Close embrace

[bastet]

You may do a backward ocho the way you want but what I'm telling from the beginning is that sending back the leg diagonally (what I see too often) is not the most elegant way. Look at how Cristina Ladas is performing in milonguero. She's doing right by dissociating first before making the step. That should be the only way to make backward ochos whether you are in open or close embrace. You may be told by instructors to just cross your legs in milonguero but that's just because it would be too difficult for an average dancer to do it properly.

Chiming in here...unfortunately. Shaka, I have had classes with Homer and Christina that specifically dealt with different flavors of ochos where she specifically told the followers to follow the guys torso and told the followers to "truncate" the ochos if no pivot was led...her words verbatum and proceeded to have Homer lead them both ways....both are correct and depends entirely on what the leader is leading.

 

[Dave Bailey]

I know that a cross can be led from almost any position, and that, with skill, can seem to be created out of almost nothing. (I can't do it, but I accept that more experienced leaders can). I think I know that the follower never crosses (indepentantly), but that the cross is created by the leader. The follower 'crosses' because it is where her moving foot ends up in the position in which she finds herself. It is natural, comfortable and easy. Not to cross would be unnatural, uncomfortable and difficult.

Sounds about right to me.

But seriously, why does the follower cross? I looked at the structure of the 8CB, and having missed out the backstep, took the sidestep to my left, a little wider than my partner, and with a fair bit of body rotation to my right, and then led her back by stepping forward with a marked left side lead from my own torso, while moving straight down the line of dance. I put a little additional acceleration into my fourth step (LF), slightly disturbing my partner's balance, and then as I moved to my own close, hopefully communicating a cessation of forward intention together with the reversal of my initial body rotation, my partner took the opportunity to recover her own balance by the cruzada. I set it up: she just stepped back. But it was back - not consciously diagonal, and had it not been for that rotation, led while her foot was in movement, the feet would have passed, and we would have carried on down the floor.

I still fail to see why this is not a diagonal movement. In a traditional 8CB cross, she steps back and to the side in one movement. She has to - otherwise it's not a cross. And it's not a "lower-leg only" decoration, as this would not allow a transfer of weight...

 

[Dave Bailey]

Thats just as 'complicated' as my version, isn't it - but I think describes the same process? And can you get along without being able to describe what you're doing? My description might be incomplete, or inaccurate or misleading, but if I am in front of a class I doubt it will help my beginners to say that the lady can just cross without using any terminology that might suggest how? Visual learners may be able to accurately observe the process and mimic it, but much AT lead is too subtle to be obviously visible to others, even if they knew what they were looking for, and beginners, by definition, don't.

I totally agree that teaching the cross is tricky - but that's because there are lots of ways to lead it. There's a "lifting", a "separating", a "dissociating", and probably a triple backflip for all I know...

 

[Peaches]

As a trained teacher I profoundly disagree. A competent teacher needs to be able to address the varied learning styles of a whole class, and cannot rely on the methods that will be of most use to visual learners. I have to deliver my instruction in a way that works for all - which means using a variety of methods, usually, a one-size-fits-all method is a cop out.

However I deliver my material/instruction (although my post wasn't really about how to teach this action), I have to understand what I am doing, or asking my partner to do, before I can do it. My thinking was about the mechanics of a 'diagonal' step into the cruzada, and it is obvious, from what I wrote, that I am not convinced that the movement is diagonal.

Partly, this is because of the particular meaning that I attribute to the idea of a diagonal step, based on my training in formal Ballroom technique. I think if Dave Bailey & I were in conversation, we would immediately realise that we both used the words to mean something different, and that we could readily agree about the actual physical movement involved. For me, if I describe a step as being diagonally forward, I mean that the position of one foot in relation to the other foor at the end of the (moving phase of the) step is as far to the side as it is forward, but that says nothing, directly, about the direction in which the foot moved in order to arrive at that finished position.

My contention is that the foot doesn't move diagonally (at least, not deliberately), but I expect I'm wrong!

Uh...sorry to be dense, but which foot are people debating that does/does not move diagonally in the cross? The back (diagonal?) step with the right foot (typically), or the actually crossing over with the left foot (typically)?

Seems to me, both can be diagonal...depending on what is led, and depending on how you define diagonal.

I would argue with you, though, about your description of the woman losing/recovering her balance in the process of the cross. Unless there is a difference in terminology...uh, no. At no point do we ladies lose our balance in the cross...unless something has gone wrong.

 

[UKDancer]

I totally agree that teaching the cross is tricky - but that's because there are lots of ways to lead it. There's a "lifting", a "separating", a "dissociating", and probably a triple backflip for all I know...

Ha Ha - the 'Playtex' method (that's showing my age!) .

I suppose what I am thinking about the 'diagonal' business is that while it is quite true and obviously necessary that there is a sideways component to the track of the moving foot into a cross, the predominant direction of the foot's movement is 'back'. The sideways bit comes, mainly, from the change in rotation (and 'lift', where its been used), but that 'diagonal' (to me, anyway) means in a position moving to the side at c45 degrees to the line of dance (ie as much to the side as back), and to make such a movement requires an intention to go that way from the first movement of the foot to the weight change, whereas the follower just places her foot where it was led while walking backwards.

 

[UKDancer]

Uh...sorry to be dense, but which foot are people debating that does/does not move diagonally in the cross? The back (diagonal?) step with the right foot (typically), or the actually crossing over with the left foot (typically)?

I have assumed that we are talking about the LF step into the cross (ie LF moving back to cross in front of RF. Perhaps my previous post better explains my discomfort with the idea of the step being 'diagonal'.

I would argue with you, though, about your description of the woman losing/recovering her balance in the process of the cross. Unless there is a difference in terminology...uh, no. At no point do we ladies lose our balance in the cross...unless something has gone wrong.

You do misunderstand me: and that's probably my fault. What I meant was than the man sets up a slight imbalance in the preceding step, which the follower, quite properly responds to by adjusting the following step (into the cross) precisely so as not to be unbalanced - which is exactly what the man intended. Of course, that could just be a bad way to lead a cross!

 

[Peaches]

I suppose what I am thinking about the 'diagonal' business is that while it is quite true and obviously necessary that there is a sideways component to the track of the moving foot into a cross,

Ah...there's that question answered.

and to make such a movement requires an intention to go that way from the first movement of the foot to the weight change, whereas the follower just places her foot where it was led while walking backwards.

Well, the guy has got to have that sort of intention from the start, or else the lead is all screwed up. But as for the followers...you could say that everything we do is just placing our foot where it was led while we were walking. Everything, eventually, is just a take on that. Everything, eventually, is just a collection of simple steps and/or simple pivots. All of it is us just placing our foot.

 

[Peaches]

You do misunderstand me: and that's probably my fault. What I meant was than the man sets up a slight imbalance in the preceding step, which the follower, quite properly responds to by adjusting the following step (into the cross) precisely so as not to be unbalanced - which is exactly what the man intended.

Sorry. Still no. I cross because I am led to take a back step with my right foot, and then I am led in such amanner that the path of my left foot moves in front of my placed right. No imbalance...just the direction of the lead, same as with every other step. If there is imbalance happening, something has gone wrong. Assuming we are both dancing on our own axes*, there is no point during the cross where the leader cannot move away from me and I will be totally fine on my own. It is not much different than any other step that way.

*DO NOT START, PEOPLE. Those of you who know what I am talking about, you know I'm probably not addressing that to you. But I'm not getting into that discussion. Again. If you have no clue what I'm talking about...again, I'm not talking to you.

 

[UKDancer]

Everything, eventually, is just a collection of simple steps and/or simple pivots. All of it is us just placing our foot.

That's very true, from a follower's perspective, and I'm perfectly well aware that you do not intend to mean that the leader can also 'just' place his foot in that natural way. It wouldn't make much of a dance!

The issue (and it's my hangup - I appreciate that it isn't bothering anyone else (but I have seen off the troll)) is the use of words. Its nearly always the words. To anyone with a background in other dance styles, there is room for confusion. As far as I'm concerned, tango dancers never pivot, but they swivel all the time. I know what a pivot is, and it's something else! Equally, a 'diagonal' step has a particular meaning, and I don't see one here. Words, words, words ....

 

[Peaches]

That's very true, from a follower's perspective, and I'm perfectly well aware that you do not intend to mean that the leader can also 'just' place his foot in that natural way. It wouldn't make much of a dance!

The issue (and it's my hangup - I appreciate that it isn't bothering anyone else (but I have seen off the troll)) is the use of words. Its nearly always the words. To anyone with a background in other dance styles, there is room for confusion. As far as I'm concerned, tango dancers never pivot, but they swivel all the time. I know what a pivot is, and it's something else! Equally, a 'diagonal' step has a particular meaning, and I don't see one here. Words, words, words ....

Fine. But accept that that is ballroom terminology, which you prefer, but which tends not to be the norm here in this forum. Use your definition of diagonal and pivot vs. swivel all you want in the ballroom forum, but don't come in here and start stuff because the norm in the AT world doesn't conform to what you feel it should be based on the ballroom world.

You know what a pivot is, and it's something else, eh? How much more arrogant can you get?

 

[UKDancer]

Fine. But accept that that is ballroom terminology, which you prefer, but which tends not to be the norm here in this forum. Use your definition of diagonal and pivot vs. swivel all you want in the ballroom forum, but don't come in here and start stuff because the norm in the AT world doesn't conform to what you feel it should be based on the ballroom world.

You know what a pivot is, and it's something else, eh? How much more arrogant can you get?

I'm not 'starting' anything, and you're free to respond, or not, as you wish.

I'm not trying to convert anyone to my terminology either (and it's not mine, anyway), but your suggestion that there is a norm here is just mistaken. Tango dancers have no norms about which they can agree on just about any topic they may choose to discuss or debate.

I'll bid you a good afternoon.

 

[Zoopsia59]

tango dancers never pivot, but they swivel all the time. I know what a pivot is, and it's something else! ....

I'm curious... what is meant by "pivot" that is different in other dances? I've never heard the term swivel, I don't think. (maybe in a swing class?) I have a vague memory of hearing pivot in ballroom, but I can't remember how it was different from a tango pivot.

I haven't taken many actual ballroom classes. I go to dances sometimes, and my ability to follow developed from tango allows me to keep up with the lower level leaders, and advanced dancers are able to lead and adjust themselves well enough that my lack of formal training is ok (Im sure I'm not their preferred partner though!) Basically, once I discovered tango, I dropped ballroom rather quickly although Viennese Waltz is still just about my favorite dance.

 

[dchester]

I'm not trying to convert anyone to my terminology either

IMO, you come across like you are, thus people respond that way. If you honestly aren't trying to convert people to your (or whoever's) terminology then you might reconsider your style of communication here.

As for me personally, I have no interest in the ballroom definition of terms (like pivot). I'll take you at your word that it has a different meaning in that environment. However if someday I do get curious about it, I'll go to a ballroom forum to learn about it. Also, if I go there, I won't be lecturing people about what various terms mean in tango. IMO, that would not be the best strategy for winning friends.

 

[Shaka]

Guys, too much headaches for little

I was only concerned about milonguero ochos. I've just said that Cristina is doing right because her dissociation is clear and occurs first prior to moving the leg. More than average followers are doing wrong. If you can't see the differences between Cristina's technique and others' then it can't be helped. It's like trying to show the differences between red and green to daltonien people.

Cruzada is *not* a diagonal step. It's just a cross foot replacement.

 

[UKDancer]

I'm curious... what is meant by "pivot" that is different in other dances? I've never heard the term swivel, I don't think. (maybe in a swing class?) I have a vague memory of hearing pivot in ballroom, but I can't remember how it was different from a tango pivot.

For the eyes of the curious ONLY - and in answer to a direct question ....

A (Natural) Pivot: By definition, "A turn to the right on the ball of the LF holding the RF in front in contrary body movement position".

Pivots are usually danced by the man, stepping backwards, while lady dances the counterpart, a Pivoting Action (A turn to the right on the ball of the RF, the LF NOT held in CBMP). The turn is executed on the ball of foot, but the feet are not closed, but apart.

There is no real basis for comparison with AT, as AT does not (to the best of the writer's knowledge) have a concept of contrary body movement (from which the related foot position is derived). To a casual observer, a series of repeated pivots can look as though man and lady are rocking backwards and forwards, with their feet apart, turning about a 1/2 turn on each step, and thus moving along the line of dance, taking it in turns to take forward and backward steps, each time turning around each other, on a spot created by the closely placed feet between them. That's not an accurate description of what is happening, mechanically, but that's what it looks like.

A 'swivel' is like an AT forward step with pivot, the turn is on the balls of feet, with the feet together. In AT (to the best of the writer's knowledge), this action can be danced forwards or backwards. The defined tango technique of at least one teaching society makes the equivalence explicit between a 'ballroom' swivel and a tango 'pivot', and my saying so will now probably be the cue for someone, predictably, to post that the teaching societies should mind their own business etc. If they do, don't expect me to respond. The bait doesn't taste agreeable.

It doesn't surprise me in the least that you can get around a ballroom floor, as a tango follower, because you have nearly all the tools to succeed. Lead & follow is the essence of ballroom dancing (but most of the people who try it, can't do it very well), but it remains of the essence. If you establish a connection with someone who can lead, you'll be amazed at what might happen next (just like tango ). Unfortunately, if your main interest is in Viennese Waltz, your opportunities to 'pivot' are very limited, because the standardised figures do not use the action. However, outside the constraints of international style competition (where only the standardised figures are permissable), it is perfectly acceptable to dance a series of natural pivots, and their use in the 123 123 rhythm create a new rhythm 12 31 23, which is great fun to try.