Breaking the Rules

[Angel HI]

This is why the thread even exists. Already, 'rule', 'definition', 'expectation', etc are being questioned and/or opened to interpretation.

Obviously each rule has exceptions. "Stay in embrace" is - by definition - broken by soltadas. "Stay on axis" is - by definition - broken by volcadas and colgadas. And so on.

But "Stay in embrace" and "stay on axis" are both good general rules for dancing.

soltadas are in an embrace... not just the same embrace. Volcadas are not off axis; the axis is tilted (like earth's).

Would anyone care to list what the rules are?
I'll start with one (mainly because I don't know that many):
;-)

1) The lead should be both clear and comfortable.

See, I do not consider this a 'rule' as much as good common sense. Rules, to me, would be as I mentioned in my earlier post, and as BTM eluded to in his games vs scales approach. Good technique, i.e. the proper way to take a step, or to balance, etc. are rules b/c if one doesn't do them well, the dace will not happen properly. Everything else is interpretation.

Can there be good/bad interpretations; or, ones that work better/worse than others? Of course. are some things just plain right/wrong? Of course. IMO, AT has been made exceptionally, and unnecessarily, complicated by the incessant need to turn it into ballroom, with all kinds of slows/quicks, rules/only one way to.....

Now, all of this is not to say that the both of you do not have points well worth noting.

 

[Subliminal]

That's why I put "rules" in quotation marks in the original post. I understand that different people have different concepts of what those rules are. It seems like they are often defined in the context of each community of dancers, at least in AT.

 

[dchester]

That's why I put "rules" in quotation marks in the original post. I understand that different people have different concepts of what those rules are. It seems like they are often defined in the context of each community of dancers, at least in AT.

And this was why I suggested that we attempt to list what the rules are (I doubt we could agree on them). Before talking about breaking the rules, you'd have to know what rules you are breaking.

 

[newbie]

do you have to know the rules to break them?

I'm reading a book on/by Gavito and he says just that. "First you have to learn how to dance well. Then you have to learn to dance bad and to create your own dance."

 

[Steve Pastor]

Volcadas are not off axis; the axis is tilted (like earth's).

Agreed.
I think use of the word "axis" results in confusion because most people assume that it refers to a vertical axis.

 

[AndaBien]

Agreed.
I think use of the word "axis" results in confusion because most people assume that it refers to a vertical axis.

You're right, there is confusion. When people refer to "shared axis", I believe they are referring to a vertical one. A single person only has one axis, and it can't be shared.

 

[dchester]

You're right, there is confusion. When people refer to "shared axis", I believe they are referring to a vertical one. A single person only has one axis, and it can't be shared.

Most dancers aren't physicists, so that's why some of the terminology gets confused. Possibly the "axis" that some are referring to is the "line" that the object/body rotates on (the classic definition of axis). When two objects join to form one combined object, it could have a shared axis (although this makes more sense when talking about a colgada, than when walking).

A lot of the time though, I think people are actually trying to talk about the center of gravity (and thus balance), when they are saying their axis. In any case, as long as people understand the actual technique that is being conveyed, it's not all that important which word is used.

 

[AndaBien]

In any case, as long as people understand the actual technique that is being conveyed, it's not all that important which word is used.

Very true, but we have confusion because people use the same work to have various different meanings. And then when people like members of this forum start arguing about semantics... How do we define "tango"? What do we mean by "milonguero"?

 

[JohnEm]

Most dancers aren't physicists, so that's why some of the terminology gets confused. Possibly the "axis" that some are referring to is the "line" that the object/body rotates on (the classic definition of axis). When two objects join to form one combined object, it could have a shared axis (although this makes more sense when talking about a colgada, than when walking).

A lot of the time though, I think people are actually trying to talk about the center of gravity (and thus balance), when they are saying their axis. In any case, as long as people understand the actual technique that is being conveyed, it's not all that important which word is used.

It matters a lot what words we use and consistency matters too.
Your post in itself typifies the problem. You are say the words we use don't matter but understanding does yet you also start guessing what other people think they might mean.

It's no wonder teaching and learning this dance can be difficult if the meaning of such a regularly used word is open to so much different interpretation.

But in actual fact the use of axis in tango seems to be clear - at least to me.

It isn't a virtual point around which a couple pivots, that may qualify in physics to be the axis if you treat both bodies rotating as one complete whole. Usually they are not rotating that consistently and in giros often the man is the pivot point of the whole partnership. So on balance(!) - that's just confusing.

In Tango, surely it is the axis around which a dancer individually pivots and refers to the practice of standing on one leg, moving from one leg to another and creating a new axis of balance each time the weight is changed from leg to leg? Teachers certainly use this capability for dancer assessment as the ability to be in balance and dynamically maintain balance in the walk is fundamental.

Incidentally I always think a shared axis is almost as big an oxymoron as the term open embrace. If I embrace someone openly, I'm giving them a hug in public!

Shared axis used loosely to describe apilado is just as confusing. The appearance of weight sharing is an illusion to onlookers. The couple are each responsible for their own axis, if they aren't the dancers become heavy on each other and weigh each other down. It's practicality as well as reality that demands that each dancer is in control of their own individual balance no matter what the embrace. Yes there are the exaggerated choreographed show moves but that's different, in fact they seem to be more often statically posed for photographs.

Now are we agreed for once? Somehow I doubt it!

 

[Peaches]

It matters a lot what words we use and consistency matters too.
Your post in itself typifies the problem. You are say the words we use don't matter but understanding does yet you also start guessing what other people think they might mean.

I'd say the words don't necessarily matter, so long as whoever is engaged in the discussion understands and agrees upon their meaning.

We can refer to our axis (for the moment leaving out the discussion of just what that is) as an axis or a line or we can go totally hog wild and decide that we want to call it a "snarx." It doesn't matter what word is actually used, just that we understand what we mean and use it consistently within the discussion. Therefore, it's useful to clarify meanings to make sure that everyone is on the same page.

You, for example, seem to have a slightly different idea of what an axis is than I do. Not a problem...unless we end up talking at cross purposes because we don't realize there's a difference. We could be calling it whatever we want (see: snarx), but axis is a sort-of-agreed-upon word/concept in AT. Whereas snarx is just a "word" which I'm finding particularly amusing at the moment.

But in actual fact the use of axis in tango seems to be clear - at least to me.

It isn't a virtual point around which a couple pivots, that may qualify in physics to be the axis if you treat both bodies rotating as one complete whole. [...snip...] In Tango, surely it is the axis around which a dancer individually pivots and refers to the practice of standing on one leg, moving from one leg to another and creating a new axis of balance each time the weight is changed from leg to leg?

Well, it may be perfectly clear to you, but others can have slightly different, yet related, understandings of the word. It's not so much an "actual fact" at all. See...

Incidentally I always think a shared axis is almost as big an oxymoron as the term open embrace.

Leaving aside the concept of an open embrace, because I refuse to play that game any longer, we differ on the idea of a shared axis being a logical impossibility. According to your definition, it makes total sense, because you are restricting your definition to the balance of one person dancing in a situation where they are entirely responsible for their own balance. They may be in close embrace, but still standing perfectly well on their own. However...

Shared axis used loosely to describe apilado is just as confusing. The appearance of weight sharing is an illusion to onlookers. The couple are each responsible for their own axis, if they aren't the dancers become heavy on each other and weigh each other down. It's practicality as well as reality that demands that each dancer is in control of their own individual balance no matter what the embrace. Yes there are the exaggerated choreographed show moves but that's different, in fact they seem to be more often statically posed for photographs.

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.

Now are we agreed for once? Somehow I doubt it!

Absolutely not.

 

[dchester]

It matters a lot what words we use and consistency matters too.
Your post in itself typifies the problem. You are say the words we use don't matter but understanding does yet you also start guessing what other people think they might mean.

It's clear to me that you didn't fully understand my post, but after the experience with a prior poster here (not long ago), I don't plan to spend a lot of time here debating about semantics or the various meanings of words. You are free to think about axis (or any other term) as you see fit. I will express myself in the way that I prefer.

 

[Angel HI]

Let me attempt to clear a couple of 'fine' points.

1. We do not, or most of us sincerely try to not, argue meanings/terminologies here. Yet, for the sake of learning, helping, sharing, growing, we study all viewpoints of meanings, and, hopefully, settle on an agreement.

2. Words are important as long as they are being used for #1.

3. The probleme w/ axis is that I am not the only person who teaches that ther are 3 axes in AT; mine, her's, ours. I have a diagram that I use, but can't put it up right now. (if someone is interested, I'll do it later)

 

[bordertangoman]

I'd say the words don't necessarily matter, so long as whoever is engaged in the discussion understands and agrees upon their meaning.

We can refer to our axis (for the moment leaving out the discussion of just what that is) as an axis or a line or we can go totally hog wild and decide that we want to call it a "snarx." It doesn't matter what word is actually used, just that we understand what we mean and use it consistently within the discussion. Therefore, it's useful to clarify meanings to make sure that everyone is on the same page.

You, for example, seem to have a slightly different idea of what an axis is than I do. Not a problem...unless we end up talking at cross purposes because we don't realize there's a difference. We could be calling it whatever we want (see: snarx), but axis is a sort-of-agreed-upon word/concept in AT. Whereas snarx is just a "word" which I'm finding particularly amusing at the moment.

Well, it may be perfectly clear to you, but others can have slightly different, yet related, understandings of the word. It's not so much an "actual fact" at all. See...

Leaving aside the concept of an open embrace, because I refuse to play that game any longer, we differ on the idea of a shared axis being a logical impossibility. According to your definition, it makes total sense, because you are restricting your definition to the balance of one person dancing in a situation where they are entirely responsible for their own balance. They may be in close embrace, but still standing perfectly well on their own. However...

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.

Absolutely not.

I agree with all of this. Nice post.

 

[JohnEm]

I'd say the words don't necessarily matter, so long as whoever is engaged in the discussion understands and agrees upon their meaning.

However...

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.

You must live in a different reality to mine!

I am aware of that style when there is increased connection which you might call weight sharing and I certainly dance with a partner who likes to do that. But there aren't many people who do as it relies on even more body tone and balance for that matter.

However, physics dictates that every action has an equal and opposite reaction and the so-called weight sharing results in an equal and opposite force, perhaps we'll confusingly call it counter-balance, perhaps but it's really equal and opposite horizontal forces.
I am not carrying her weight, nor is she carrying mine.
As I said, it's an illusion.

The weight of each partner is still carried down his/her standing leg to the floor, there's nowhere else for it to go. As for independent balance, there better had be or one partner will be weighed down and won't last the dance. Can she independently change the weighted leg: she shouldn't of course but she can. Can I independently change my axis: too right I can every time I change the partnership from parallel to cross walking and back. Equally I can choose to change her axis independently (weighted leg if you want) or not.

I can understand the possibility of Angel Hi's diagram but I think possibly metaphors are being mixed. As I suspected this is all so pointless and I have some work to get back to!

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.

 

[bordertangoman]

You must live in a different reality to mine!

I am aware of that style when there is increased connection which you might call weight sharing and I certainly dance with a partner who likes to do that. But there aren't many people who do as it relies on even more body tone and balance for that matter.

However, physics dictates that every action has an equal and opposite reaction and the so-called weight sharing results in an equal and opposite force, perhaps we'll confusingly call it counter-balance, perhaps but it's really equal and opposite horizontal forces.
I am not carrying her weight, nor is she carrying mine.
As I said, it's an illusion.

.

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