Tango Argentino > Reasons to quit tango

Discussion in 'Tango Argentino' started by Captain Jep, Apr 4, 2010.

  1. Peaches

    Peaches Well-Known Member

    And what in blazes would you prefer for it to be called...aside from denying that it's AT at all? Either we go with a generally accepted and understood term, or co-opt one from another dance genre (ballroom frame), or we make up a new word. Personally, I much prefer the term "embrace" to "frame," which IMO denotes a rigidity and lack of fluidity and softness which is imperative for AT.

    Do you realize that this conflict, this dichotomy, this epic stuggle you seem to see is pretty much all in your own head? Open your eyes, open your mind, learn some of the "other" technique...and you just might see that the difference is much smaller than you are currently making it out to be.

    Give it a rest, for crying out loud. Idealogical issues aside, most reasonable people understand what is meant by "open embrace" or "close embrace."
  2. Subliminal

    Subliminal Well-Known Member

    Or maybe there never was a difference, and all of the supposed assaults on close embrace dancing are in your head?
  3. Peaches

    Peaches Well-Known Member

    I dunno about reasons to quit tango, but it's stuff like this which make me highly inclined to quit this forum... Crimeny.
  4. Subliminal

    Subliminal Well-Known Member

    gosh darnit! Peaches get out of my head! :D

    Or at least let me post first. ;)
  5. Peaches

    Peaches Well-Known Member

    LOL. Sorry! Great minds think alike?
  6. dchester

    dchester Moderator Staff Member

    I think I understand about this stuff that you are saying.

    I do think the difference between open on close embrace is more than an illusion, which was why I asked what he meant by it being an illusion. That's all I was wondering about. He explained what he meant by it, so I'm all set.

    (now I'm not claiming I agree with it all, just that I think I now understand what his point was)

  7. Lilly_of_the_valley

    Lilly_of_the_valley Well-Known Member

    People what are you talking about?
    Try to open your embrace in Cachirulo or Lo de Celia (or El Valenciano in San Francisco, for that matter), and see what happens next. Good luck to explain everyone then that it is just an illusion.
  8. Peaches

    Peaches Well-Known Member

    I assume those are milongas that are particularly crowded?

    I don't think anyone is suggesting that there is no difference between open and closed. Certainly, at the very least, there is a difference in how much floor space is taken up by a couple. Nor is anyone suggesting that open embrace is appropriate at all venues.

    I think the idea of the illusion (Sub, please correct me if this is not what you meant of if I'm putting words in your mouth.) is the idea that it's incredibly different than close embrace. That the illusion has to do with there being distinct categories of Big Nuevo, Open Embrace, Close V-Embrace, Close Flat Embrace, Apilado. It's a continuum. The fundamental technique does not change drastically from one to the next. Of course, comparing those "styles" at either end of the continuum to one another will show up considerable differences...but even then, most fundamental techniques remain the same. Many dancers can, and do, incorporate more than one style into their dancing at any given time--within one night, within one tanda, and possibly even within one song.

    That each of the "styles" is completely and wholly distinct from the others...that's where the "illusion" comes into play. And the idea that good technique is good technique...well, if a dancer has good technique and is familiar with the various styles, he or she should be able to transition from one to the other without much of a problem.
  9. Lilly_of_the_valley

    Lilly_of_the_valley Well-Known Member

    Thanks, Peaches, for taking your time to explain.
  10. Peaches

    Peaches Well-Known Member

    You are most welcome! :)
  11. JohnEm

    JohnEm Well-Known Member

    To Embrace or Not?

    You are just as evangelical and stubborn as Mario in your own way in applying your own personal preferences.

    We may all understand the meanings of open embrace and closed embrace but that doesn't make it right or even sensible.

    If you embrace someone you hold them closely in your arms. The word close is superfluous. You can loosen an embrace to allow movement within it but your partner is still cradled within your arms.

    You can describe positions within the embrace, offset or in line which is the position Mario recently got excited about but is in fact the classic milonguero alignment.

    But if you let your partner move away, or if she doesn't want to be in the embrace in the first place, she isn't being embraced at all but being held by the arms, hers and her partners. And then of course there's a halfway stage between the two extremes in salon style.

    For me, the dance changes, the possibilities change, the connection changes. So in conclusion I, for one, object to your rather strident objection!
  12. Peaches

    Peaches Well-Known Member

    Yeah, I'm strident.

    I just don't care for pointless terminology discussions and distinctions, if they're not for the point of clarifying something which could be/is being misunderstood.
  13. JohnEm

    JohnEm Well-Known Member

    But, Peaches, you rant nevertheless!

    In fact I don't think Mario was being at all serious.
    Pointless maybe, but not serious.
    He got you going though! :)
  14. Peaches

    Peaches Well-Known Member

    Hehehe! Yeah, I'm prone to ranting. I have my buttons, and their easily pushed and not easily resisted.
  15. Subliminal

    Subliminal Well-Known Member

    Nope, you nailed it, thanks!
  16. Zoopsia59

    Zoopsia59 Well-Known Member

    I think what was meant is that its an illusion that there are two distinct styles and never the twain shall meet. I remember an Argentine teacher saying this as well... that flexible embraces are normal in BA and it is North Americans who insist on dividing things up as though its either one or the other and then subsequently developing each as an independent model that must be chosen over others.
  17. Zoopsia59

    Zoopsia59 Well-Known Member

    I think the idea is that the follower may receive the information slightly differently (ie: through her eyes rather than her chest) but the information itself is (or should be) the same, and it comes from the same place.

    I either see your chest move or I feel it.. either way, your chest is doing the same thing and I am receiving the same info about your chest's movement.

    The problem is that some leaders don't bother to initiate their lead from their torso/core/chest/body/shoulders/whatever (don't want a semantics discussion about which term/body part is correct) when they are in open. They completely forget to use their body at all and let their arms do the work because the follower is going to get the info through the arms anyway, right?

    Umm... no.

    The lead still needs to begin in the leader's body and the leader's technique is roughly the same even if the follower is blind and doesn't get the info until it hits her hands and travels through her arms..
  18. Zoopsia59

    Zoopsia59 Well-Known Member

    I thought Subliminal brought this up?
  19. Zoopsia59

    Zoopsia59 Well-Known Member

    Mario, you're sounding a bit over the top about this stuff.... Do we need to get you a tin foil hat? ;)
  20. Zoopsia59

    Zoopsia59 Well-Known Member

    yep... beat me as well...

Share This Page