Close embrace

[JohnEm]

Your teachers are trying to accommodate natural reticence in order to avoid
the consequences of the close embrace putting off pupils. The teacher should
be trying to find ways of acclimatising people to the embrace.

Any suggestions?

Yes of course: Shut up and get on with it!

In my earlier tango days learning fantasia/modern/choreographed tango
(then I knew no better) an experienced dancer helping out wanted me
to be the man while he showed the lady's steps. Seeing my reticence,
his retort was "Just get on with it". I just did!

Joking aside, with no teaching aspirations I don't have any suggestions
other than a gradual acclimatisation and encouragement.

No-one said Tango is easy and I'm sure that teaching it isn't either.
But I do think it is being made unnecessarily more difficult for teachers,
pupils and dancers having such a diversity of views and resultant styles.

 

[shutterbox]

Is this term in the vocabulary of tango after all?

Hm...I've heard a greek follower who lives in BA use the term swivel. Perhaps its just different vocab for different languages?

Just like the term open embrace doesnt make sense in my dance community.

 

[UKDancer]

Yes of course: Shut up and get on with it!

Yes, the brute force method has much to commend it from the point of view of economy of effort, but I suspect that the handful that then returned to the second class would be too few in number to cover the rent on the hall.

I don't pretend to know an answer either, but I'd be interested if any teacher wants to share how they do it (successfully).

 

[UKDancer]

Hm...I've heard a greek follower who lives in BA use the term swivel. Perhaps its just different vocab for different languages?

Just like the term open embrace doesnt make sense in my dance community.

I don't think it's a language thing, but while swivel is clearly used (but perhaps not commonly) in tango as an equivalent or alternative to pivot, pivoting in the world outside tango means something distinctively different. It's a shame (and I put it no more strongly, and I'm not picking an arguement with anyone) that dance (in the widest sense) can't share a common vocabulary for similar actions.

As for open embrace, this too is easily misunderstood by those who come, particularly, from a Latin background. My teaching society uses the expressions 'Close Embrace' and 'Very Close Embrace', which is, perhaps preferable, but is still rather awkward language.

 

[Dave Bailey]

Any suggestions?

For teaching? Simply say exactly that - in traditional, it's a close-embrace dance, get used to it. I find it's helpful if I occasionally demonstrate the follower part in close embrace with a man, that seems to break down barriers.

Failing that, group hugs

 

[Madahlia]

For teaching? Simply say exactly that - in traditional, it's a close-embrace dance, get used to it. I find it's helpful if I occasionally demonstrate the follower part in close embrace with a man, that seems to break down barriers.

Failing that, group hugs

I have experienced it being taught by group hugs! It helped. A bit.

It also helps to have it recognised that it's hard, it requires work and that it doesn't just magically come right without thought and effort.

 

[dchester]

I have been told, very firmly, that the closeness of the embrace is the follower's decision, not the leaders. If that is true (is it?), then all a man can do is invite a follower into an embrace and wait and see how close feels comfortable for her.

My opinion is that this is one of those "local" codes. Some places/teachers say the man sets the embrace, some say the woman sets it, and some say it's a collaboration. Obviously, if I feel the woman resisting close embrace, I'm not going to pressure her into it.

Any suggestions?

My thoughts on how to encourage close embrace in classes are:
1) In the course description, state that it will be close embrace.
2) At the first class, when teaching how to embrace, have people take turns hugging each other. I found this to be helpful when I was first starting out.

At milongas, just go for it, but if the partner resists, then just accommodate them. Sometimes this sparks a conversation with the follower. She may say something like, I'm not used to (or not experienced with) close embrace. To which I typically say, I find it to be much easier for the lead and follow. We can give it a try and if it doesn't work out, we can always open up the embrace.

 

[LoveTango]

Thank you Ampster. I now understand why people do wrong. That will be something I have to make my partners focus on. I'm glad I had that discussion.

Have a nice day too

I can't help it, but feel sorry for your partner.

 

[UKDancer]

My opinion is that this is one of those "local" codes.

You may very well be right about that. Certainly my tango has never travelled above 25 miles from home, to date, so I have no wider perspective. The only contributor, here, who I know shares my local scene (more or less) is Bordertangoman (I've seen him on FB as a friend of a friend). If he happens to see this, and would like to comment on the Midlands' norm, I'd be interested in his view.

 

[jantango]

I have been told, very firmly, that the closeness of the embrace is the follower's decision, not the leaders. If that is true (is it?), then all a man can do is invite a follower into an embrace and wait and see how close feels comfortable for her.

At my stage of development, I'm not sure that a slightly open embrace doesn't actually make it easier to feel where my partner's weight is. To the extent that the arms are the antenae 'amplifying' the signal from the followers body, it gives me simple contact points to concentrate on, whereas fuller body contact generates too much information that I cannot (yet) tune into very well.

I learned and taught in my ballroom dancing days that it's the woman's decision how close to dance with a partner. Allowing the same practice at your local tango dance, all need to observe the dancing and decide which dancers would be comfortable and compatible with your dancing. A man who wants separation is in for a shock from a woman who presses her body close to his. It is not unusual for dancers at milongas in BsAs to watch the dancing for an hour or more before beginning to dance. Compatibility (height, size, style) is important in tango.

As you progress and bridge the gap in the embrace, you and your partners will find it easier to feel everything that is going on between the two of you. It's the only way for two to become one.

 

[Angel HI]

Before going on to your next point, my theory (because I think it's all it can be)
is that open giros did start with performance tango of some sort and
adopted for spacious "Golden Age" salon along possibly with open ochos.
Both I was taught are "owned" by the lady including the step timing
of the giro. "Her" ocho starts from the invitation by the man to move from
the collected position, she steps, collects and swivels 180deg, waits for
the next invitation or whatever may follow.

I've read somewhere that the name ocho came about from practising in
the dirt and the foot pattern left in it vaguely looked like a figure 8. The
lady's feet do roughly trace an 8 pattern from back cross to back cross.

But there is no swivel (nor pivot!) and as jantango says the movement
comes from the man's lead. It requires (Oh No!) body tone and connection.

I have no issue at all with the points made on positions/lead/follow. Soley for UKD's sake, however, as a newer dancer, it should be noted that chest-to-chest lead was not originally intended to mean an actual mashing of these body parts throughout the dance. It simply meant center. At his stage of learning, it could be very helpful.

Neither do I seek to get into vocabularies, the translations of words, and/or the differences in meanings of these terms as they transcend cultures. As a linguist, we can do that later. What I meant was that there is a minute rotation of the feet in most cases during the molinete. It has been/is seen danced flat-footedly, that is to say, by simply placing the foot, but it is not as comfortable. The lady is dancing around the man. To dance a circle without some sort of rotation of the feet would result in an awkward positioning of the legs.

Again, let me stress that I am not contesting anything that has been written. My points were just that, to a beginning dancer (or, seemingly for UDK's clarity), some of the post/s maight have been a wee confusing.

As I've said earlier, the dance we're getting is the product of the modern age.

You're a ballroom dancer, arm leads are what you know
and what you're comfortable with.

1- Some of what we get is the product of the modern age. As Jan constantly touts loudly at every opportunity, what she gets is from the earlier/more authntic age. Mch of what I received in my earlier studies was, as well. Having said that, I believe that I understand what you mean... that the dance has simply evolved, and what we dacne today is a product of that evolution.

2- As UDK mentioned, and I am ecstatic to hear it, good ballroom is not arm controlled either. The rigidity, as you put it, of the topline is for aesthetics and movement, and its only role in leading/following is the accommodation of said movement. When I learned, we had to dance with 33rpm records held between us by our bodies, and without an arm/hand hold. And, yes, we had to pay for every one that dropped and broke.

 

[UKDancer]

I have no issue at all with the points made on positions/lead/follow. Soley for UKD's sake, however, as a newer dancer, it should be noted that chest-to-chest lead was not originally intended to mean an actual mashing of these body parts throughout the dance. It simply meant center. At his stage of learning, it could be very helpful.

So as not to misunderstand, are you saying that that was an historical position, because my (limited) experience of very close embrace is actual contact at the level of the upper chest (so depending on the lady's 'build', often nipple to nipple too). It doesn't bother me. I got used to the BR feeling of having a woman virtually sitting in my crotch a long time ago - boobs are much less, well ...

As I mentioned before, I think I slightly prefer a more open embrace, mainly to limit the information received, the better to tune into it.

 

[newbie]

I have been told, very firmly, that the closeness of the embrace is the follower's decision, not the leaders. If that is true (is it?),

It is not. The distance/closeness is part of the leading. Move to the right. Stop. Come closer. Now backwards. Again. Cross. Take one step forward. Loosen the embrace. Make a front boleo. Pivot and move backwards. Backwards again. Come closer.
Btw, as a leader who likes to change the closeness a lot within a song, I am very often annoyed by followers who keep staying glued once they're in close embrace, while the opposite (the follower who stays at range) is a rarity.

 

[JohnEm]

Btw, as a leader who likes to change the closeness a lot within a song, I am very often annoyed by followers who keep staying glued once they're in close embrace, while the opposite (the follower who stays at range) is a rarity.

Blimey! Don't we all have so many different ideas and preferences.
But annoyed?

 

[JohnEm]

I have no issue at all with the points made on positions/lead/follow. Soley for UKD's sake, however, as a newer dancer, it should be noted that chest-to-chest lead was not originally intended to mean an actual mashing of these body parts throughout the dance. It simply meant center. At his stage of learning, it could be very helpful.

I don't know where you get that from as I suspect any intention in the
evolution of tango was entirely unintentional. It is true it shouldn't
be a clamp but that is entirely my opinion and some of my partners
I know from experience have experienced my clamping which itself
was entirely unintentional. You have to learn to be toned and relaxed.

Neither do I seek to get into vocabularies, the translations of words, and/or the differences in meanings of these terms as they transcend cultures. As a linguist, we can do that later. What I meant was that there is a minute rotation of the feet in most cases during the molinete. It has been/is seen danced flat-footedly, that is to say, by simply placing the foot, but it is not as comfortable. The lady is dancing around the man. To dance a circle without some sort of rotation of the feet would result in an awkward positioning of the legs.

Leaving aside that my lack of swivel point was about back crossing ochos
not molinettes, Christine Denniston talks about the foot always pointing
at the man's heart in the molinette. In that case the weight bearing foot
must rotate naturally as the foot is in place while the couple are turning.

2- As UDK mentioned, and I am ecstatic to hear it, good ballroom is not arm controlled either. The rigidity, as you put it, of the topline is for aesthetics and movement, and its only role in leading/following is the accommodation of said movement. When I learned, we had to dance with 33rpm records held between us by our bodies, and without an arm/hand hold. And, yes, we had to pay for every one that dropped and broke.

UKD keeps dragging us down a path of pedantic technical comparison with ballroom.
Ballroom is written down, standardised and codified, much of tango is
evolution and personal experience.

I'm not going to argue the the ideal ballroom hold - my ballroom is from
social learning and dancing not a professional or teaching viewpoint. You
are right about the arms but they are there, ballroom people do talk about
maintaining a frame and the top line, and the frame does get used. To
"amplify" the lead as UKD puts it about his tango.

It is odd that UKD is insisting that ballroom doesn't use the arms,
when in comparison to tango it has a much more rigid arm frame,
and yet when he comes to tango, which is usually taught without
an arm frame and is lead from the centre, he is insisting he uses his arms.
From his writing he should be an expert in leading from the body whereas
coming from ballroom I found I had much to learn for successful tango.

We can only write from our own experience.