Breaking the Rules

[dchester]

HaHaHa! That made me smile . . so thanks.

Not pedantic, just accurate!

You wouldn't happen to also go by the name of Chris JJ, would you?

 

[JohnEm]

You wouldn't happen to also go by the name of Chris JJ, would you?

Is that the best you can do??

ChrisJJ might be insulted by that or shall I be?

 

[bordertangoman]

HaHaHa! That made me smile . . so thanks.

Not pedantic, just accurate!

not accurate just opinionated..

 

[JohnEm]

not accurate just opinionated..

In your opinion !!!

 

[Subliminal]

HaHaHa! That made me smile . . so thanks.

Not pedantic, just accurate!

Here is the problem. Time and time again on this forum, threads get derailed not because people disagree with the definition, but because they disagree with how the definition is presented.

And its getting pretty old.

 

[Peaches]

Here is the problem. Lately, Time and time again on this forum, threads get derailed not because people disagree with the definition, but because they disagree with how the definition is presented.

And its getting pretty old.

FTFY. Somehow, discussions about AT seemed to have hummed along just fine...until recently. Sure there were some misunderstandings, but usually pretty quickly ironed out and the actual topic at hand could be discussed. And now...not so much.

Very well said.

 

[Joy In Motion]

I came to this discussion late, but I do have an interest in discussing style, improvisation, and rule-breaking.

I really enjoyed Peaches' first post as well. I agree that style is something that at first is a natural development because of your natural quality of movement and way of experiencing the dance. You have this from the very beginning. As you develop skill and experience, I think you can more consciously develop your style further or can just let it continue to develop naturally. Style does not necessarily break any rules, although it can.

You do indeed have to know the rules in order to break them, as has already been stated. You can still be creative and improvise in the beginning, but typically this is at a very elementary level and is usually more about making movement/music choices than about really breaking any rules. The dancers who try to break rules before they have learned them are usually the ones who are very difficult to dance with because they don't have the basic framework of technique and communication in place. They are very inconsistent in their connection and they are trying to do things beyond their reach.

The rules have to be second nature before you can truly start improvising and breaking the rules. If you are still consciously thinking about what you need to do, you can't truly move past the mere performance of them to deeper self-expression and creativity. If you plow ahead and try to "improvise" without that embodied knowledge of the rules, you are not really dancing that particular dance; you are merely offering up an impressionistic version of it, and your partner will most likely know the difference and not enjoy it.

An excellent book that talks about this concept is Free Play by Stephen Nachmanovitch. I'm going to quote some of his book so I don't plagiarize and because his words are better than my paraphrasing...

Here we can see why in the process of making artwork we are able to generate such sheer surprises. The artist has his training, his style, habits, personality, which might be very graceful and interesting but are nevertheless somewhat set and predictable. When, however, he has to match the patterning outside him with the patterning he brings within his own organism, the crossing or marriage of the two patterns results in something never before seen, which is nevertheless a natural outgrowth of the artist's original nature. A moire, a crossing or marriage of two patterns, becomes a third pattern that has a life of its own.

But necessity forces us to improvise with the material at hand, calling up resourcefulness and inventiveness that might not be possible to someone who can purchase ready-made solutions... Sometimes we damn the limits, but without them art is not possible. They provide us with something to work with and against... all these foibles and limitations can be seen as the discipline that evokes creativity.

Working within the limits of the medium forces us to change our own limits. Improvisation is not breaking with forms and limitations just to be "free," but using them as the very means of transcending ourselves. If form is mechanically applied, it may indeed result in work that is conventional, if not pedantic or stupid. But form used well can become the very vehicle of freedom, of discovering the creative surprises that liberate mind-at-play... If certain values are constrained within narrow limits, others are free to vary more strongly... If you have all the colors available, you are sometimes almost too free. With one dimension constrained, play becomes freer in other dimensions.

Other rules are not built into life itself, but are the rules of forms, conventional and unconventional, that we voluntarily choose to follow. We may take on improvising within a certain scale, mode, or rhythm, or in relation to a tune we know; we may take on improvising only with certain kinds of form, painting only with triangles for a while, dancing only close to the ground, or only on trapezes. This is the kind of game the artist incessantly plays, living by a contract he makes with himself... Structure ignites spontaneity.

Think about it: Argentine tango as a dance that people all over the world are able to dance together only exists because there are certain rules that are respected by all of its dancers. There may be (and are) wide variations across communities, but underlying it is a structure that people recognize as a language of tango even in the presence of various dialects.

 

[AndaBien]

In my mind there are rules and there is styling, and they are two distinct things

Rules are not given by people, but by the laws of physics (gravity, momentum, etc.) and anatomy (joint function, muscle attachments, etc.). These rules apply to all dancers. Anyone can try to break the rules, but the rules will assert themselves.

Styling is defined by people and is a matter of convention. These “rules” can be broken, but I think it’s wise and appropriate for dancers to learn these rules, until they might decide to break them. I think that if a dancer knows the rules but feels drawn in a different direction, he/she should break the rules, because breaking them leads to the dancer’s most personal expression, which I think is foremost in social dancing.

There is also the idea of floor craft. These are social rules. If you break them, hopefully, you are either ostracized or taken outside and pantsed.

 

[Zoopsia59]

we can't be Tete, because so much of his dance had to do with his own understanding of his body and his own creativity with manipulating axis, momentum, musicality, and knowing when to break the "rules".

Wouldn't that be true of every performer/teacher? We examine what they do, but if we merely copy the surface appearance, we've missed the essence. Part of the essence is making the dance uniquely your own while still being able to dance with people who didn't get years of schooling in your specific "style". If your style is so unique that only your partner can dance with you, you are not a social dancer; you are a performer ONLY.

The "rules" being the common skills learned by most beginning students. Collecting, balance, controlling your axis, etc.

If only those things WERE skills learned by all beginning students. Sigh.

Uh... back to you... sorry... Um... I'm not sure one ever completely breaks the rules of balance, collecting and controlling your own axis. (hear me out folks before you start writing your contradictions)

By "axis" I mean the line running from your head to your feet. Whether or not it is perpendicular to the floor, you still need to have control over it. Even if that line is "broken" as in a colgada, it is broken with precision and control, or else you're likely to end up on the floor.

Likewise, collecting occurs in more than just the feet. Once a follower (for example) learns to commit to weight transfer, she can still "collect" in her body while not bringing the feet together. So in one sense, you are right... once the person understands the body mechanics that accompany collecting or coming to and through the "neutral" point, the actual more visable element of bringing the feet together can be manipulated effectively or eliminated. But the underlying "rule" surrounding collecting is still in effect.

Same with balance... if you can't control your balance as an individual, you can't play with manipulation of balance as an individual or as a couple. So even when you are deliberately off-balance, you are still in control of your balance because you can restore balance (whether your own or your partner's) on command.

So I was pondering this while working on the sequence, and it got me to thinking... do you have to know the rules to break them? When do you start working on your own style? From the beginning? Or do you have to have some foundation? How much of your style is just the way that your own body works? Is now too soon to start playing with the "rules" and making up my own techniques?

I think one needs to understand the fundamental meanings of the rules. As I pointed out above, if someone thinks the rule about collecting means to bring the feet together and that's all, they've missed the point and will not be able to break that rule effectively. IMO, the most fundamental part of the rules are NOT breakable even though the superficial easily seen part is.

Or maybe I just haven't advanced yet to the stage where I can break those fundamental concepts?

I think mastering that underlying concept behind what we initially think of as "the rule" is how one begins to have the ability to "break the rule". At that point, you realize you aren't actually breaking the rule at all... you are manipulating results of the rule.

 

[Zoopsia59]

I wonder if we have somewhat different ideas of just what these "rules" are.

But I wouldn't consider dancers to be clones for having what I would consider to be the universally good technique of changing weight fully/completely arriving on the standing foot, or having good posture, or waiting for the lead, or learning to pivot cleanly. Those sorts of fundamental technique things are, to me, The Rules. Not following those rules, at least without having mastered them first, isn't a case of "finding your own style" so much as "being sloppy."

Are we talking at cross purposes here?

'

Should have read ahead... Peaches already touched on what I meant!

 

[Zoopsia59]

Just need to say... I hate when threads get big while I'm busy and I come back and want to reply to almost every post but don't have time....

This is a good topic for discussion and hopefully I'll catch up on it! Wish I'd been in it from the start.

 

[Subliminal]

They disagree with the definition that is presented.

Which sadly often differs from the definition that the presenter intended, particularly where the presenter is handicapped by gobbledegook teacher-speak as in the case of bordertangoman for example.

The solution: ask the presenter to define his terms. IME such a request leads either to enlightenment...

Or silence - which is itself enlightening.

Umm. Do you have any sense of irony? You disagreed with my point, and in the next breath proved it by dissing btm and the way he describes tango. Seriously, if you want to get along with people maybe YOU should make the effort to understand what they are saying. If you understand what someone means through the context of the conversation and yet you choose to belittle their words because you don't like how they said it, then THAT is being pedantic. And the problem is you, not them.

 

[Subliminal]

Just need to say... I hate when threads get big while I'm busy and I come back and want to reply to almost every post but don't have time....

This is a good topic for discussion and hopefully I'll catch up on it! Wish I'd been in it from the start.

I know the feeling. Thanks for taking the time to post Zoops, I enjoyed hearing what you have to say.

 

[Dave Bailey]

Which sadly often differs from the definition that the presenter intended, particularly where the presenter is handicapped by gobbledegook teacher-speak as in the case of bordertangoman for example.

Really? I've always found BTM fairly understandable, can you give an example of him doing the "gobbledegook teacher-speak" thing?

Coz if so, I can nick it for my sig and tease him unmercifully with it

 

[Zoopsia59]

"Well, they're more like guidelines than actual rules"...

I heard this line recently in a movie that predated the "Pirates" series by YEARS. I had no idea it wasn't original. Unfortunately I can't for the life of me remember what the movie was! Any ideas?

edited to say: Oops.. never mind.. found it. Ghostbusters!

We now return to your regularly scheduled program.