Cristina is not the perfect dancer. Sometimes she does wrong. Even the best dancers may do wrong. Like in figure skating, you can't be right all times. The technique is difficult otherwise there wouldn't be competitions. Look closely at the video on Murat posted a while ago. He does clearly wrong when he turns around his partner. If you can't see what's wrong, then it can't be helped. I can't explain the differences between red and green to daltonien people.
Close embrace
- Thread starter Shaka
- Start date
Cristina is not the perfect dancer. Sometimes she does wrong. Even the best dancers may do wrong. Like in figure skating, you can't be right all times. The technique is difficult otherwise there wouldn't be competitions. Look closely at the video on Murat posted a while ago. He does clearly wrong when he turns around his partner. If you can't see what's wrong, then it can't be helped. I can't explain the differences between red and green to daltonien people.
Your premise assumes that the pelvis remains in a static position throughout the movement of the foot. It does, in the particular movement you describe, but it doesn't in many dance movements. There isn't a fixed point from which you can describe a movement such as a cross (for example), other (arguably) than the line of dance (or the room) depending on your chosen vocabulary - because it isn't going anywhere and the body is in movement.
A formal technique could usefully incorporate such concepts: there's no need to reinvent the wheel.
Ampster
Active Member
American euphemism: It means it is very ordinary. Nothing special. Very basic... Just like vanilla bean ice cream.
Ah yes, that makes more sense. So it's plain, not fancy.
Ampster
Active Member
Do you have a video of yourself demonstrating it as you say it should be? You're very vocal about it. So I assume you can demonstrate it to us? You describe it as if your such an expert. Show us, please. I want to see you do it.
If you can't post a video, send the links to me and I'll post them for you.
In most dances and especially in argentine tango, there are 4 directions to where you should move your legs: at 3, 6, 9 and 12 o'oclock relatively to your pelvis. What I mean by moving your leg is actually moving the upper part of the leg, the one above the knee. The one below the knee is free: you can cross, initiate ganchos, and so on. When doing planeos you actually send your leg at 12 then make a circular movement until 3 (or 9 depending on the leg) *but* no more than that. You should not go to, say, 5 before foot replacement or side stepping. You can of course add pivots while doing planeos which change the direction of the pelvis.
There are exceptions like in latin cha-cha where a forward step may be combined with a hip action. In such cases there's a move of the pelvis that has to be considered.
What you are talking about is foot pattern. This is different from the direction taken by the legs.
I don't know if this is part of the language barrier or it is actually your true attitude, but what is happening here is that you have a personal preference. You like the look of a certain way. You define that as being the most elegant way. (That's debatable in itself since beauty is in the eye of the beholder however, it is perfectly valid for you to feel that way and have that opinion)
Because you have a personal preference (and can I emphasize PERSONAL?) based on what you like to see, you are saying all other options are "wrong" or "incorrect."
That is simply not the case. "Wrong" and "Incorrect" are not the correct words to use for what you are expressing. So maybe this is a language issue. It is simply not true to call other styles "wrong". It is not true that doing them the way you don't like to see them means doing them "incorrectly".
These are not proper uses of those words.
Your view and opinion are subjective. Words like wrong and incorrect imply something that is objective. (If you aren't sure of the difference in these terms in English, you should look them up because they are at the heart of this whole thread)
There is no objective measure when trying to define one style by the form of another style, and even less measure when trying to define "correct" using rules of another dance. It would be like saying Expressionism is incorrect or wrong because it doesn't look like Impressionism. Or that the Impressionists were "wrong" because they don't look like DaVinci. You can argue that you like DaVinci better. You can argue that his painting are more realistic. YOu can even say they are more elegant. But you can't call the later movements "wrong". Picasso isn't "incorrect" just because he broke away from proper form and perspective or because his painting aren't as "pretty" as DaVinci's.
In addition.. you seem to be saying that the Argentine Milongueros, who are supposedly what "Milonguero style" is named for (and who are also the grandfathers of all that came after them in AT) are doing milonguero ochos incorrectly. That in fact, they are dancing Argentine Tango "wrong".
That makes NO sense!
How can the people who invented a style or move (or dance) being executing it incorrectly? That's like saying Lutz in skating is "wrong" and shouldn't be done because the guy who invented it was basically doing a Flip "incorrectly".
I appreciate but no need for that. Look at Homer doing then Murat. See the differences? I'm not talking about style or physical attributes. Just focus on the movements of the legs relatively to the pelvis.
I thought you said in an earlier post that you were right because you could explain why one dancer is better than another?
Seriously... the problem is not that we are color blind. It IS with your explanations, and possibly with your understanding of AT.
I could just as easily say that YOU are daltonian and that's why I can't explain it to YOU.
You don't get a pass from being clear by blaming the person you are talking to and deciding they aren't capable of understanding because of some fundamental flaw on their part that you can't help.
What mind-boggling arrogance!
You are right, but you don't have to explain CLEARLY because WE are incapable of understanding? The ENTIRE Argentine Tango Forum?
Guess it's not a language barrier after all.. you're just unable to do anything but repeat and/or contradict yourself. (so now Christina is doing them wrong too? You use her as an example and when I talk about how she proves my point, you backtrack? You should be a politician!)
What rubbish! It certainly isn't true of tango, and I can't think of another style where it would be a credible claim either. The one I know the most about, uses 16 points of a circle to describe direction, not 4 (and only really stops there, because few people have enough motor control to use smaller parts of a circle in a controlled way).
It is daft to try and define or, worse, prescribe any one dance style by reference to any other (although there are lots of shared concepts and vocabulary that can be useful, but that's different). Your musings on this thread have strayed, in passing, across quite a few dance genres, but what you write about any of them (as far as I can tell, and I know MUCH more about most of them than I do about tango) have brightened up what was otherwise a rather dull afternoon, but really, there are limits.
My post was to simply illustrate how the foot travels off the pelvic perpendicular when a follower is walked to a cross. Naturally it's not that static, but that IS pretty much what that part of the step feels like. The alternative is that her pelvis is already no longer perpendicular to the previous steps, in which case the same point applies. The line formed by the foot's path is diagonal to the line of the pelvis at SOME point in the walk to the cross.
It sounds from what you say here that your definition of "diagonal" relates to the LOD rather than the pelvis. In which case, you've opened up a whole 'nuther can of worms regarding whether one should ever take "diagonal" steps.
Well, from someone who thinks that in standard dances the leg is not to be moved before the body, I think I have no lessons to take from you. And if you're tired of debating, why are you back again and again?
Wish you good afternoon.
I still can't tell from your posts whether you are a follower or a leader. We talk about Christina and we want you to tell us why she isn't doing them right so you revert to talking about Murat and Homer.
Who is going wrong in the video of H and C? The leader or the follower? If Christina isn't doing them right, what is SHE doing wrong? Why do you answer that question with another exhortation for us to watch Murat? Why will comparing Murat and Homer tell us anything about what Christina herself needs to fix?
In other words, why can't you actually EXPLAIN any of this instead of telling us over and over to watch this person or that person and then call us disabled that we can't see it ourselves?
I hope to God you don't teach!
