forward.
(OK, I know many people don't learn it that way, or dance it that way, but there it is.)

Does it feel like I am "falling backward" to my partner? Most definately. But really, I'm asking her to come with me.
At a certain not well defined point in that falling backward, my unweighted foot will move backward, just as my partner's foot will move forward at some point. If this doesn't happen, we'd just fall over.

For the guys it's good to practice "stepping backward", but not by themselves. You have to learn to feel the changes in pressure involved in the lead, and know how to handle the woman's energy when you get it.
.

Steve, I have to say I disagree with alot of what you wrote here. I really dont' think the mechanics of you walking backwards and the follower walking forwards are all that different from the reverse, and it would be a total fallacy to encourage a follower to let her body go back before she begins reaching back when she is walking backwards, therefore.....

But I'm too tired to get into it much more right now.. (too much dancing last night I guess)

I'll try to get into this later or tomorrow, or maybe someone else will come along who thinks as I do and will take over.

[Zhena]

Hey, this just came to mind...
Last week I went to the Skywalk at the Grand Canyon http://www.grandcanyonskywalk.com/
If you want (and if you don't want, you can save yourself about $80) you can step off of "solid ground" and onto a pane of glass through which you can see 2,000 feet down into the Canyon. I was out there for 25 minutes and to the very end each time I went to step onto that glass, my brain shouted at me, DON'T STEP THERE. Sort of like my partner the other week. With eyes closed, or focused on the horizon, I think it would have been pretty simple, but not much fun.

hijack ....

I recall reading about a study where the experimenters put babies on one end of a surface that was opaque for a certain distance then transparent. Their mothers were stationed at the other end. Very young babies would crawl towards their mothers without concern, but older ones would refuse to crawl over the transparent portion ...

dunno what this means in the context of AT ...

... end hijack

[Zoopsia59]

leads have 2 ways they can take a step backwards...

If they want to take you with them, then I actually find they need to leave enough of their torso "in your way" for lack of a better word and go backwards with the body initiated first.

If they step away from you leg, then body...you kind of end up feeling like it shuld be a volcada....becasue only their upper torso has stayed in contact..

I'm too tired to read the whole post, but this caught my eye.

I don't think the torso vs legs is the key (certainly not the only key) in whether a follower thinks a backwards movement by the leader is meant as a step for her or a volcada.

If he keeps her weight on the current weighted foot, she shouldn't step on the free leg.

If he changes her weight, she can't volcada because she has to step.

The tricky part is the wide circling volcadas because he has to make that circular movement to her free side, while making it clear that she should keep her weight on the current leg. This is where the timing of his movements is crucial. He conveys first that she isn't changing her weight as he moves back (but this has more to do with holding her weight on the side it is on that when he moves his foot, I think. After all, he can take steps that change his weight and not hers)

But a volcada need not have that circular outward swing. It can merely have the "drop" of the free leg while preventing her from changing weight to the free leg.

I have more trouble telling the difference between the arc to a gancho & the arc to a volcada than I do telling the difference between a forward step and a volcada. In both of the former, its very clear that I am not changing weight.

I finally figured out how to deal with the "is this going to be a gancho or a volcada question... I keep my foot on the floor and trace the pattern he makes with the arc. If his leg gets in my way, I gancho. If it doesn't, I leave the leg dropped, and touching the floor, until he puts me back upright, and voila... a volcada. Duh... its so simple that I feel like an idiot for having so much trouble getting it.

But the key is in not lifting the foot off the floor unless it makes contact for a gancho... no "searching" in the air for his leg wondering if I should gancho or what.

Once I figured it out, I am noticing more and more how many followers lift their foot into the air in anticipation of a gancho (in almost all variations of ganchos) and then have to "find" the leader's leg to do it.

[bastet]

I'm too tired to read the whole post, but this caught my eye.

I don't think the torso vs legs is the key (certainly not the only key) in whether a follower thinks a backwards movement by the leader is meant as a step for her or a volcada.

If he keeps her weight on the current weighted foot, she shouldn't step on the free leg.

If he changes her weight, she can't volcada because she has to step.

The tricky part is the wide circling volcadas because he has to make that circular movement to her free side, while making it clear that she should keep her weight on the current leg. This is where the timing of his movements is crucial. He conveys first that she isn't changing her weight as he moves back (but this has more to do with holding her weight on the side it is on that when he moves his foot, I think. After all, he can take steps that change his weight and not hers)

But a volcada need not have that circular outward swing. It can merely have the "drop" of the free leg while preventing her from changing weight to the free leg.

I have more trouble telling the difference between the arc to a gancho & the arc to a volcada than I do telling the difference between a forward step and a volcada. In both of the former, its very clear that I am not changing weight.

I finally figured out how to deal with the "is this going to be a gancho or a volcada question... I keep my foot on the floor and trace the pattern he makes with the arc. If his leg gets in my way, I gancho. If it doesn't, I leave the leg dropped, and touching the floor, until he puts me back upright, and voila... a volcada. Duh... its so simple that I feel like an idiot for having so much trouble getting it.

But the key is in not lifting the foot off the floor unless it makes contact for a gancho... no "searching" in the air for his leg wondering if I should gancho or what.

Once I figured it out, I am noticing more and more how many followers lift their foot into the air in anticipation of a gancho (in almost all variations of ganchos) and then have to "find" the leader's leg to do it.


me not so much...gancho is gancho...

but the volcada versus step thing, since a volcada is an interrupted step anyway, has more to do with what some followers may anticipate happening with their free leg and letting it swing and go off axis, rather than taking a step...And this is partly what I think makes the torso an important point. Leaving the upper torso in place (IMO) makes part of the counterbalance effect and tells the follow "don't step", whereas if he is keeping his torso with the follow and moving both his and her axis together, then they should step....however...some follows in my particular area either are interpreting ANY backwwards movment by the leader after a leader passes them to a right side position as a volcada or they just can't tell the difference...who knows...

I've just found if the leads torso maintains contact, so that they are in effect 1 axis rather than a conterbalance, his moving backwards is less likely to be interpreted by some follows as "swinging leg and volcada" and as the back step he most likely meant for it to be.

yes- I know you don't need the arc for the volcada...that's the harder way of doing them, most people are taught the pre volcada arc to "make things easier" and then the conidtioning has to be udone later on.

I'm probably not being as clear as I'd like on what I mean, perhaps.

It's a particular movement that has a particular feel to it taking a back step (for the lead) coming out of the turn to the right, and if the lead really doesn't wait for the follow to square up before stepping so that her hips haven't caught up out of the turn, or if he ends up conterbalancing her by pulling his lower half further away, then I think it could be easy to mistake for a volcada because of the slight spiraling and counterbalancing action.

[Angel HI]

I must return to sleep, but felt compelled to write this first.
Does it feel like I am "falling backward" to my partner? Most definately. But really, I'm asking her to come with me.
At a certain not well defined point in that falling backward, my unweighted foot will move backward, ...
I'm not certain of this, at all. Firstly, the back step is never taken by moving the body back, nor even the foot. The first feeling that the lady receives is one of release...melifluously connected to/followed by a body/foot change of center. She will never feel a sense of the man falling backward.
...and it would be a total fallacy to encourage a follower to let her body go back before she begins reaching back when she is walking backwards, .....
Quite correct b/c, firstly, she is in a constant state of moving forward --not back, even when taking back steps.
but the volcada versus step thing, ....
Lastly, at least for 0:dark:30 in the a.m., the volcada is not a step, it is a change/loss of axis. I really do not understand how one could be misinterpreted as a step. Proper technique/execution of the volcada is one thing, but the lead is fairly self explanatory...take the lady off of her axis w/o interupting her balance.

[bordertangoman]

Lastly, at least for 0:dark:30 in the a.m., the volcada is not a step, it is a change/loss of axis. I really do not understand how one could be misinterpreted as a step. Proper technique/execution of the volcada is one thing, but the lead is fairly self explanatory...take the lady off of her axis w/o interupting her balance.

I dont agree with how you describe the lead and you are saying something which I see as a contradiction:

if you take her off axis then she is no longer balanced since you are supporting her.

If the lead wasn't for a step then her free leg would stay put rather than travel out.

So I think bastet description of it being an interupted step is the accurate one.

[bastet]

I dont agree with how you describe the lead and you are saying something which I see as a contradiction:

if you take her off axis then she is no longer balanced since you are supporting her.

If the lead wasn't for a step then her free leg would stay put rather than travel out.

So I think bastet description of it being an interupted step is the accurate one.

Thanks BTM.

I agree with Angel that a volcada is not a step...it's an interrupted step. But from Angels' reponse, maybe he was tired and got it backwards. My commentary was about intended forward steps for the ladies that instead got interpreted as volcada leads, rather than volcadas that were interpreted as steps.

When I first learned volcadas (correctly, with Luciana) one of the excercises was of stopping the follows step to cause a leg swing, because the free leg needed to be in motion while the follow stays on the standing leg (hence BTM's comment.)

And although it doesn't feel anything like a volcada, as I sit an ruminate on it, you'd think there'd have to be some sort of indication of motion for the leg, rather than just the off axis portion. A lead can take me off axis (callisita with carpa lean) and I will most certainly not be receiveing any indication to move my free leg as if to step...so that swinging motion of the leg has to be involved somehow with the idea to step whether you do a volcada straight on or with a twist.

This whole description came about because I happen to like the rock turn right with that little turn and forward step for me...(it's like a little single axis turn whee!) and asked my other half whay he doesn't use it here. He said it was because a fair number of ladies were interpreting his back step out of it as a lead for a volcada so we started exploring it. I had him lead it all sorts of ways and make all sorts of errors and I tried all sorts of errors from the follows side and we found that if he absolutely makes sure that the torsos stay together (and are caught up with each other) then I really couldn't assume a volcada. I had to step....hence...my explaination...which could be all wrong, but it made sense for us and now he can lead it if he wants to.

[opendoor]

T ...so that swinging motion of the leg has to be involved somehow with the idea to step whether you do a volcada straight on or with a twist..

.. I´m wondring and thinking (because I´m not on the dance floor, yet) if your definition is valid for the side volcada , too?

[Steve Pastor]

If you believe that men lead with their chest/torso, and that that is where movement is inititated, then you should be willing to accept that the man's chest/torso moves first, before his foot moves.

[bastet]

.. I´m wondring and thinking (because I´m not on the dance floor, yet) if your definition is valid for the side volcada , too?

DOn't know- maybe you can explore and get back to us? I've only tried them a couple of times, once with Alex Krebs.

My other half and I dance mostly flat on close embrace, so turning the embrace out to accomodate that move just isn't going to happen for what we are dancing now.

And for most of the other leaders I know in town who dance Nuevo or open, don't have it on the vocabulary at this time as far as I can tell.

[opendoor]

.. explore and get back to us?
tomorrow ;)

..who dance Nuevo or open, don't have it on the vocabulary.

I use to dance it in close embrace, too! Never tried it open.

[Angel HI]

I dont agree with how you describe the lead and you are saying something which I see as a contradiction:
if you take her off axis then she is no longer balanced since you are supporting her.

I stand by this. In no dance, esp. AT where a chest/centered lead is so important, do we want to take the body away, thus "fall back". Understand, that I fully agree w/ the concept...just saying that it should be clear that one does not leave the lady, IMO giving her a feeling of the lead "falling back". Perhaps, it is just that description that I am opposed to.

I agree with Angel that a volcada is not a step...it's an interrupted step. But from Angels' reponse, maybe he was tired and got it backwards. My commentary was about intended forward steps for the ladies that instead got interpreted as volcada leads, rather than volcadas that were interpreted as steps.
Correct. I misunderstood. Sorry.
A lead can take me off axis (callisita with carpa lean) and I will most certainly not be receiveing any indication to move my free leg as if to step...so that swinging motion of the leg has to be involved somehow with the idea to step whether you do a volcada straight on or with a twist.
Also, correct. As I said, I misunderstood. :notworth: It was a ridiculous hour in the a.m...kept waking for some bizarre reason.

[bastet]

I stand by this. In no dance, esp. AT where a chest/centered lead is so important, do we want to take the body away, thus "fall back". Understand, that I fully agree w/ the concept...just saying that it should be clear that one does not leave the lady, IMO giving her a feeling of the lead "falling back". Perhaps, it is just that description that I am opposed to.


Correct. I misunderstood. Sorry.

Also, correct. As I said, I misunderstood. :notworth: It was a ridiculous hour in the a.m...kept waking for some bizarre reason.

No worries- I kind of thought that might be the case...

I think you and Steve are probably approaching a similar idea from a differing angle. I understand both descriptions.

[Zoopsia59]

If you believe that men lead with their chest/torso, and that that is where movement is inititated, then you should be willing to accept that the man's chest/torso moves first, before his foot moves.

I'm quoting Angel because he explains better than I why I am not in total agreement with you.

"firstly, she is in a constant state of moving forward --not back, even when taking back steps" (emphasis mine)

I believe this would hold true for the man as well.

If the leader moves his body back but does not take a step, then my body will go with his if we are in close embrace, but I will not step either. The forward pressure has been lost when he does this, and therefore no step is being led. PULLING on me is a very awkward way to lead a step and if this is how leaders step backwards, its no wonder that followers find walking forward to be uncomfortable.

If he wants me to step forward, he needs to maintain the same forward pressure he would in forward walking and reach back the same way I would when walking backwards. Then the pressure between us remains the same and as he moves I move WITH him rather than being pulled along by him.

As I try to teach the concept of forward pressure while moving backwards to followers, I am realizing how hard it is to get this concept into one's way of moving. Since leaders rarely walk backwards, they haven't had a lot of practice or instruction in this.

[Steve Pastor]

Yeah, the "falling back" I'm talking about is a very small distance. Until you feel it yourself, you watch other people do things, and you wonder how they know what's going on. It's more something you "feel", quite literally. What you feel is a lessening of whatever pressure there is between your torsos.
I think the "trained eye" is much better at being able to see it when watching others dance. It certainly doesn't happen if you watch people's feet.
And the better you get at it, either as a follower or a leader, the smaller the "distance", or change of pressure, becomes before eliciting a response from, or reacting to, it.

This is something I learned when given exercises during class. More than once, I might add! Without hands, and in an apilado position, "ask" your partner to step towards you. Then, your partner "asks" you to step forward.

Again, when you feel the pressure lessening, lessening, lessening, and your partner is not responding, you just abort. Note that she should be moving forward with you, at this point the tiny amount of "lean" required to keep the pressure constant. If this is happening, we continue to move backwards.

(Of course you COULD just pull her along with your right arm.)

[Zoopsia59]

This is something I learned when given exercises during class. More than once, I might add! Without hands, and in an apilado position, "ask" your partner to step towards you. Then, your partner "asks" you to step forward.

Again, when you feel the pressure lessening, lessening, lessening, and your partner is not responding, you just abort. Note that she should be moving forward with you, at this point the tiny amount of "lean" required to keep the pressure constant. If this is happening, we continue to move backwards.

I've done this also and given this exercise in class as well. Yes, as the follower feels the leader moving away, she should go with him to prevent a disconnection. I give this exercise with the 2 people holding a pillow between them (no arms) and no matter how they move, they can't let the pillow drop.

So I still maintain that he shouldn't be moving away prior to reaching back. Nothing you say here actually precludes reaching back before moving the chest back, so that the space for her to step is open for her to step as you move away.

In fact moving away without reaching makes it extremely difficult to maintain the forward pressure. How can you be pressing forward if you are literally moving your body backwards on your own axis? There's no forward pressure in that. Followers can't do it that way.. it makes no sense to me that there is a difference when a leader is the one moving back.

Just because the follower is not leading, does not change the neccesity of the leader pressing forward even moving back just as a follower does. BOTH should be pressing forward in apilado. He does not lead her to step forward by breaking the connection that is created by them both pressing forward!

<<And the better you get at it, either as a follower or a leader, the smaller the "distance", or change of pressure, becomes before eliciting a response from, or reacting to, it>>

Which means that its even more crucial to have the space open for her to step into when you give the lead for her to step and not sometime afterwards, right?

Besides there is the issue of determining if there is space behind you. I think its better to have your foot make gentle contact with something behind you as you reach than have your whole body hit someone behind you and end up committing to a step you can't take.

Maybe we're in a semantics battle about "stepping" ("reaching" to some people, vs "transfering weight" to others) or something as regards the timing...

I'd like to get Angel's take on this, because from my point of view having dealt with this "forward pressure while moving back" thing for quite awhile now (since I primarily move backwards)....

1) if you move your chest back and indicate I'm stepping forward, your foot better not still be there! If I move my body and leave my feet trailing when I move back, I can expect to get stepped on.

2) If you move back as an indication of a step for me without maintaining any forward pressure, then YOU have broken the connection. (believe me, I've gone through this endlessly as the follower trying to avoid breaking the connection because of relaxing my forward pressure when moving back)

Why would it different when the leader moves backwards?

I still don't have an answer to this basic question.

I have a hunch that we're both mostly correct, but just not communicating?

Angel? Any thoughts?

[Steve Pastor]

Just to take a sort break from this...

It's funny, because when I told my Skywalk story to someone at the practica yesterday, he told me about the crawling baby experiment, too.

Maybe we learn to not step there by doing things like stepping off of a curb without seeing the drop off, or falling off of a stair, and getting hurt. Brain learns "don't step unless you see something solid".

Women stepping forward, or stepping into a sacada have already learned that people don't like being stepped on. Men, too, but we have to learn right away to just step into our partner and trust that her foot and leg will be gone when our foot gets there (after we know that her weight isn't on that leg in which case it will still be there and she will be very unhappy that we've stepped on her).

[Zoopsia59]

Maybe we learn to not step there by doing things like stepping off of a curb without seeing the drop off, or falling off of a stair, and getting hurt. Brain learns "don't step unless you see something solid".

This reminds me of something we used to laugh about when I worked for a ballet company. It seems ballet dancers are always tripping over stuff, and can appear rather clumsy in real life (outside the studio or offstage). In fact, we joked that dancers trip over stuff so much that if you DRAW a line on the floor, they'll trip over it. (which of course is a contradiction of the actual conclusion, but it's still funny)

We concluded that its because they are so well trained not to look down. I can't tell you how many times I was walking down the street with a dancer and had them get a teeth-jarring experience from stepping off curbs or tripping over uneven sidewalks.

So yes, brains learn not to step unless they see somethign solid, but that requires LOOKING. Those who don't look have a whole different set of "rules" (and the ones that apply in dancing may not work so well walking down the street!) And most of us have to work hard to get OUT of the habit of looking.

[Peaches]

Random thought--I wish more leaders used rise and fall in their dancing. It's so much fun, but so rare to run across. And twisting of the upper body. And syncopations on the "a" count, not just on the "&" count in milonga.

[Ampster]

Random thought--I wish more leaders used rise and fall in their dancing. It's so much fun, but so rare to run across. And twisting of the upper body. And syncopations on the "a" count, not just on the "&" count in milonga.

Hehe, I do this unconsciously. Some of the other tango people have commeted... "Why are you doing the rise and fall? The milonguero should be smooth..." They call it "Bouncing."

Some of my partners have commented that they like it. They say that its like riding a big powerful tide in the ocean, and sweeps them away...

Working on it.

[Angel HI]

Maybe we're in a semantics battle about "stepping" ("reaching" to some people, vs "transfering weight" to others) or something as regards the timing...

Angel? Any thoughts?
And the better you get at it, either as a follower or a leader, the smaller the "distance", or change of pressure, becomes before eliciting a response from, or reacting to, it.
Absolutely. But, following (no pun intended) the writing above, there is no distance, small or otherwise; simply a unique feeling of lower or, as I feel it, release 'before' the step.[/quote]
This is going to be a wee...:confused:...so, I divided it into a couple of posts. The colors are for reference, basically saying that you, indeed, have the right idea, and, almost, the correct understanding.
Yeah, the "falling back" I'm talking about is a very small distance. Until you feel it yourself, you watch other people do things, and you wonder how they know what's going on. It's more something you "feel", quite literally. What you feel is a lessening of whatever pressure there is between your torsos.
This is exactly what I eluded to before. I simply don't like the term "falling back". It sends the complete wrong message to the reader/student. Follow me on this one; 1-there is no distance. The feeling that you are talking about is what I call "release". It is the feeling that the lead is letting go and about to move. Here is why we have jobs; b/c these sorts of things can often not be explained well enough in mediums like this. I say that it feels, to the follow, more like we both took a deep breath; held it; and, at the moment that you feel no tension...exhale/release...move. It is more a very subtle feeling of lower/settle than falling back.

[Angel HI]

I wish more leaders used rise and fall in their dancing. It's so much fun, but so rare to run across. And twisting of the upper body.
Hehe, I do this unconsciously. They say that its like riding a big powerful tide in the ocean, and sweeps them away....

Interesting that you guys would say this b/c it's a little like what I am trying to explain to Steve, above. Of course, there is no rise/lower as it is in BR, but, AT is based upon natural movement, and there is definitely a sense of rise/lower in natural movement. Now, in AT, it doesn't come so much from the feet/ankles (though, in some styles there might be on occassion). We know that it comes more from the rise/lower of the body/chest/core (in BR, it's referred to as "NFR" - body rise; no foot rise). Yes, many follows like it, but rather than powerful tides of the ocean, I often hear things like soft ripples or waves on an otherwise calm lake.

[Peaches]

Absolutely. But, following (no pun intended) the writing above, there is no distance, small or otherwise; simply a unique feeling of lower or, as I feel it, release 'before' the step. [...snip...]

This is exactly what I eluded to before. I simply don't like the term "falling back". It sends the complete wrong message to the reader/student. Follow me on this one; 1-there is no distance. The feeling that you are talking about is what I call "release". It is the feeling that the lead is letting go and about to move. Here is why we have jobs; b/c these sorts of things can often not be explained well enough in mediums like this. I say that it feels, to the follow, more like we both took a deep breath; held it; and, at the moment that you feel no tension...exhale/release...move. It is more a very subtle feeling of lower/settle than falling back.I don't like the term "falling" either. I see what you're saying, Steve, and I suspect we could probably dance together just fine, but I still don't care for your description. I just have a dislike for talking about distance or lessening (however small, however deliberate) the connection, because I don't feel that that's truly what is going on. *shrug*

My way of thinking about the movement is closer to how Angel is describing it. Angel, you use the term "release." Do you mean that separately from the "intention" that is often discussed?

To my way of thinking about it, there are two parts to a lead--the intention (possibly you're "release," Angel), and then the shift of weight. I can't say, of course, what goes into each part since I don't lead, but I know that I can feel a difference. The intention to move forward (back for the guy) is what signals to me that we're moving forward...and I'll respond with energy and really "drive" forward...but if the guy hasn't gotten his leg out of the way, hasn't stretched/reached back with his free leg, hasn't projected that free leg back while keeping his energy towards me...then it feels like he's falling back, and there's no room for me to step, and it feels like there isn't anything for me to drive against. It's like pushing and having your partner give way. Not particularly pleasant. (Which, I'll add, is an interesting insight into following. ;-) )

[Peaches]

Of course, there is no rise/lower as it is in BR, but, AT is based upon natural movement, and there is definitely a sense of rise/lower in natural movement. Now, in AT, it doesn't come so much from the feet/ankles (though, in some styles there might be on occassion). We know that it comes more from the rise/lower of the body/chest/core (in BR, it's referred to as "NFR" - body rise; no foot rise). Yes, many follows like it, but rather than powerful tides of the ocean, I often hear things like soft ripples or waves on an otherwise calm lake.Now, see, the rise/fall that I'm thinking about is through my feet/ankles/knees, as weel as through the body/chest/core. Perhaps it's a style thing, and it's rarely conducive to a social floor...or at least a crowded floor. But I love to work with very bent knees and ankles, and change it up to being at the top of a rise, and feel the *swoosh!!!* type feeling of coming back down again. Love it, love it, love it! In a smaller, social style I also like the body rise (NFR)...but most men don't use that either.

I don't know that I'd describe it as ripples, waves, or powerful ocean. Perhaps I don't have enough of the non-literal, more creative mindset for that. Although if I had to describe it I'd say it felt more like being on a roller coaster, with energy and momentum and the flows between (I'm going to make a complete hash of this)...potential and kinetic??? energy. Something like that.

Note--I don't, in any way, mean that sort of hopping on each individual step that I feel a bunch of guys do. I'd much rather feel straight, level, driving motion than hopping.

[bordertangoman]

Now, see, the rise/fall that I'm thinking about is through my feet/ankles/knees, as weel as through the body/chest/core. Perhaps it's a style thing, and it's rarely conducive to a social floor...or at least a crowded floor. But I love to work with very bent knees and ankles, and change it up to being at the top of a rise, and feel the *swoosh!!!* type feeling of coming back down again. Love it, love it, love it! In a smaller, social style I also like the body rise (NFR)...but most men don't use that either.

I don't know that I'd describe it as ripples, waves, or powerful ocean. Perhaps I don't have enough of the non-literal, more creative mindset for that. Although if I had to describe it I'd say it felt more like being on a roller coaster, with energy and momentum and the flows between (I'm going to make a complete hash of this)...potential and kinetic??? energy. Something like that.

Note--I don't, in any way, mean that sort of hopping on each individual step that I feel a bunch of guys do. I'd much rather feel straight, level, driving motion than hopping.

as words seem to be inadequate do you mean like this:?

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=TN1GRk0IK5Y

or

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=UpxKnPuMrIk&feature=related

[Peaches]

as words seem to be inadequate do you mean like this:?

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=TN1GRk0IK5Y

or

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=UpxKnPuMrIk&feature=relatedEr...sorta...ish.

I'm more thinking sort of like this:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=XmHNqe23P0k

Around 25 seconds in (turning rock steps, for lack of a better term) you can see he gets pretty far into his knees. Around 30 seconds in, when he's walking in a circle around her, there's a good bit of rise and fall. He uses those same elements and styles again later on, as well. Also, around 1:40, there's a bit of lilt to his walk.

(I know I've seen other videos out there, but I can't find any that show what I'm talking about. I used this one because I know the video pretty well, and because I know how Luis dances and know he uses rise and fall a lot.)

Edit to add: Maybe one of these days I'll end up doing a showcase or something where it can be videoed, and then I can post something which shows what I'm talking about. (And the comments and criticism can roll in, LOL. Then again, maybe not...don't want you all to know just how full of hot air I am. ;-) )

[Peaches]

HA!!!

In looking around for rise and fall, I did manage to find a video with lots of that stupid walking around thing (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=tATLum7aDCc) that I hate. I won't bother to list times, because she does it lots.

I like Murat and Michelle, and he's one of the best leaders I've ever ever felt, but there's something about her movement that I just don't care for. I can't put my finger on it. That said, I should only hope to have that much skill some day. I have nothing but respect for the two of them, really. (Not wanting to bash them, honestly.)

[bordertangoman]

Er...sorta...ish.

I'm more thinking sort of like this:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=XmHNqe23P0k


Edit to add: Maybe one of these days I'll end up doing a showcase or something where it can be videoed, and then I can post something which shows what I'm talking about. (And the comments and criticism can roll in, LOL. Then again, maybe not...don't want you all to know just how full of hot air I am. ;-) )

hmm but this is milonga nad rise and fall is aprt of them

as for M & M she tangos like a rock chick whos just got off her Hog after a four hour drive across Tuscon
when you mention Rise & Fall I think of this (not tango at all but worth a look!)

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=IdjAbhZi-QU

[Peaches]

Yeah, I do predominantly think of rise and fall as happening in milonga. My fault--I should have made that more clear. (Long day, late at night, yada yada.) My mistake.

Edit to add: Although you say rise and fall is part of milonga, as if it's obvious (and it seems obvious to me, as well), I find very few leaders who use it. :-(

[opendoor]

..men lead with their chest/torso, and that is where movement is inititated, then you should be willing to accept that the man's chest/torso moves first, before his foot moves.

.. explore and get back to us...

SP is right, you initiate with a little turn of your chest, and off she flies.

[dchester]

I like Murat and Michelle, and he's one of the best leaders I've ever ever felt, but there's something about her movement that I just don't care for. I can't put my finger on it. That said, I should only hope to have that much skill some day. I have nothing but respect for the two of them, really. (Not wanting to bash them, honestly.)
Interesting, a while back my wife and I were looking at some videos of them, and we both said things similar to you about Michelle. It's basically a personal preference thing, as she clearly is very talented, but it's not my cup of tea.

I do like a lot of the moves they do, though.

[Lilly_of_the_valley]

This reminds me of something we used to laugh about when I worked for a ballet company. It seems ballet dancers are always tripping over stuff, and can appear rather clumsy in real life (outside the studio or offstage). In fact, we joked that dancers trip over stuff so much that if you DRAW a line on the floor, they'll trip over it. (which of course is a contradiction of the actual conclusion, but it's still funny)

We concluded that its because they are so well trained not to look down. I can't tell you how many times I was walking down the street with a dancer and had them get a teeth-jarring experience from stepping off curbs or tripping over uneven sidewalks.

So yes, brains learn not to step unless they see somethign solid, but that requires LOOKING. Those who don't look have a whole different set of "rules" (and the ones that apply in dancing may not work so well walking down the street!) And most of us have to work hard to get OUT of the habit of looking.

Aaaaahhh! Zoopsia! Now I know precisely what to say when friends and relatives, tired of my tripping and crashing objects, inquire : "Being a dancer, how in the world can you be such a clutz off the floor?" Thank you!
:)

[Steve Pastor]

Zoopsia had several questions, one of which is, "Which means that its even more crucial to have the space open for her to step into when you give the lead for her to step and not sometime afterwards, right?"

I ask all of you to keep in mind that I am parsing, or dividing "a step" into very small segments, and our discusion has concentrated on the very first fractions of a second of "a step".
We don't go instantaneously from one "step" to another. The movement can be divided into components. As long as the man's foot is gone by the time the woman's gets there, he doesn't get stepped on.

Again, I am saying nothing more than that movement begins with the torso/chest. As the movement continues the man will begin to lift his foot to move it backwards.
If the woman has not responded to the lead, and has not moved her torso however slightly, or "stayed in place", allowing the "connection" or amount of pressure between the two bodies to lessen, the man must arrest his own movement to maintain a "constant connection".

You can feel this yourself by putting your weight as far forward over the balls of your feet as you can, while not falling over. Now move back and forth from the forward position to upright, to leaning backwards.
If you were leaning against your partner, "sharing weight", what would they feel, and how would you describe it?
Obviously, many of you would not use the words I have used.

This brings to mind the aversion many people have to using the words push and pull when discussing West Coast Swing. In that regard, I have found many books that use exactly those terms. Still lots of folks argue that you don't push or pull in swing.

[Steve Pastor]

Angel, if this is the language you use, "It is more a very subtle feeling of lower/settle than falling back.", it's ok with me.
But here...
" 1-there is no distance. The feeling that you are talking about is what I call "release". It is the feeling that the lead is letting go and about to move."
you are arguing that you can feel something that can't be measured "no distance".
And I argue that, even in something a subtle as exhaling, there is a measureable movement of the chest.
While I tried to indicate the fact that this isn't something big, but, as you write "subtle", (I think I used these words: fraction(s) of an inch, millimeter(s)) apparently I haven't made that clear enough.

[Steve Pastor]

Rise and fall in AT...
Some Argentine Tango music sure seems to "rise and fall". If you don't express that rise and fall in your movement, could you claim to be dancing with musicality?
The amount of rise and fall in your dance should more or less correspond to what the music is doing, if you are dancing the music.
Many people don't seem to understand that "AT" didn't begin with the crowded milongas in central Buenos Aires, and certainly hasn't ended there. If they chose to confine themselves to that style, so be it. I for one would encourage people to follow the music rather than the crowd.
I would also encourage women to "suggest" the swaying, the rise and fall, to their partners with their own movement, as inspired by the music. Think of it as a "conversational gambit".

[Angel HI]

There is simply too much going on in this thread to do the usual compound postings, so I ask your indulgences.
Angel, you use the term "release." Do you mean that separately from the "intention" that is often discussed?

To my way of thinking about it, there are two parts to a lead--the intention (possibly you're "release," Angel), and then the shift of weight.

This is exactly what I mean. In my sessions, "release and follow (man's step)" translate directly to your "intention and step".

Now, see, the rise/fall that I'm thinking about is through my feet/ankles/knees, as weel as through the body/chest/core. But I love to work with very bent knees and ankles, and change it up to being at the top of a rise, and feel the *swoosh!!!* type feeling of coming back down again. Love it, love it, love it! In a smaller, social style I also like the body rise (NFR)...but most men don't use that either.

Having read the rest of the thread, I know what you mean. My reference was to rise/lower as we know it in BR. Fox/Waltz, for ex., have distinctive respective rollings onto the balls of the feet and subsequent lowers that are both just not the same in AT.

[Angel HI]

I like Murat and Michelle, ...but there's something about her movement that I just don't care for.

...we both said things similar to you about Michelle. It's basically a personal preference thing, as she clearly is very talented, but it's not my cup of tea.
...as for M & M she tangos like a rock chick whos just got off her Hog after a four hour drive across Tuscon

These comments are so interesting. I have known Michelle for a long time (she's from HI), and there was an underground movement by several students to get us together several years ago. I found her breathtakingly beautiful, and a good dancer. Approx. 3 years later, I saw her again w/ Murat, and thought, "What the - happened to Michelle?" But since they are so popular, I thought that it was just me, so I kept my opine to myself.

[Angel HI]

Again, I am saying nothing more than that movement begins with the torso/chest. As the movement continues the man will begin to lift his foot to move it backwards..
But ... I argue that, even in something a subtle as exhaling, there is a measureable movement of the chest.

These 2 things, Steve, I agree with 100%. I thought that, perhaps, at least some of the question was semantics/understanding.
Rise and fall in AT...
Some Argentine Tango music sure seems to "rise and fall". If you don't express that rise and fall in your movement, could you claim to be dancing with musicality?
The amount of rise and fall in your dance should more or less correspond to what the music is doing, if you are dancing the music.

I have to question here, though. It sounds as though you are advocating a common misconception that interpreting the music is musicality. This is extremely commonly misunderstood.

Just b/c a piece of music might have a distinctive rise/lower in its composition, does not mean that the dancer has to "...express that...", as you wrote. Musicality does not mean to interpret what is going on in the music. The dancer is not to the musician what a screenwriter is to a novelist. Musicality is to express one's emotional/feeling response to a musical stimulus. This is why musicality is so difficult to teach. It does have some fundamentals, but past those is largely unique to the individual. What you might determine screams rise/fall might yell deep corte/slow media luna to another.

[Peaches]

Having read the rest of the thread, I know what you mean. My reference was to rise/lower as we know it in BR. Fox/Waltz, for ex., have distinctive respective rollings onto the balls of the feet and subsequent lowers that are both just not the same in AT.Oh. I see what you mean about the specific BR technique. But since there's no way I could ever accomplish that technique, it doesn't even figure into my thinking. Ha!

(Oh, and because I only noticed my mistake when you quoted it..."your," not "you're.")

[Peaches]

These comments are so interesting. I have known Michelle for a long time (she's from HI), and there was an underground movement by several students to get us together several years ago. I found her breathtakingly beautiful, and a good dancer. Approx. 3 years later, I saw her again w/ Murat, and thought, "What the - happened to Michelle?" But since they are so popular, I thought that it was just me, so I kept my opine to myself.Again, I don't mean to bash her. She's obviously enormously talented. It's just a personal preference thing to me. *shrug* It seems to make her, and him, happy to dance that way so who am I to argue?

I love his style and musicality, though.

[Heather2007]

These comments are so interesting. I have known Michelle for a long time (she's from HI), and there was an underground movement by several students to get us together several years ago. I found her breathtakingly beautiful, and a good dancer. Approx. 3 years later, I saw her again w/ Murat, and thought, "What the - happened to Michelle?" But since they are so popular, I thought that it was just me, so I kept my opine to myself.

I haven't seen this woman dance but if she is, as you say, breathtakingly beautiful proves that she is a dancer to be enjoyed by many a lead. Her continuing popularity must be in her dancing signature - which like one's handwriting, it is said, changes over the years. She obviously has her "own style" (yep, those words again) and confident and skilful enough to give it a nip or tuck or change here and there to maintain that popularity. And that, in itself is beautiful.

[Heather2007]

Just b/c a piece of music might have a distinctive rise/lower in its composition, does not mean that the dancer has to "...express that...", as you wrote. Musicality does not mean to interpret what is going on in the music. The dancer is not to the musician what a screenwriter is to a novelist. Musicality is to express one's emotional/feeling response to a
musical stimulus. This is why musicality is so difficult to teach.

Yep!

[Steve Pastor]

"See the music, hear the dance"
George Balanchine

[dchester]

Rise and fall in AT...
Some Argentine Tango music sure seems to "rise and fall". If you don't express that rise and fall in your movement, could you claim to be dancing with musicality?
The amount of rise and fall in your dance should more or less correspond to what the music is doing, if you are dancing the music.
Many people don't seem to understand that "AT" didn't begin with the crowded milongas in central Buenos Aires, and certainly hasn't ended there. If they chose to confine themselves to that style, so be it. I for one would encourage people to follow the music rather than the crowd.
I would also encourage women to "suggest" the swaying, the rise and fall, to their partners with their own movement, as inspired by the music. Think of it as a "conversational gambit". While rise and fall might be one way of expressing musicality, I certainly don't think it's the only way, nor do I think it is required.

The analogy I sometimes use, is if you asked, da Vinci, Monet, and Picasso how to paint a cloud, you would get three completely different answers, but that doesn't mean that any of them are wrong. IMO, there are many ways of expressing an art form, and they same applies to tango.

[Tango-ne]

RISE and FALL! (I'm an architect so the book by Jane Jacobs - The Fall and Rise of Great American Cities comes to mind) Anyways. To all the beginners out there like me, this is really important. For the past year I've been pursuing the elusive tango, and I've always had problems leading my woman in that quick step-step in between the longer step....steps!

HOWEVER, last night one of my instructors said to visualize a "rise" for the quicker steps and a "fall" for the longer, slower steps. Because the rise makes the woman's legs straighten and subsequently she can't reach as far back and take as long a step, it becomes a que that the step will be shorter and therefore she is ready faster for the next step. Just like in the ballroom waltz! And, by golly, THAT was the key to it all!

For the next song, I lead with joy the shorter "two-steps"...over and over, really, we were almost giddy that we "got it"!!

So remember...rise and fall! Cheers!

[Angel HI]

"See the music, hear the dance"
George Balanchine
Brilliantly said.
Just like in the ballroom waltz! And, by golly, THAT was the key to it all!
Not quite like BR waltz; but, if you understood something that worked for you...great!
Cheers!
:cheers: