A bad practice partner is better than no partner?

[opendoor]

That may be so somewhere, but it isn't true here..

The Ronda is a good thing, no question about it. I am only referring to historical development. Argentinians in particular like to obfuscate things.

Your claim doesn't line up with what teachers here claim, though. My coach opened her studio in 1991. There are pictures, and in those pictures, there's clearly a ronda. I think it was more widespread than you claim, earlier than you claim.

I'm just too lazy to seek it out, but there is footage from the 80s on YT.

..I've added elements from clearly different styles that I dare not name. However, all have one thing in common: They are built around the walk and they advance.

For me it is the same. The point of my answer was simply to remind people that the current situation has grown. But anyone who dances on the spot today without paying attention to the rules of the respective milonga is either stupid and uneducated, or is driven by messianic zeal. If you want to dance on the spot at a milonga with 2-3 lanes: go to the center of the ronda. Something like that is absolutely ok.

 

[Rabbit]

I've been thinking about a "six senses" approach – which is also a 5W1H (what, who, when, where, why, and how) approach – to tango. I suspect that others have done this; I'm not claiming to be the inventor.

Personally I have been thinking about it for a couple of years as a hierarchy of what-how-why, but I don't feel that there is really a one-to-one mapping to the various dance aspects, rather each aspect like vocabulary, musicality, event and partner selection, has its own what-how-why. My impression is that few people are even aware that there might be something beyond "what" and "how".

 

[TTanguero]

A set 'sequence' has a value to both as an initial container for some move.

Again, I'm not saying there's no value in sequences (though in my view teachers should be much more careful to make the point that a sequence is just intended as a series of examples, and the point is for people to use them as inspiration for improvised movements, not to execute them by rote). Only that there isn't value in a follower pretending a leader has led movements that they haven't.

 

[JournalInTime]

When learning sequences it's helpful for the follower to do the required sequences while the leader is learning his footwork. Solo practice is useful, but having the other half of the partnership walking through can really help with the positioning. But I'm talking two or three times. After that the leader needs to know what was really led.

I suppose, too, there's the question of whether you care about footwork. I used to, but on some level I don't anymore, beyond avoiding "ugly feet" that turn in, roll, cross lines, or don't collect. Everything comes from the torso, and I find trying to get feet in the right place first doesn't give me any feeling for how to lead. I need to get my torso in the right place first and see where my feet end up being moved by that. I'm not sure how compatible that is with a "walkthrough."

 

[JournalInTime]

Personally I have been thinking about it for a couple of years as a hierarchy of what-how-why, but I don't feel that there is really a one-to-one mapping to the various dance aspects, rather each aspect like vocabulary, musicality, event and partner selection, has its own what-how-why.

As we say in mathematics, a space can have more than one basis.

My impression is that few people are even aware that there might be something beyond "what" and "how".

I agree. They seldom care about "why," and they rarely care about "who" or "where" beyond "me" and "my spot."

 

[TTanguero]

I need to get my torso in the right place first and see where my feet end up being moved by that

Yes, as one of my teachers put it: Your torso is in service to your axis, and your feet are in service to your torso. In other words, focus on where I want our joint axis to be, put my torso in the right place to make that happen, and let my feet do whatever is required to make that possible.

 

[JournalInTime]

Yes, as one of my teachers put it: Your torso is in service to your axis, and your feet are in service to your torso. In other words, focus on where I want our joint axis to be, put my torso in the right place to make that happen, and let my feet do whatever is required to make that possible.

My coach's perennial mantra is "Body . . .body . . . body . . . body . . . body . . . leg!" If she sees me advance a leg ahead of my torso, it's whippin' time.

 

[JournalInTime]

If you want to dance on the spot at a milonga with 2-3 lanes: go to the center of the ronda. Something like that is absolutely ok.

That's what I was taught by ever teacher who bothered to mention floorcraft at all. What's maddening is that one local organizer gives a speech about it at every milonga he runs . . . and then parks in the outside lane. On the other hand, the best floorcraft teacher I ever had practices what he preaches, and it's he who taught me that in this day and age without knives at the milonga, the substitute punishment is a heel.

 

[ArbeeNYC]

The ronda (LOD) is only known in one substyle of tango. Keep an eye on the global field, please. And by the way, it wasn't the milonguero style that was the advocate of the ronda in the 90s. It was the effort of the Mundiale style (aka Villa Urquiza) (you now disregard that much)!

This is confusing. You mean the 1990s? That was long after tango's formative years and greatest popularity. Are saying that during the 1930s, 40s, and 50s, there was no ronda?

 

[ArbeeNYC]

The problem is that there are no real consequences to substandard floorcraft.

Most organisers refuse to do anything that would actually help, for fear of developing a reputation for being strict that drives away people, or for fear of alienating a popular leader and his gaggle of friends and followers.

Well, there are certainly consequences for the other dancers. If there were no consequence, we wouldn't be discussing this all the time.

True about the organizers but I know some who have taken time out at the middle of the evening to point out problems with line of dance, etc. I doubt it had any effect on attendance. Actually, I know at least two organizers who discussed it. Another had a few words with one guy in particular who was a bit of a loose cannon on the floor.

And sometimes you can say something to another leader, especially if they are beginners and ignorant of floorcraft.

 

[ArbeeNYC]

I suppose, too, there's the question of whether you care about footwork. I used to, but on some level I don't anymore, beyond avoiding "ugly feet" that turn in, roll, cross lines, or don't collect. Everything comes from the torso, and I find trying to get feet in the right place first doesn't give me any feeling for how to lead.

Mmm. I do care about footwork since it's a part of one's style. As for the torso, yes, but, as one teacher insisted, tango is a walking dance. You need to actually take a step (in whatever direction you're going). I'm not implying you lead with your leg or your foot only that something has to follow that torso.

 

[Brummbaer]

Again, I'm not saying there's no value in sequences (though in my view teachers should be much more careful to make the point that a sequence is just intended as a series of examples, and the point is for people to use them as inspiration for improvised movements, not to execute them by rote). Only that there isn't value in a follower pretending a leader has led movements that they haven't.

Hmmm. I disagree, but only slightly. There is some value in a follower doing the movements the leader should have led - but only as an illustration of what the leader has to actually lead (i.e. a 'pretense'). Ultimately it has a negative value IF the leader believes that they led it, and thinks it works with every follower. So, the leader needs to understand what effect their lead has, or should have, on the follower. But they need to attempt that with many followers to get it correct - and, if possible, to mix it in the context of learning, e.g. it's not an ocho cortado; it's a giro/molinette this time.

That also works the other way round. Unless you understand what the lead is saying, you may not interpret it correctly.

But we also have to consider how teachers have decided to teach some aspect to the student, and what the student actually learns at that phase. For some a sequence is sufficient. I guess it's another wall to climb in order to move past that phase. Some are happy where they are. They can invite, or be invited, by someone at a milonga and have a pleasant tanda - which was probably their initial target. Next comes technique, more vocabulary, floorcraft (hopefully), connection, intention, musicality - even some 'flavour'.

Is 'flavour' the same as, or part of, musicality? Just thinking of a recent milonga. Had some 'tunes' I like, but the contemporary renditions lacked the flavour, the spice, the umami to inspire. (And nothing against some contemporary renditions of old tunes - can be 'better'/different). They were danceable, and could be danced with musicality - if you wanted to just dance to some music. Of course, your dance partner may not agree with your flavour of that dance!

 

[WhiskeyPapa]

I can’t imagine having entered the floor in
the first years of dancing without set sequences—and boy did I make use of them, regardless of whether they had anything to do with the music—and in a set order too! After all, D’Arienzo, Di Sarli, and Biagi can all be danced in the same way, right?

Seriously, it takes years before a male lead can dance improvisationally (much easier for a follower when she’s led properly)—that is what you strive for—but it requires an astonishing amount of work—literally many years of structured practice and one on one lessons with teachers who know what they are doing.

Until you get there, set sequences are inevitable.

 

[WhiskeyPapa]

On the problem of sequences, I think it's perfectly clear why they seem so detrimental.

Sequences are meant to give students a form of structure in applying one aspect or another of technique (as opposed to merely explaining what technique they're working on and not providing them something that actually uses that technique), and/or to show students how elements might be chained together in a manner that feels nice, looks nice and/or is interesting. That's the good thing about (short) sequences in non-choreography classes.

Ideally, after familiarising oneself with the sequence and the concepts behind it, one should try to break it down further, perhaps rebuild it, and examine it in order to determine exactly what (if any) might be added to one's own dance.

The main problem is that the students are either unable or unwilling to move beyond them. There is this mentality that I must complete this sequence at all costs; yet another that tango is just sequence after sequence, which is true to some extent, since we all tend to fall into patterns and habits that can be seen as sequences of a sort. This hidebound clinging to the holy scripture of a sequence, being unwilling to modify it to suit different contexts, is what make sequences so insidious.

I try to be charitable and understanding towards leaders like this who have only been dancing for one or two years, but for """experienced dancers""" who remain like this, I have nothing but contempt. And I simply ignore followers who really, really can't break out of learned patterns unless we're at a practica.

Of course, what you’re saying is true, but getting beyond that early phase is not a matter of one or two years, even for a dancer conscientious in his training. One problem is there are VERY FEW instructors who can break things down the way you describe, and they would prefer to work with more expreinced dancers.

 

[opendoor]

This is confusing. You mean the 1990s? That was long after tango's formative years and greatest popularity. Are saying that during the 1930s, 40s, and 50s, there was no ronda?

I would say that the formative years were the 90s as the tradition from the GA was broken. And yes, watch photos of the 40s, a real mess on the dance floor. Pleople mostly danced on the spot, but also mixing clockwise and counterclockwise.