Ballroom style

[UKDancer]

Oh now we have "very close" (embrace) to add to "close", "loose", "open"(!), "dynamic" or "fluid" etc., etc.

Well, we always had it, but the name is pretty daft. It is defined as 'Upper bodies in contact, while the lower bodies are a small distance apart, so that they form the shaps of a pyramid with their axis in front of the toes'. I don't think we needed another name, but it's not my invention.

I agree with you and don't see where the swing dance & BT comparison has come from. From my point of view and experience of both they are very different.

The definition of BR, here, unfortunately does include the Latin dances (which is very odd in itself), but even if you exclude them (as you and I clearly would), you are still left with the swing dances (waltz, quickstep & foxtrot) + tango, but as soon as you put those distinctly different 'BR frames' together, then there is really no point is comparing them with anything in AT, as you are already taking about a composite frame that does not exist, and then seeking to compare with something (the AT embrace) that also has no clear and generally accepted definition, and which clearly admits of very wide variations itself.

 

[JohnEm]

The definition of BR, here, unfortunately does include the Latin dances (which is very odd in itself), but even if you exclude them (as you and I clearly would), you are still left with the swing dances (waltz, quickstep & foxtrot) + tango, but as soon as you put those distinctly different 'BR frames' together, then there is really no point is comparing them with anything in AT, as you are already taking about a composite frame that does not exist, and then seeking to compare with something (the AT embrace) that also has no clear and generally accepted definition, and which clearly admits of very wide variations itself.

Now I understand. I was interpreting swing dances to be Lindy Hop, WCS,
balboa etc, all quite different. Whereas you are using it as a swing group
of ballroom dances, a term that I've never heard used. In the US it includes
all jive forms I think which in the UK we don't.

However I can see your point about excluding Ballroom Tango from such
a theoretical composite frame but the "swing" group are similar enough
to be compared/contrasted to AT in the (close . . ok - very close) embrace.
What do think, shall we leave it there?

 

[Subliminal]

Oh now we have "very close" (embrace) to add to "close", "loose",
"open"(!), "dynamic" or "fluid" etc., etc.

Heh. It's interesting. My first teacher grew up in BsAs and danced tango growing up. She said she'd never heard anyone call it open or close or whatever until she started traveling outside of Argentina. To her family and teachers, it was all just the embrace.

Which isn't to say labels aren't useful, particularly for an online discussion. But it's something to think about.

 

[Zoopsia59]

one is the true path to happiness and fulfilment, while the other four are spawn of the devil.

Bwa ha ha!

 

[Zoopsia59]

For other tango dancers, that nice open VU 'hold' IS the perfect tango embrace (and goodness, it shares a lot with a ballroom tango hold).

There are ballroom dances where the hold is connected along the body on one side and completely open on the other side with the follower looking more to her right?

 

[UKDancer]

Now I understand. I was interpreting swing dances to be Lindy Hop, WCS,
balboa etc, all quite different. Whereas you are using it as a swing group
of ballroom dances, a term that I've never heard used. In the US it includes
all jive forms I think which in the UK we don't.

However I can see your point about excluding Ballroom Tango from such
a theoretical composite frame but the "swing" group are similar enough
to be compared/contrasted to AT in the (close . . ok - very close) embrace.
What do think, shall we leave it there?

In this context, 'swing' refers to the fundamental ballroom walking action, where the leg is swung from the hip (backwards & forwards), and which doesn't apply to ballroom tango, which has a distinctly different 'pick up and quickly place' action. Tangotime did suggest that I should clarify what I meant (it is perhaps not a well known distinction outside the professional realm), but your following post did make reference to the three + tango, as though you had in mind the same distinction, but perhaps I should have clarified anyway.

The trouble is, that if we are talking about comparing a 'swing-dance ballroom frame' with an AT embrace, we still have to define what we mean by embrace, because if we think there is only one, that is generally because we have a strong preference for one style of AT, and 'our' embrace is the one we mean, and all others are out of contention. I would agree, on any showing, that they won't have very much in common, except that they still have the same fundamental purpose: they connect two people in a partner-dance. The arms may be more or less active, depending on the degree of body contact, but such contact is usually considered vitally important in both the 'frame' and the 'embrace'.

If we want to compare the ballroom tango frame (I would prefer hold) to an AT embrace, it is more difficult. The walking actions in tango don't vary much by style (they're not the same, they just don't vary much), and the means of physical connection in ballroom tango could reasonably be said to be within the broad limits of possible means of achieving an AT embrace (taking the widest definitions of what can be called AT). That said, there is not much to be gained from considering the individual differences, which I think are mostly to do with the points of bodily contact. The shaping of the arms are different, but positioning can be so variable anyway: the handclasp being anywhere from below the chest to above the head. The most sensible thing to say would be that the ballroom version is more-or-less standardised, and you could readily dance with anyone from anywhere in the world, whereas the embrace is a style statement, and while most dancers with a particular but different style preferences would studiously ignore each other in the cabaceo, they would probably have great difficulty in dancing together at all if they tried.

Standardisation has a lot going for it.

 

[Steve Pastor]

they would probably have great difficulty in dancing together at all if they tried

Not sure who you mean by "they". AT dancers?

 

[tangotime]

Whereas you are using it as a swing group
of ballroom dances, a term that I've never heard used.

I guess then that you are not familiar with Scrivener .. one of his stock in trade phrases.. " If ya aint got that swing, ya aint got a thing ".. referencing the action used by the leg/s in the " swing " dances, i.e. F/trot, W, and Q/step .

 

[Subliminal]

The most sensible thing to say would be that the ballroom version is more-or-less standardised, and you could readily dance with anyone from anywhere in the world, whereas the embrace is a style statement, and while most dancers with a particular but different style preferences would studiously ignore each other in the cabaceo, they would probably have great difficulty in dancing together at all if they tried.

Standardisation has a lot going for it.

I think standardization of some things can be helpful, but I COMPLETELY disagree with the statement above. It isn't nearly so clear cut. Particulary for followers. Any follower past a certain level can dance any style of embrace. She might not necessarily enjoy it as much, but the general follower technique would hold true for all styles.

In the same vein, if a leader is taught the same way, to be accepting rather than close-minded, they can adapt to any style as well. If anything I think THIS should be the standard in AT... a teaching method rather than a body diagram. Just like learning improvisation is better than learning patterns, learning to follow/match a partner and change the embrace depending on the person you are dancing with is superior to learning one way to do the embrace.

 

[JohnEm]

I think standardization of some things can be helpful, but I COMPLETELY disagree with the statement above. It isn't nearly so clear cut. Particulary for followers. Any follower past a certain level can dance any style of embrace. She might not necessarily enjoy it as much, but the general follower technique would hold true for all styles.

I certainly don't agree that every follower past a certain level can, or even
should attempt to, dance any style of embrace. Certainly I know followers
who make a conscious effort to be able to do so but there are others with
a definite preference for a certain style of embrace or hold. Assessing a
follower's level on that basis would never have crossed my mind.

The many different styles with no one in the ascendancy undoubtedly
makes AT more difficult than it should be. I don't agree that followers
technique holds true for all styles at all, particularly the matter of the
embrace variations and holds of one kind or another.

In the same vein, if a leader is taught the same way, to be accepting rather than close-minded, they can adapt to any style as well. If anything I think THIS should be the standard in AT... a teaching method rather than a body diagram. Just like learning improvisation is better than learning patterns, learning to follow/match a partner and change the embrace depending on the person you are dancing with is superior to learning one way to do the embrace.

This depends on what you think a leader is. A leader is obviously not the
follower though you are advocating here that a dance with an unknown
partner should be "accepting". A certain amount of adjustment to a new
partner usually has to happen but as a leader it still is my dance and there
are limits. There always is the option not to dance with each other.

In my case I have a preference for the in-line (close) embrace and if I
couldn't dance it then AT would have little appeal. In the other holds AT
becomes an ordinary dance of no particularly greater merit than many
others which are more easily accessible as they are danced more widely.

 

[UKDancer]

I guess then that you are not familiar with Scrivener .. one of his stock in trade phrases.. " If ya aint got that swing, ya aint got a thing ".. referencing the action used by the leg/s in the " swing " dances, i.e. F/trot, W, and Q/step .

Did he pay Billy Strayhorn a royalty for pinching the lyrics from Eliington's 1931 hit 'It Don't Mean a Thing ...'?

 

[salthepal]

compare youtube.com/watch?v=Zf6J-Hg_YWo
[yt]Zf6J-Hg_YWo[/yt]

These two are kids, too. It looks more argentinian, may be they´ve got better teachers, grimly determined parents, and a lot of role models all around them, they dance right from their birth, but is it TA? But what actually is TA then? A source of income, an universal art form, a folk dance, an elder style for former salseros, a dance for broken hearted people..
.

It just looks less forced to me...

 

[Subliminal]

Blah blah blah close embrace is superior blah blah blah.

I'm not going to respond point for point because your post didn't really apply to mine. I was responding to UKDancer about standardization of styles. I really don't care what style you dance, do whatever you want.

My point was there are less differences between the styles than people suggest, and if you approach tango looking for the simularities rather than the differences you can dance with anyone if you choose to. The follower comment was perhaps poorly worded; I don't "rank" followers. It was an observation that the follower role promotes learning to adapt, and there's no reason leaders can't learn the same lesson. If there was some attempt to standardize the teaching of the embrace, looking at the commonalities across all the styles and combining them would be the way to go.

 

[JohnEm]

I'm not going to respond point for point because your post didn't really apply to mine. I was responding to UKDancer about standardization of styles. I really don't care what style you dance, do whatever you want.

I thought I already was doing what I wanted and hopefully similar to a
great number of argentineans in BsAs so wasn't seeking and don't need
your permission and nor was I telling you what to do.

My point was there are less differences between the styles than people suggest, and if you approach tango looking for the simularities rather than the differences you can dance with anyone if you choose to. The follower comment was perhaps poorly worded; I don't "rank" followers. It was an observation that the follower role promotes learning to adapt, and there's no reason leaders can't learn the same lesson. If there was some attempt to standardize the teaching of the embrace, looking at the commonalities across all the styles and combining them would be the way to go.

Well you have your point of view and I have mine.
Not so strangely, they are rather different.

Your standardization of the embrace would result in an inevitable dumbing
down then. Oh - now I remember, that's exactly what's already happening
with the widespread teaching of VU.

 

[AndaBien]

... It was an observation that the follower role promotes learning to adapt, and there's no reason leaders can't learn the same lesson...

I agree, and I have tried to extend my own ability to adapt, to a point. Beyond that, I am the leader and my partner is the follower. I do not imply any hierarchy. The roles are equal but different.

...If there was some attempt to standardize the teaching of the embrace, looking at the commonalities across all the styles and combining them would be the way to go.

Why would that be the way to go? Standardization is the same as homogenization. It makes everything the same and reduces individuality. I don't think that is what AT is all about.