Breaking the Rules

[Peaches]

Well, then, this is very obviously a completely pointless discussion. You and I must be living in totally separate realities, affected by different laws of physics.

All I know is, I have danced many times with shared weight. If my partner were to suddenly disappear or move away from me, I'd have fallen on my nose. It was no more exhausting to either of us than dancing on our own axes--neither was holding the weight of the other, neither was holding the balance for the other. We were propping each other, so to speak, and it most certainly was not an illusion.

Done well, it didn't seem to require much, if any, more body tone and balance than anything else. What it DID require more of is awareness of the connection and how to maintain that connection during movement.

Having so many interpretations of the meaning and use of words, so many different ideas of what Tango is or isn't and so many different approaches without basic agreement of what exactly it is we are talking about seems to render useless any meaningful discussion on here.

Given that I've been active around here for several years, and have learned an awful lot from these threads, I'd say they absolutely can be useful. When things veer into the realm of what is/is not AT, that isn't productive, of course. But exploring ideas of technique mastery v. style, or technical points, or musical discussion, or aspects of milongas...very useful.

 

[JohnEm]

well its that illusion that makes trusses and steel frame bridges work!

I would say your grasp of physics is better than your grasp of tango.

If isupport some of my partners weight then its quite obviuos there has to be an equal force applied!

either of these two dancers would fall over if it were not for the presence of the other.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6vXgql2p4E

Thats the point - you aren't supporting her weight, you're counter-weighting and projecting it back to her, she still carries her own weight and you yours. You still have independent control of individual axes (weighted legs), not as Peaches claimed. Yes, if you take your counter-force away she'll fall over if the lean takes her beyond her ability to hold her balance independently so the connection is that strong. It takes confidence between partners to do that.

Bridges and trusses are not an illusion of course but their diagonal struts are in compression and tension according to their orientation.
That's not a good metaphor though, dancers are not welded together but if they were the weight would still be taken down the diagonal struts - the dancer's legs.

So basically we aren't disagreeing here. My disagreement is about a shared axis as by definition there can't be one and weight sharing is a nice illusion.

 

[JohnEm]

All I know is, I have danced many times with shared weight. If my partner were to suddenly disappear or move away from me, I'd have fallen on my nose. It was no more exhausting to either of us than dancing on our own axes--neither was holding the weight of the other, neither was holding the balance for the other. We were propping each other, so to speak, and it most certainly was not an illusion.

Done well, it didn't seem to require much, if any, more body tone and balance than anything else. What it DID require more of is awareness of the connection and how to maintain that connection during movement.

Peaches, I have no argument at all with this description, see my post just made previously. Clarity is all!

 

[Mario7]

You seem unaware of the existence of a style where neither dancer is entirely responsible for their own balance. Where they do, in fact, share weight. And as a result of this shared weight, there is, in fact, a shared axis. It is NOT "practicality as well as reality that demands each dancer is in control of their own individual balance no matter what the embrace." That is a falsehood, plain and simple. In a particular style of close embrace, the dancers DO lean on each other and DO share weight and CANNOT be in control of their own individual balance. THAT is is the reality..

This is quite a topic and may require it's own thread. It may even be an amazimg paradox where individuals are "not in control of their own balance" yet feel more in control of balance and small nuances than they could in any other form of the embrace!! go figure, how do you talk about such a thing..it's the zen of apilado close embrace tango ...and I don't mean Gavito publicity photos.:kissme:

 

[Peaches]

Oh. My mistake. I didn't realize this had devolved into a mere semantic discussion; I thought there were genuine issues and talking at cross purposes as a result of not understanding the actual concept being discussed (albeit with different terms). Lo, and behold, this just another damn argument about the words themselves.

*mutters*ffs*mutters*

 

[bordertangoman]

Thats the point - you aren't supporting her weight, you're counter-weighting and projecting it back to her, she still carries her own weight and you yours. You still have independent control of individual axes (weighted legs), not as Peaches claimed. Yes, if you take your counter-force away she'll fall over if the lean takes her beyond her ability to hold her balance independently so the connection is that strong. It takes confidence between partners to do that.

Bridges and trusses are not an illusion of course but their diagonal struts are in compression and tension according to their orientation.
That's not a good metaphor though, dancers are not welded together but if they were the weight would still be taken down the diagonal struts - the dancer's legs.

So basically we aren't disagreeing here. My disagreement is about a shared axis as by definition there can't be one and weight sharing is a nice illusion.

well we are disagreeing: compression and tension forces in structures are support!

A shared axis is the place around which we both pivot of move together which will a notional line below our combined centre of gravity/centre of connection; if i take my weight so that her moving away wont affect my position then I am keeping my own axis and balance. The moment my centre of gravity moves in front of my toes then the axis about which we moved is shared. There isnt anything illusory about it.

 

[JohnEm]

Oh. My mistake. I didn't realize this had devolved into a mere semantic discussion; I thought there were genuine issues and talking at cross purposes as a result of not understanding the actual concept being discussed (albeit with different terms). Lo, and behold, this just another damn argument about the words themselves.

*mutters*ffs*mutters*

So shall we have an argument (in the nicest possible tone) about whether words matter? Surely not?

Words are all we have in a forum like this but you seem to be in the dchester school of thought! I believe that without clarity and consistency of meaning a discussion on here is pointless. Which is where this little detour started.

If the words we used were consistent and meaningful we wouldn't need to have a discussion about the words themselves.

 

[Mario7]

A shared axis is the place around which we both pivot of move together which will a notional line below our combined centre of gravity/centre of connection; if i take my weight so that her moving away wont affect my position then I am keeping my own axis and balance. The moment my centre of gravity moves in front of my toes then the axis about which we moved is shared. There isnt anything illusory about it.

This makes sense...as long as it stays unaccusatory.:wink:
Here again Bordrtngoman finds the one sentence that cuts the mustard: ""The moment my centre of gravity moves in front of my toes then the axis about which we moved is shared.""
How can you argue with that? Clear as springwater.

 

[dchester]

In an attempt to get this thread back to discussing tango, there are (at least) two variations on what people call close embrace.

1) The "Weight Sharing" close embrace. Pressure is applied against each other, such that if either person abruptly moved away, the other person would fall (or at least start to fall). I've heard some people call this an apilado embrace; I've heard some people call this milonguero style; and I've heard some people call this a shared axis.

2) The "Illusion" close embrace. There is no significant pressure against each other, but it looks like there is. I've heard some people call this the "Villa Urquiza" style embrace. Some people also say (with this style) that each person is always on their own axis.

The funny thing about the term Salon style, is that some people will say option 2 is salon, while others will include both 1 & 2 as part of salon.

In practice, I find that the amount of weight sharing can vary a lot from one partner to another (and it can change throughout the dance), so it's not like it's one extreme or the other (similar to the amount of "V" in the embrace).

 

[bordertangoman]

In practice, I find that the amount of weight sharing can vary a lot from one partner to another (and it can change throughout the dance), so it's not like it's one extreme or the other (similar to the amount of "V" in the embrace).

I would agree that the amount of weight sharing within a dance is very fluid depending on the nature of the movement.... with one or two dancers I can lead two her into two steps I dont take myself ( so the so called Leaning Tower of Pisa style)

 

[JohnEm]

This makes sense...as long as it stays unaccusatory.:wink:
Here again Bordrtngoman finds the one sentence that cuts the mustard: ""The moment my centre of gravity moves in front of my toes then the axis about which we moved is shared.""
How can you argue with that? Clear as springwater.

I can argue with it, as you expected, because it's a fallacy.

If you welded the two dancers together (ouch) at the angle and suspended them from the ceiling by wire to the join, then BTM is correct. The now solid object would rotate around the vertical axis between them and the CofG would be somewhere below the join.

But the dancers are not rigidly joined nor suspended and their weight is being carried individually by one leg each to the floor so if we go with BTM's idea we have three axes, two actual, one invisible. I would go along with the idea that the two dancers axes intersect at the join but they still remain independent.

BTM's Tango is different to mine too as I cannot see how it's possible to rotate around this mythical centre axis unless the dancers are fixed. In my experience in order to maintain that connection and the necessary distance the man tends to move around the lady at times as she pivots on one foot. At other times the lady moves around the man and in yet others both alternate in moving around the other. And of course, where has this axis disappeared to in the walk?

Of course we are not going to agree but let's do agree that this is one of the perversities of Tango and just enjoy it!

 

[dchester]

BTM's Tango is different to mine too as I cannot see how it's possible to rotate around this mythical centre axis unless the dancers are fixed. In my experience in order to maintain that connection and the necessary distance the man tends to move around the lady at times as she pivots on one foot. At other times the lady moves around the man and in yet others both alternate in moving around the other.

Here are two ways that quickly come to mind (maybe others here have more possibilities):

1) They can both step around the "mythical" center axis (some call this a double giro).

2) It is possible with a single axis turn, or a colgada.

 

[JohnEm]

Here are two ways that quickly come to mind (maybe others here have more possibilities):

1) They can both step around the "mythical" center axis (some call this a double giro).

2) It is possible with a single axis turn, or a colgada.

Once again you confuse the issue.

1) A double giro is perhaps where both partners rotate alternately,
or maybe in a choreographed step pattern but still no mythical centre axis unless you can contrive some means of them doing it without their feet on the floor. If the partners do manage to rotate around a centre point between them, that doesn't make it an axis in the context of this discussion.

2) By definition a single axis turn is not apilado!!
That's just totally irrelevant.
And a colgada is even more so - the partners are leaning out (the two axes intersect below the floor).

 

[bordertangoman]

I can argue with it, as you expected, because it's a fallacy.

If you welded the two dancers together (ouch) at the angle and suspended them from the ceiling by wire to the join, then BTM is correct. The now solid object would rotate around the vertical axis between them and the CofG would be somewhere below the join.

But the dancers are not rigidly joined nor suspended and their weight is being carried individually by one leg each to the floor so if we go with BTM's idea we have three axes, two actual, one invisible. I would go along with the idea that the two dancers axes intersect at the join but they still remain independent.

BTM's Tango is different to mine too as I cannot see how it's possible to rotate around this mythical centre axis unless the dancers are fixed. In my experience in order to maintain that connection and the necessary distance the man tends to move around the lady at times as she pivots on one foot. At other times the lady moves around the man and in yet others both alternate in moving around the other. And of course, where has this axis disappeared to in the walk?

Of course we are not going to agree but let's do agree that this is one of the perversities of Tango and just enjoy it!

well now you are being pedantic; actually none of the three axes you mention exist so you are in danger in disappearing into a puff of pretzel logic; in fact music doesnt exist as it only a series of energy waves travelling through the molecular gaseous medium on you are merely an assembly of carbon molecules which at an atomic level have more space than solid. Anything else you would like to prove or disprove? And if you take a Buddhist vantage there is no such thing as a "self" merely phenomena and as Wittgenstein said “A man will be imprisoned in a room with a door that's unlocked and opens inwards; as long as it does not occur to him to pull rather than push.”

 

[JohnEm]

well now you are being pedantic; actually none of the three axes you mention exist so you are in danger in disappearing into a puff of pretzel logic; in fact music doesnt exist as it only a series of energy waves travelling through the molecular gaseous medium on you are merely an assembly of carbon molecules which at an atomic level have more space than solid. Anything else you would like to prove or disprove? And if you take a Buddhist vantage there is no such thing as a "self" merely phenomena and as Wittgenstein said “A man will be imprisoned in a room with a door that's unlocked and opens inwards; as long as it does not occur to him to pull rather than push.”

HaHaHa! That made me smile . . so thanks.

Not pedantic, just accurate!