Changing the embrace..pleasing or not?

Subliminal

Well-Known Member
I would counter that the exact opposite is true. Leaning from the ankles is crystal clear. It means exactly what it means: when standing still, you are actually physically bending in the ankles. I will clarify, when you are actually walking, a whole lot of other things are going on. But at the point of the transfer of axis, or at rest with no movement, you are leaning from the ankle.

Leaning from the torso on the other hand is physically impossible, and I assume is just a metaphor and a way to encourage someone to push forward with their entire body.
 

Peaches

Well-Known Member
I would counter that the exact opposite is true. Leaning from the ankles is crystal clear. It means exactly what it means: when standing still, you are actually physically bending in the ankles. I will clarify, when you are actually walking, a whole lot of other things are going on. But at the point of the transfer of axis, or at rest with no movement, you are leaning from the ankle.

Leaning from the torso on the other hand is physically impossible, and I assume is just a metaphor and a way to encourage someone to push forward with their entire body.
Perhaps the objection was to the idea of maintaining that acute angle between the foot and calf throughout the entire step??? That's about the only explanation I've been able to come up with to justify the objection. Shrug. In that case...yeah, I guess there's a point. You can't keep your feet at the same angle relative to your lower legs throughout...well, anything.

Perhaps a better explanation is to bend forward from the ankles, such that the weight is brought over the arch/ball of foot (or somewhere in that vicinity--point being, not directly over heels, and not falling forward), and the weight is generally maintained over the arch/ball of the standing foot throughout the duration of any movement? As a matter of course, this involves articulation of the foot and ankle, such that the angle will never remain the same?

Eh? Dunno. I'm grasping here. (And pretty much don't give a $#!7 anymore, and kicking myself for actually trying to contribute to what I thought was a potentially useful conversation, instead of just staying off the AT board entirely.) Seems the actual point under discussion was one hell of a moving target.
 
Well, I can't help but make a comment here about 'falling forward'. I could post videos that show older milongueros falling forward (in a way) once they have the lean that they want and once they are getting some weight from the woman. It always gave me the impression that falling forward in such a circumstance was OK, especially since they were about to land on a straight up, verticle leg. So, there is the paradox; what would be 'impossible' or clumsy in 'normal' walking, may be the very Art of the apilado dance itself.
 
Borisvian, whatever is your definition of leaning with torso and whatever is your position in the space, if you can stay balanced alone it necessarly means that you are not sharing weight at all.

This is a basic mechanical concept: if your center of mass is above the area between your feet, then you can stay balanced alone, otherwise you need someone else to support part of your weight, and the amount of shared weight depends on the leaning.

Hence, if the leaning is very little, you can dance without sharing weight: you just have to keep your center of mass (which is NOT ALWAYS in the pelvis area, but depends on your position!) over your feet.
Probably this is what you mean by "leaning is an illusion", and this is what are apparently doing Geraldine and Javier in the video. They are wonderful, but it doesn't mean that this is the only way to dance tango.
Actually you can dance with weight sharing as well.

In the following video, the same dancer, Geraldine, is dancing with Gavito, seamlessly alternating CE,OE, with and without weight sharing.


[yt]<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/N01TpzQb2Oo_o&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/N01TpzQb2Oo_o&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
[/yt]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N01TpzQb2Oo
 

Zoopsia59

Well-Known Member
Probably this is what you mean by "leaning is an illusion", and this is what are apparently doing Geraldin and Javier in the video. .
To me, there is not even an illusion of lean in that video. It seems to me they are both clearly on their own balance and not sharing weight at all.
 

Zoopsia59

Well-Known Member
Thank you. I get it. It looks like "Milonguero" to me— minus the embellishments, of course.
It does not look like what I would call milonguero but that's ok. To each his own.

Personally I can't dance with my legs perpendicular to the floor and my lower back arched as a way to get my chest to make contact. Its painful. I have seen videos of Geraldine where her use of that type of posture is far more exaggerated than this one however.
 

Zoopsia59

Well-Known Member
the embrace isn't 'milonguero' in my opinion (not close enough) but the dance is milonguero inspired... imo
To me its more of a modified Salon V. that Milongueor

Not quite as much V angle as is often seen in a V, but not as parallel as milonguero, and her head is facing more to her right than past his right ear.)
 

Ampster

Active Member
To me its more of a modified Salon V. that Milongueor

Not quite as much V angle as is often seen in a V, but not as parallel as milonguero, and her head is facing more to her right than past his right ear.)
Just as a point of reference, the more you dance and the more you immerse yourself in tango, the more muddled (and melded) the definitions of these things are. Sometimes, even becoming synonymous to a "feeling," rather than just a technique.
 

Zoopsia59

Well-Known Member
Just as a point of reference, the more you dance and the more you immerse yourself in tango, the more muddled (and melded) the definitions of these things are. Sometimes, even becoming synonymous to a "feeling," rather than just a technique.
Well, yes... but I'm not the one who tried to define what it is... I was just responding. :p

As for what "feeling" it is, I wouldn't want to hazard a guess as to what "style" someone else is "feeling". (and without sound on my computer when I watched the video, I can only talk about the way it LOOKS.) I think the old milongueros would agree that tango is a feeling. However, I think they would dispute the idea that one could be in just about any embrace and dance the "feeling" of the tango of the old milongueros.

Me, I don't dispute what others say they feel. But I find it impossible to determine for someone else just by watching them in a 3"x5" video. So that leaves me with discussing technique.
 

Ampster

Active Member
Well, yes... but I'm not the one who tried to define what it is... I was just responding. :p

As for what "feeling" it is, I wouldn't want to hazard a guess as to what "style" someone else is "feeling". (and without sound on my computer when I watched the video, I can only talk about the way it LOOKS.) I think the old milongueros would agree that tango is a feeling. However, I think they would dispute the idea that one could be in just about any embrace and dance the "feeling" of the tango of the old milongueros.

Me, I don't dispute what others say they feel. But I find it impossible to determine for someone else just by watching them in a 3"x5" video. So that leaves me with discussing technique.
Precisely! Told you it all gets to muddled after a while. It's a beautiful thing, isn't it? :D
 

Dance Ads