Contra body movement whilst walking

[JohnEm]

I use minimal contrabody movement when walking and dissociation to lead the follower into an independant side step around me. That is, my contra-body leads her contra-body, not her steps.

Elegantly put!

 

[UKDancer]

And bringing CBM in as the term to explain intent
for creating a turn seems to be unnecessary jargon.

Another way of looking at it is that it is just one more term with an established meaning, and that it is an efficient way to communicate, once the term is understood. Otherwise you have to find another.

I've never heard CBM referred to in AT circles before, and indeed was discussing an AT movement with another non-AT teacher just the other day. "Oh", she said "place the foot in CBMP?" (Contra Body Movement Position).

"Yes, and no", came my reply, because if the dance style doesn't recognise the term CBM (and arguably it doesn't recognise ANY attempt at codification of its technique), then you can't have CBMP. But we both knew what we meant, and didn't have to bicker over semantics.

I wouldn't agree, BTW, that CBM is the means principally to communicate 'intent' to turn. It is the action by which many turns are commenced, and like any action, intention comes first.

 

[JohnEm]

I wouldn't agree, BTW, that CBM is the means principally to communicate 'intent' to turn. It is the action by which many turns are commenced, and like any action, intention comes first.

I think I follow you, on the other hand I may not!
Semantics, semantics!

Actually I understand what CBM is - I probably even have some of the same
books as you with the same explanations. And even in ballroom, books were
the only place I found such terms, teachers never used them in lessons.

But the missing explanation is that in ballroom a right turn is always with
a forward step of the right foot or a backward step of the left. Although
physicality of the human body in partnership with another makes this
the most logical and natural this assumption doesn't have to apply in tango.
It's this interchangeablility of the use of the legs which I still find challenging
and for the moment remains on the "To Do" list.

 

[UKDancer]

And even in ballroom, books were
the only place I found such terms, teachers never used them in lessons.

Well, that suprises me: I talk about these concepts very early on with all my classes and private pupils, and I generally use the technical terminology, rather than alternatives, right from the start. Giving my classes the vocabulary of dance is part of their learning, particularly if they hope to progress beyond the level of novice.

I'm sure we can agree, based on what you say, that the use of CBM is fundamental to nearly all turning actions in ballroom dancing, and I take the view that you might as well deal with the concept early, and make sure that your pupils understand what is required of them. It would be a bit like taking a beginner AT class, and saying nothing about pivots, while introducing ochos. It might be more helpful to talk about swivelling, though, because a pivot is something else ...

 

[dchester]

It's a style issue, nothing more.

Basically, I think it depends on how the walk goes - if you want to use CBM / dissociation during the walk, then do so. If you don't, then don't.

I occasionally use it to emphasize a movement, but mostly I don't swing around that much.

That's how it is for me as well (a style thing). However, I am aware that a few teachers (like Detlef & Melina) teach it as part of the technique of leading (rather than just as a style thing). It doesn't seem to help me in anyway, and since it's not at all a natural thing for me, it tends to take too much of my attention to implement it, (when my limited brain cycles could be better spent elsewhere).



If it helps someone to lead better, or if you like the look it gives, then like DB says, use it. I rarely do, however.

 

[Ampster]

Originally Posted by Ampster
In a walk, I would keep my upper body as still and as quiet as possible, almost dissociated from my hips as I walk...

This is an odd concept to me, and I've never heard it said that the upper body should remain still. Quiet? Sure, but still, not for me. It seems to me that walking on ones own, gracefully, would include a natural CBM. Stifling the CBM would produce a less graceful and capable gait. I think the same goes for walking with ones partner in an embrace, open or closed. I understand the stylistic idea, but I still think it would sacrifice some grace and capability to suppress CBM.

I think it boils down to what works best for each individual.

I dance the way I do because it is, I believe, best way I can deliver a good AT experience for my partner.

If using CBM in AT works for you and your partner, then so it shall be.

 

[Mosca Negra]

I think it boils down to what works best for each individual.

I dance the way I do because it is, I believe, best way I can deliver a good AT experience for my partner.

If using CBM in AT works for you and your partner, then so it shall be.

But for your use of acronyms, I wholeheartedly agree with you Amptser. Strict conformance to convention on the Argentine Tango dance floor is for cowards. How blase it would be were we all to dance with such uniformity of imposed style.

 

[Peaches]

Strict conformance to convention on the Argentine Tango dance floor is for cowards. How blase it would be were we all to dance with such uniformity of imposed style.

Amen!!!

 

[UKDancer]

Would it be a 'good thing' if it really was open season on 'anything goes'?

Uniformity need not be either imposed or a constraint, surely? Goodness, the tango community is scornful of all sorts and manners of dancing, and while there is no established technique, there seems to be an unwritten code, and woe betide anyone who steps outside its limits. Is this healthy, or actually bourne of a deep insecurity?

I'm not looking for an argument, but I'm intereted in the dynamic tensions between conformity and freedom in what is supposedly an entirely improvised dance form, but seems actually to be anything but (at least sometimes...).

 

[v22TTC]

Would it be a 'good thing' if it really was open season on 'anything goes'?

For a thing to be considered x, it must have a recognisable x-form: it is impossible for 'anything goes' to have any form, by definition; let alone an x-form.

For an artform to be worth anything, it should always be a fuzzy-x-form, in the hands of the artist... but it still needs to retain enough x to be recognisable as x.

[I'm pretty sure that I need not say this to you, UKDancer - I'm saying it generally.]

Uniformity need not be either imposed or a constraint, surely? Goodness, the tango community is scornful of all sorts and manners of dancing, and while there is no established technique, there seems to be an unwritten code, and woe betide anyone who steps outside its limits. Is this healthy, or actually bourne of a deep insecurity?

I'm not looking for an argument, but I'm intereted in the dynamic tensions between conformity and freedom in what is supposedly an entirely improvised dance form, but seems actually to be anything but (at least sometimes...).

[My Bold]

Rather than '... deep insecurity', I'd suggest that it's more usually '... the desire to preserve something precious, as it is being eroded from every angle'.

EDIT: Ant: Thanks for starting this thread (and thanks to everybody who's given answers), as it was one of the questions that I wanted to ask, but didn't want to be thought of as being too analytical, or anything....

 

[Oldgeezer]

In dance should it not be that the dancers are constrained by the music and that alone? Therefore when dancing an argentine tango, should it not be to music in that style and not what we see on the likes of Dancing with the Stars and Strictly C.D. where the music bears no resemblence to the character of the dance being portrayed?

 

[Dave Bailey]

That's how it is for me as well (a style thing). However, I am aware that a few teachers (like Detlef & Melina) teach it as part of the technique of leading (rather than just as a style thing).

Thinking about it, Ivan from Negracha's used to (still does, perhaps) teach dissociation as part of the lead.

I did a class with Amir and Lindy a couple of years back, and Lindy spent some time demonstrating how dissociation could help the follower's movements - the "unwinding" motion helping to pull the trailing leg backwards to the collection point.

But I don't think any exaggeration of the natural motion is particularly essential for leading.

(I'm using "dissociation" rather than "contra body movement" as dissociation is the AT terminology)

 

[bordertangoman]

In dance should it not be that the dancers are constrained by the music and that alone? Therefore when dancing an argentine tango, should it not be to music in that style and not what we see on the likes of Dancing with the Stars and Strictly C.D. where the music bears no resemblence to the character of the dance being portrayed?

i think this is off topic and there's plenty of discussion of this elsewhere...

 

[ant]

(I'm using "dissociation" rather than "contra body movement" as dissociation is the AT terminology)

Interesting.

I have always thought of CBM and dissociation as two different types of movement both of which are used in AT.

I think of CBM as being the natural movement (try running without CBM) of the body, the opposite shoulder, arm and upper chest to the leg that is moving and this does not generally go down as far as the waist.

Whereas I think of dissociation as coming more from or going down to the waist.

 

[UKDancer]

I have always thought of CBM and dissociation as two different types of movement ...

I was thinking just the same thing, but you beat me to it.