Thoughts about the cross

[Dave Bailey]

So I was at a practica last night and thinking about tango-y things, as you do, and I had a thought about the cross step.

Is it reasonable to say that, when dancing in a V-embrace, the cross (follower's left crossing in front of follower's right) is a natural and common step to take, because it makes use of the natural follower dissociation present in the V-embrace?

If so, is it therefore reasonable to say that, if you're not dancing in a V-embrace, then the cross is less natural (because there's less default dissociation), and therefore less common?

[Peaches]

Not IME. The cross is equally natural/unnatural in both embraces...which I find to be equally natural/unnatural.

[JohnEm]

So I was at a practica last night and thinking about tango-y things, as you do, and I had a thought about the cross step.

Is it reasonable to say that, when dancing in a V-embrace, the cross (follower's left crossing in front of follower's right) is a natural and common step to take, because it makes use of the natural follower dissociation present in the V-embrace?

If so, is it therefore reasonable to say that, if you're not dancing in a V-embrace, then the cross is less natural (because there's less default dissociation), and therefore less common?
Dancing in a V-hold obviously angles the lady such that if you step outside
which increases her angle she seems to feel an inclination or a lead to cross
even if the leader didn't intend. Watch VU dancers (V-hold) and mostly they don't
continue a walk outside as the lady crosses to get herself back more in line.
Of course there are always exceptions.

So you may call that a natural response to walking outside. I don't think
a cross in the V-hold parallel in-line(ish) walk should be regarded as a
natural consequence, it should be specifically lead.

I learned a slightly more exaggerated V-hold early on in my tango life
where also the Basic8 was taught. The cross in the 8CB on counts 4 & 5 is
similarly a "natural" consequence of the step outside on 3. It's not
coincidence that the 8CB was taught to audiences of Tango shows as
the 8CB was a pattern taught to performance dancers from other genres
in order to appear in tango choreography. It is essentially choreography.

[AndaBien]

...If so, is it therefore reasonable to say that, if you're not dancing in a V-embrace, then the cross is less natural (because there's less default dissociation), and therefore less common?

I'm not clear about what your question is.

I dance apilado, and most of the front ochos I lead are to my partners R. I don't think I lead many, if any, front ochos to her L, but that depends on how you define them. I lead back ochos equally to L or R.

[bordertangoman]

So I was at a practica last night and thinking about tango-y things, as you do, and I had a thought about the cross step.

Is it reasonable to say that, when dancing in a V-embrace, the cross (follower's left crossing in front of follower's right) is a natural and common step to take, because it makes use of the natural follower dissociation present in the V-embrace?

If so, is it therefore reasonable to say that, if you're not dancing in a V-embrace, then the cross is less natural (because there's less default dissociation), and therefore less common?

i Will offer you an answer but possibly to a different question, and you may have to work out what the question is.......

In my experience of close embrace milonguero style dancing, if you lead a lady to take a forward ocho to your right she will return into a cross, because there's not enough room for her get her hips through the gap between you and it would require too much twist in her body.

[Dave Bailey]

I'm not clear about what your question is.
I guess my question is, are moves like the cross more naturally suited to "angled" embraces? In a V-embrace, there's a natural default twist between the follower's upper body and her hips / legs. (Her legs are going straight back and her upper body is angled to create the V-shape.)

So, obviously (I think), it's easier and more natural to lead a follower in such an embrace to step towards the leader's left - towards the open side of the embrace. Both because there's more space there, and because the follower is facing that direction anyway. So all she has to do to take a step to the leader's left, is untwist her hips in line with her chest and step forwards.

Is that a reasonable assumption?

If so, should the cross similarly not be more appropriate as a move in that shape of embrace?

[dchester]

In my experience of close embrace milonguero style dancing, if you lead a lady to take a forward ocho to your right she will return into a cross, because there's not enough room for her get her hips through the gap between you and it would require too much twist in her body.
I've also seen a fair number of followers who will assume a pasada is coming next, and completely go into autopilot, slowing down on the pivot while ignoring any and all leads, until they gracefully step over the foot that isn't there.

;)

[JohnEm]

I guess my question is, are moves like the cross more naturally suited to "angled" embraces? In a V-embrace, there's a natural default twist between the follower's upper body and her hips / legs. (Her legs are going straight back and her upper body is angled to create the V-shape.)
Definitely not - the cross in an in-line embrace is always a lead movement.
If you mean by natural that the lady will more naturally cross without
a lead or with little lead when in a V-hold, then maybe. Especially if the
man walks outside which twists her even more.

Why don't you just try it, much better than asking the question here
and getting a multitude of differently nuanced answers.

So, obviously (I think), it's easier and more natural to lead a follower in such an embrace to step towards the leader's left - towards the open side of the embrace. Both because there's more space there, and because the follower is facing that direction anyway. So all she has to do to take a step to the leader's left, is untwist her hips in line with her chest and step forwards.

Is that a reasonable assumption?

Yes as long as you stay in hold. To take the lady to the leader's right,
for instance out of a cross, the V-hold leaders release the closed side
so the lady is free to rotate and move to that side. Obviously once the
hold is opened or released there isn't a Vee at all.

If so, should the cross similarly not be more appropriate as a move in that shape of embrace?
More appropriate move compared to what in what?

Having used both, the V-hold imposes different and more constraints
compared to an in-line embrace which has different possibilities
and is more symmetrical. I'm getting the impression that perhaps you
are being too prescriptive or perhaps looking for something prescriptive.

[Dave Bailey]

Definitely not - the cross in an in-line embrace is always a lead movement.
If you mean by natural that the lady will more naturally cross without
a lead or with little lead when in a V-hold, then maybe.
Yes, that's what I meant.

To me, a cross seems to be a more "natural" movement in a V-embrace than in a full close embrace. (as, similarly, leading giros anti-clockwise seems more natural in a V-embrace)

Why don't you just try it, much better than asking the question here and getting a multitude of differently nuanced answers.
I have tried it, and observed it, and I think that the cross is more "natural" in a V-embrace. But I wondered if my conclusions about this were shared by others, or whether this is simply a case of me not understanding stuff.

I'm getting the impression that perhaps you
are being too prescriptive or perhaps looking for something prescriptive.
Actually, I'm wondering if the embrace shape determines the steps taught by specific teachers. There's a couple I'm thinking of, who are both quite fond of using the cross in their classes, and who both dance in a V-shape (and recommend that shape to their pupils). And I'm wondering if there's a connection between their embrace recommendation and their preferred steps.

Similarly, I'm wondering if, on a personal level, one reason I don't use the cross much is because I prefer a non-V embrace. The only cross movement I use regularly is the "side-cross" bit of the ocho cortado, to turn around corners - and, obviously, in that case I'm very much using the rotational element there to my advantage.

I'm getting the impression that perhaps you
are being too prescriptive or perhaps looking for something prescriptive.
Not so much - I'm just wondering if there's some sort of causal relationship, even if only a weak one, is all.

[Subliminal]

DB, here's a thought... the cross as lead through alignment requires more space than the cross through rotation. I was actually just working on this with my GF and a female teacher. She demonstrated that if the follower has poor posture and/or does not take a large enough step, it is much harder to cross. Even an inch or two makes a huge difference. Maybe it's easier for you simply because in a V, her right foot is already slightly farther back? Or perhaps because of the V, she is actively concentrating on keeping that side more engaged because of the lack of contact, and thus her body is more open to the movement? Or was that what you meant in the OP about dissassociation?

Just a theory.

[opendoor]

..when dancing in a V-embrace, the cross.. is a natural and common step to take, because it makes use of the natural follower dissociation present in the V-embrace?

That´s right and the explanation is: the cross stems out of the canyengue age (which was danced in V-hold, 2).

[JohnEm]

To me, a cross seems to be a more "natural" movement in a V-embrace than in a full close embrace. (as, similarly, leading giros anti-clockwise seems more natural in a V-embrace)

I have tried it, and observed it, and I think that the cross is more "natural" in a V-embrace. But I wondered if my conclusions about this were shared by others, or whether this is simply a case of me not understanding stuff.

No, you seem to understand ok, expressing it not quite so ok perhaps.

I think you have worked out your own answers. And from what you say
you mean by "natural" that there is a natural inclination to cross in the V.
Definitely that's the case when the leader walks outside, when not outside
the ladies seem to learn to resist the reduced inclination to cross.



Actually, I'm wondering if the embrace shape determines the steps taught by specific teachers. There's a couple I'm thinking of, who are both quite fond of using the cross in their classes, and who both dance in a V-shape (and recommend that shape to their pupils). And I'm wondering if there's a connection between their embrace recommendation and their preferred steps.
Who is to say what teachers teach, they all teach so many different things,
the next one contradicting the previous. Are these teachers show and
performance dancers or from the Los Dinzel school of tango or equal?
They are teaching tango to watch and/or avoiding all the anglo-saxon
difficulties with the (In-line) embrace as so many do.


Similarly, I'm wondering if, on a personal level, one reason I don't use the cross much is because I prefer a non-V embrace. The only cross movement I use regularly is the "side-cross" bit of the ocho cortado, to turn around corners - and, obviously, in that case I'm very much using the rotational element there to my advantage.
Possibly that's the case. In line it has to be specifically lead, with a
slight rotation is the nicest way to lead your partner's free leg. When
walking outside the lead can be less emphatic but still required because
the lady should not cross unless lead. I find that the "natural" cross you've
written about is likely with partners new to the in line embrace when
first walking outside partly because of the lack of dissociation necessary.


Not so much - I'm just wondering if there's some sort of causal relationship, even if only a weak one, is all.
Yes.

[LoveTango]

So I was at a practica last night and thinking about tango-y things, as you do, and I had a thought about the cross step.

Is it reasonable to say that, when dancing in a V-embrace, the cross (follower's left crossing in front of follower's right) is a natural and common step to take, because it makes use of the natural follower dissociation present in the V-embrace?

If so, is it therefore reasonable to say that, if you're not dancing in a V-embrace, then the cross is less natural (because there's less default dissociation), and therefore less common?

I think this makes sense.

Particularly if we consider that we treat "outside" to follower's right and to follower's left differently.

I think at least, it is safe to cross in a V-embrace. We can almost always be sure that the leader's foot won't be in our way.

[LoveTango]

I think this make sense.

Particularly if we consider that we treat "outside" to follower's right and to follower's left differently.

I think at least, it is safe to cross in a V-embrace. We can almost always be sure that the leader's foot won't be in our way.

Just the other day, I was dancing with a leader I don't usually dance with. I kept being tripped while doing the cross. This made me wonder if it was because he was not used to the foot path of my cross. I asked him whether he was used to V-embrace. At the time he didn't seem to realize there could be any difference, but agreed to switch to V-embrace.

As soon as we changed to V-embrace, there was no more tripping to my cross, and our dance improved overall. Only then, he realized that V was the hold he always do. (He adapted to my in-line embrace and didn't realize the change at the beginning of our dance.)

[LoveTango]

So I was at a practica last night and thinking about tango-y things, as you do, and I had a thought about the cross step.

Is it reasonable to say that, when dancing in a V-embrace, the cross (follower's left crossing in front of follower's right) is a natural and common step to take, because it makes use of the natural follower dissociation present in the V-embrace?

If so, is it therefore reasonable to say that, if you're not dancing in a V-embrace, then the cross is less natural (because there's less default dissociation), and therefore less common?

I don't remember from where I heard or read about this:

The reason for a cross has something to do with molinete. The cross can be seeing as a linear (rather than circular) molinete. The feet of the follower go back-side-forward-side.

So I guess if the follower naturally does cross, then it is easier to get her to do molinete?

[Zoopsia59]

I guess my question is, are moves like the cross more naturally suited to "angled" embraces? In a V-embrace, there's a natural default twist between the follower's upper body and her hips / legs. (Her legs are going straight back and her upper body is angled to create the V-shape.)


In my limited experience of V (which I think i've made clear that I'm not as skilled at) the alignment is not as you describe above. The people I see doing it (and what i've done myself) is that the hips are under the shoulders at the same angle to the leader. If the shoulders are at 45* to the leader, then the pelvis is also. The reaching therefore may be directly "back" if back means "parallel to the wall down LOD", but the reach is not perpendicular to the follower's own pelvis... the step becomes at an angle to the hips.

This may be a mistake and may be why I find V awkward... side steps would also therefore be at an angle to the pelvis rather than parallel. However, this is how I've seen it.

[Peaches]

In my limited experience of V (which I think i've made clear that I'm not as skilled at) the alignment is not as you describe above. The people I see doing it (and what i've done myself) is that the hips are under the shoulders at the same angle to the leader. If the shoulders are at 45* to the leader, then the pelvis is also. The reaching therefore may be directly "back" if back means "parallel to the wall down LOD", but the reach is not perpendicular to the follower's own pelvis... the step becomes at an angle to the hips.

This may be a mistake and may be why I find V awkward... side steps would also therefore be at an angle to the pelvis rather than parallel. However, this is how I've seen it.IIRC (it has been a while), I tend to dance it with the a sort of "permanent dissociation" between hips and shoulders. To me, it always felt like my hips were in much the same position, it was just my right shoulder that was opened out a bit. I think. I don't really remember thinking about always stepping at an angle to my hips.

OTOH, after a while if you just get used to sending your leg in whatever direction the leader has indicated, it ceases to really matter much.

[bastet]

IIRC (it has been a while), I tend to dance it with the a sort of "permanent dissociation" between hips and shoulders. To me, it always felt like my hips were in much the same position, it was just my right shoulder that was opened out a bit. I think. I don't really remember thinking about always stepping at an angle to my hips.

OTOH, after a while if you just get used to sending your leg in whatever direction the leader has indicated, it ceases to really matter much.

pretty much what I do in that case, esp. WRT the hips. My hips aren't turned at an angle (ie, from hips down we are still parallel) and I just try to go where I'm asked.

Also- in a little V, the leader's shoulder (right upper torso side) is a little towards you too so it is not dissociation as previously described or as would happen if both partners were in a parallel alignment and then the leader turned his torso with the follower matching.

It really isn't comfortable to have one person doing one thing and the other another in the case of V or flat on...which is why I've tried to learn how to adapt as much as possible with people.

WRT crossing, I've never seemed to have a problem with it in either embrace. I can't recall it being more or less difficult in one or the other, probably mostly because of what I said about my hips still being parallel with the leader, it's only my upper body alignment that has changed a little.

[AndaBien]

... if you just get used to sending your leg in whatever direction the leader has indicated, it ceases to really matter much.

This is how I think of it. The followers leg/step goes in the same direction that the lead is going in. From where the followers foot is at any moment, it goes in the direction that the lead indicates, and the lead can change in mid-step, altering the direction of the step.

[Zoopsia59]

This is how I think of it. The followers leg/step goes in the same direction that the lead is going in. From where the followers foot is at any moment, it goes in the direction that the lead indicates, and the lead can change in mid-step, altering the direction of the step.

Yes, this I agree with.

I meant only that in relation to her own pelvis, the step may not be directly behind her. If her hips are parallel with her shoulders in a V, then a "backstep" wouldn't be behind her pelvis (perpendicular to her hips) It would be sorta "sideways-back".. perpendicular to the leader's shoulders. (assuming he's facing down line of dance)

Basically, whatever the follower's angle is or isn't, if the leader's chest is facing down LOD and he leads her to step down line of dance, then her step is perpendicular to HIM, not necessarily to any part of herself.

[bordertangoman]

My limited experience of dancing in V is limited but with one notable exception, it was like dancing with a shopping trolley with wonkey wheels that dont go where you want them to.....

[Dave Bailey]

Just the other day, I was dancing with a leader I don't usually dance with. I kept being tripped while doing the cross. This made me wonder if it was because he was not used to the foot path of my cross. I asked him whether he was used to V-embrace. At the time he didn't seem to realize there could be any difference, but agreed to switch to V-embrace.

As soon as we changed to V-embrace, there was no more tripping to my cross, and our dance improved overall. Only then, he realized that V was the hold he always do. (He adapted to my in-line embrace and didn't realize the change at the beginning of our dance.)
That seems to reinforce the way I've been thinking.

I guess the general principle I'm groping towards is that the steps you do are - or should be - highly influenced by the style of embrace.

Of course, that's obvious with some things - it's silly to walk in open embrace, and silly to do most of the "adas" in close - but it looks like the same principle also applies to more nuanced embraces - such as the V-embrace.

[LoveTango]

I don't remember from where I heard or read about this:

The reason for a cross has something to do with molinete. The cross can be seeing as a linear (rather than circular) molinete. The feet of the follower go back-side-forward-side.

So I guess if the follower naturally does cross, then it is easier to get her to do molinete?

I found the video to show this:
http://www.youtube.com/user/oscaracasas#p/u/146/p9emHiQVIP0
I really enjoy Oscar's teaching videos.

[twnkltoz]

I've never danced in V embrace, but when the cross is led correctly, it feels perfectly natural and easy. I also lead from time to time and have no trouble leading the cross in a perfectly natural fashion.

IME, leaders completely over-think the cross. They make this big movement to get me to do it, then look down to see if it worked (RME). It's really very simple...This is hard to express in writing, but I've shown two people this and use it myself. They were both struggling with leading the cross and after I showed them this, they both said "Oh! That is easy!" and now comfortably, naturally lead it perfectly every time. In any case, I'm not sure I can make it clear without doing it with a follower to think about it first, but I'll give it a try:

Think of what you want the follower to do. Her left foot is free, and you want it to come across her right. That means she needs to move to her right just a little more than she would if she were to bring her feet together. When you step forward on your left foot (you might need to place it an inch further to the left, and that's why I need to go try it, but it'll be a day or two before I can) and then when you bring your right foot to meet it, move your body so that it feels lateral rather than forward so the lady has to do the same thing--and has no choice but to cross. It helps to pull your belly button to your spine a bit to create a sense of space. Your follower should never be wondering whether she should have crossed or not.

[AndaBien]

...IME, leaders completely over-think the cross. They make this big movement to get me to do it, then look down to see if it worked (RME). It's really very simple...This is hard to express in writing, but I've shown two people this and use it myself. They were both struggling with leading the cross and after I showed them this, they both said "Oh! That is easy!" and now comfortably, naturally lead it perfectly every time. In any case, I'm not sure I can make it clear without doing it with a follower to think about it first, but I'll give it a try:

Think of what you want the follower to do. Her left foot is free, and you want it to come across her right. That means she needs to move to her right just a little more than she would if she were to bring her feet together - ...

IMO, much of tango teaching is over-explained and over-thought. Yes, it's very easy if you understand what's happening.

I followed this explanation part way, but then I lost it. I do think that thinking about the belly-button is still too complicated.

[LoveTango]

I've never danced in V embrace, but when the cross is led correctly, it feels perfectly natural and easy. I also lead from time to time and have no trouble leading the cross in a perfectly natural fashion.

IME, leaders completely over-think the cross. They make this big movement to get me to do it, then look down to see if it worked (RME). It's really very simple...This is hard to express in writing, but I've shown two people this and use it myself. They were both struggling with leading the cross and after I showed them this, they both said "Oh! That is easy!" and now comfortably, naturally lead it perfectly every time. In any case, I'm not sure I can make it clear without doing it with a follower to think about it first, but I'll give it a try:

Think of what you want the follower to do. Her left foot is free, and you want it to come across her right. That means she needs to move to her right just a little more than she would if she were to bring her feet together. When you step forward on your left foot (you might need to place it an inch further to the left, and that's why I need to go try it, but it'll be a day or two before I can) and then when you bring your right foot to meet it, move your body so that it feels lateral rather than forward so the lady has to do the same thing--and has no choice but to cross. It helps to pull your belly button to your spine a bit to create a sense of space. Your follower should never be wondering whether she should have crossed or not.

Yes.