Peaches
Well-Known Member
Oooh, I love that video!
Changing the embrace..pleasing or not?
- Thread starter Mario7
- Start date
Subliminal
Well-Known Member
*steals the song* More milonga music! (Dude, I need to find some more tangos I like. I think 60% of my practice list is now Vals and Milonga.)
Peaches
Well-Known Member
That means ~40% is tango. Not bad. 30/30/40.
Lui
Active Member
Bending your spin will give you a hunched posture. I don’t see that in Geraldine’s and Javier’s vid. If I take a look at this example I recognize the usual slight leaning forward in Javier’s dancing – starting from the ankles just as it should have been "impossible".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmcxgPhYtJ4&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmcxgPhYtJ4&feature=related
The problem is simply that you don't read carefully, sorry
Since quite a few people didn't understand you, perhaps blaming the readers is not particularly productive (or accurate?). This was not the only response you gave that was somewhat insulting to the person to whom it was addressed. It seems to me you could make your point without these sorts of comments.
If you were intending to be funny or joking, it's not reading that way to me.
Peaches
Well-Known Member
Speaking only from personal experience, I could say that it could just be that she's female and has a butt. I can't tell you the number of times my teacher would stop and ask me if I was arching my back and not keeping my center toned...it didn't feel like it to him, but it looked like it in the mirror. After a couple of times of me telling him that, no, I was not arching my back, I was keeping my center toned, I was not sticking my butt out...he learned that I just have an a$$. I'd have to really tuck my pelvis under in order to not have that curve from my lower back to my butt. Heels don't help with this.
I'd wager that Geraldine has the same thing going on.
ETA: I think the look of her back is also exacerbated by her clothing. The bottom hem of her shirt stays level and straight, but the front of the skirt is a bit lower than the back. It's natural, it happens. It just accentuates the look of having her pelvis tilted back.
borisvian13
Member
Sorry, I stop with this topic here.
I use the language of basic mechanics and anatomy and I have defined precisely all terms mentioned in this language.
From the other side I hear only self-referential highly ambiguous "tango" jargon of the type "I mean what I mean, what my teacher meant to mean", etc.
For example, I asked several times for a definition of what "leaning from the ankles" should mean. There was no response.
You can't define it, but you're all convinced that it's true
If you can't define the expressions you use in standard mechanical/geometrical terms, I really don't see a common ground for discussion.
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.
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
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.
And off topic for the thread, which was about changing the embrace, not the semantics of how to do/describe one specific embrace.
Mario7
Member
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.
I was unable to get on the board for most of this week and I really missed it. Now I have to wonder why...