Embrace

[UKDancer]

Yeah. And all of the chatter about technique is just nonsense; all you do is walk! *end sarcasm;

No, I'm as sold on technique as anyone - but I find so much talk about embracing a partner in tango completely unhelpful. Why on earth would anyone choose to take a handclasp to create an 'open' side to their hug at all? What's that all about?

The best connections I observe in a learning context are almost always when the teacher has suggested the simplest 'practise' or non-standard connection - typically like Homer's tea kettle idea. For a minute or two, everyone is actually thinking 'connection' and connecting. Five minutes later, we take an embrace - any embrace, and it mostly goes out of the window.

There are many degrees of contrivance to our hugs, and most tango dancers would be very clear in thinking that the hold, proper to BR tango, was not an embrace (and I wouldn't disagree), but the typical social tango embrace has many of its features, and really is very different from just a hug. If we strive for body connection, what do we need our arms for at all, except, perhaps, to make a nice-feeling encircling shape - you know, a hug?

 

[sixela]

Moment arm (pun intended). Connecting the bodies with the help of the arm helps you make a semi-rigid body from two independent bodies in a way that is hard without the help of the arms.

Unless you happen to have a prehensile torso (well, actually, come to think of it, I have a prehensile torso with prehensile appendages conveniently situated outside to maximalise the moment arm. I think my wife refers to them as "arms").

You don't always need all the arms and sometimes one partner doesn't even need any arms (in close embrace with one follower arm wrapped completely over the shoulder to the other side of the back, the leader can actually dance with both arms dropped and passive). But I have yet to see an embrace that works with *no* arms, unless ones on which the eyes are used to get cues (and I don't like these at all). But then, I'm not ready to enter the New Age, so I can't feel all those vibrations emanating from my dance partner .

 

[bordertangoman]

Moment arm (pun intended). Connecting the bodies with the help of the arm helps you make a semi-rigid body from two independent bodies in a way that is hard without the help of the arms.

Unless you happen to have a prehensile torso (well, actually, come to think of it, I have a prehensile torso with prehensile appendages conveniently situated outside to maximalise the moment arm. I think my wife refers to them as "arms").

You don't always need all the arms and sometimes one partner doesn't even need any arms (in close embrace with one follower arm wrapped completely over the shoulder to the other side of the back, the leader can actually dance with both arms dropped and passive). But I have yet to see an embrace that works with *no* arms, unless ones on which the eyes are used to get cues (and I don't like these at all).

i would agree (but I'm not to start making a habit of it ) the open side of the embrace can be relinquished, but an arm or two on the closed side does add a little glue to the couple.

But then, I'm not ready to enter the New Age, so I can't feel all those vibrations emanating from my dance partner .

its just her lunch going down......

 

[sixela]

i would agree (but I'm not to start making a habit of it ) the open side of the embrace can be relinquished, but an arm or two on the closed side does add a little glue to the couple.

That was my point. You need at least one arm (the follower's left) and usually two (the leader's on the same side) in everything but very close embraces.

In very open and elastic embraces you really do need four, at least if you don't want to really curtail the possibilities.

Simple mechanics. You need to control/decode position and rotation of the partner, and you can't do it with just one point of attachment. You need well spaced ones. Which ones they are is different from embrace to embrace.

 

[UKDancer]

Simple mechanics.

It is this that troubles me: the mechanics are obvious enough, but they are not required in a hug, and we don't dance hugging. If you substitute 'embrace' for 'hug', it isn't obvious that anything has changed, but I've never seen anyone meeting a loved one at a railway station, spontaneously taking a dance embrace in preference to a hug. Let's face it: you wouldn't, would you? (Rhetorical question: I know there's no answer).

 

[Subliminal]

It is this that troubles me: the mechanics are obvious enough, but they are not required in a hug, and we don't dance hugging. If you substitute 'embrace' for 'hug', it isn't obvious that anything has changed, but I've never seen anyone meeting a loved one at a railway station, spontaneously taking a dance embrace in preference to a hug. Let's face it: you wouldn't, would you? (Rhetorical question: I know there's no answer).

And I have, when teaching my gf tango, at times danced with her in a hug, with simple steps. The main thing is you have to teach people to project forward, which is something they may naturally understand from a hug. But the second you go beyond the most simple front/back/side steps, you need a more adaptable embrace. And actually, even for the simple steps, you may need to teach more technique to the follower at least. There is nothing natural about maintaining that forward presence while walking backwards.

Eta: I think the hug isn't a bad place to start in close embrace, but you can't just leave it at that.

 

[bordertangoman]

That was my point. You need at least one arm (the follower's left) and usually two (the leader's on the same side) in everything but very close embraces.

In very open and elastic embraces you really do need four, at least if you don't want to really curtail the possibilities.

Simple mechanics. You need to control/decode position and rotation of the partner, and you can't do it with just one point of attachment. You need well spaced ones. Which ones they are is different from embrace to embrace.

oh yes you can, well with one particular lady i can lead head to head. The exception that prove's the rule.

 

[AndaBien]

...But the second you go beyond the most simple front/back/side steps, you need a more adaptable embrace...

Not in my experience. When I have the opportunity to dance with a special partner, in a private setting, and I feel like getting more sensual with her, I like to wrap my left arm around behind my back, with her hand in it. That creates a very tight and close embrace, just like a hug. I can do anything in that embrace that I would do in my normal embrace. Wrapping our "open" arms around behind her back is also fun.

 

[dchester]

As several people have already written, the "embrace" is part of the culture of Argentine Tango. It will only be misunderstood by those who have not embraced the culture, or are "on the make."


If you are dancing the weight sharing "apilado" style, this decsription from class notes from Steven Payne, who I think was my best instructor, is appropriate.

The embrace: we simply take our well‑integrated posture, face our partner, and relax our knees into them. This causes us to share some weight and creates a single axis for our movement. Gravity holds us together. I encourage you to take the embrace WITHOUT arms and form the connection with the body. THEN you embrace with the arms.
When we are new to the dance, we are tempted to straighten our knees and pull our pelvis back. This causes us to disconnect and/or hyperextend our lower back. A good embrace is one where the knees relax and the pelvis is dropped and connected to our partner. Remember, our legs move out of the pelvis/hip area. The legs move more easily and freely if the pelvis has support from our partner.

Note that there is very little about the arms there. If you are sharing weight, the arms are also irrelevant.

Note also that some men will pull away from you if you do this, or tell you that you are "leaning" on them. (It took me a while to become comfortable with the closeness involved here, but it's one of the things that makes aplidao so special.)

If someone "embraced" me from six inches away, or only stood close enough to barely touch my chest, what would that think about the enthusiasm / sincerity of their "embrace."

The term "embrace" is way over used in AT.

There are lots of differing opinions on this stuff in Argentina, never mind the rest of the planet. While there are plenty of people who say the arms are not needed (at least not much) for leading, there are a lot less people who say they are needed at all.

As has been pointed out to me by more than one Argentine teacher, abrazo means hug, which came from brazo which means arm. You can't hug (embrace someone) without using the arms.

Now lots of tango teachers also talk about frame, but it's been my anecdotal observation that the majority of tango teachers who talk about frame, are performers. There approach is different and with good reason.

For me, a social dancer, the embrace is important. Of course, we're all different so what's comfortable and enjoyable for one person may be awkward and uncomfortable for someone else.

Tango is an art, that involves people and their emotions. Different answers are correct for different people.

 

[dchester]

In general just disbelieve when people give you advice on what you can do to make the embrace better - when somebody who dances with you says there is something wrong they are always right, when they tell you how to make it better they are almost invariably wrong. There are very good dancers that i have never been able to have a comfortable fitting dance with, and there are people with objectivly horrible form (sticking out ellbows, left arm oddly angled, shoulderblades popping out...) that felt very pleasant to me. So the folling suggestions are highly subjective, and no matter what you do there will be >0 people who love it, and >0 people who hate it.

I this this advice applies more to less experienced people than it does it experienced people. However, just because the experienced person can accurately say what makes the embrace better, that answer might only apply to him. Of course it's possible, it might also apply to lots of people.

The other aspect to this, is that you might be able to do what is asked, and it works well for your partner, but it's awkward and uncomfortable for you.

 

[bordertangoman]

I have had two sets of instructions; from two different teachers above; the first was the same as UKDancer describes above; which makes sense from the point of view of getting the woman's ribcage up and Pelvis lowered as Peaches describes;

the second teacher said "You must get your arm right around her ribs so your hand reaches the other side." which is an ideal, but often impractical; since if her chest/ribcage/torso is large i won't be able to put my arm around her; if her front to back dimension is too large, I may not be able to bend my elbow. So to acheive this i would need a prejudice toward ladies of a certain girth and no more.

Realisticallly, comfort for both us is more important than the how or where of where the arms end.

 

[UKDancer]

The other aspect to this, is that you might be able to do what is asked, and it works well for your partner, but it's awkward and uncomfortable for you.

I have to watch a tendency for my own LH to drift too far forward. I don't want to force my partner's arm behind her back, but we seem to end up that way if we are in an open embrace and my forward projection isn't matched by resistance/presence, and her arm tone just collapses on me. But in a more close embrace one particular teacher was taking me to task the other day, and repeatedly told me to bring my own arm so far back that it was actively uncomfortable and felt like being pinned to a wall. I find it hard to believe that any good embrace should actually hurt!

 

[UKDancer]

I have had two sets of instructions; from two different teachers above; the first was the same as UKDancer describes above; which makes sense from the point of view of getting the woman's ribcage up and Pelvis lowered as Peaches describes;

the second teacher said "You must get your arm right around her ribs so your hand reaches the other side." which is an ideal, but often impractical; since if her chest/ribcage/torso is large i won't be able to put my arm around her; if her front to back dimension is too large, I may not be able to bend my elbow. So to acheive this i would need a prejudice toward ladies of a certain girth and no more.

Realisticallly, comfort for both us is more important than the how or where of where the arms end.

I think it was Alex Krebs who basically defined the difference between open and close embrace by reference to the follower being either in the crook of the leader's elbow or of his wrist, and that seems very simple to understand. The encircling idea of the arms makes a strong appeal to me, but I'm still trying to make anything of Christine Denniston's account of the embrace typically adopted by Golden Age dancers, with the man's right arm held straight forward from his torso, and his hand turned in at the wrist, but with no attempt, at all, to make contact with her back. Her book illustrates the result, which looks very odd. I doubt that many dancers of the tango renaissance would give that a go, and I've no idea whether that approach has any historical authenticity.

 

[dchester]

I have to watch a tendency for my own LH to drift too far forward. I don't want to force my partner's arm behind her back, but we seem to end up that way if we are in an open embrace and my forward projection isn't matched by resistance/presence, and her arm tone just collapses on me. But in a more close embrace one particular teacher was taking me to task the other day, and repeatedly told me to bring my own arm so far back that it was actively uncomfortable and felt like being pinned to a wall. I find it hard to believe that any good embrace should actually hurt!

I guess that makes my point. It may be a good embrace for your teacher (and some others), but that doesn't mean it will be a good embrace for you. You won't really know until you try it, though.

It sounds like you tried it and found for you, it's the wrong answer.

 

[bordertangoman]

I think it was Alex Krebs who basically defined the difference between open and close embrace by reference to the follower being either in the crook of the leader's elbow or of his wrist, and that seems very simple to understand. The encircling idea of the arms makes a strong appeal to me, but I'm still trying to make anything of Christine Denniston's account of the embrace typically adopted by Golden Age dancers, with the man's right arm held straight forward from his torso, and his hand turned in at the wrist, but with no attempt, at all, to make contact with her back. Her book illustrates the result, which looks very odd. I doubt that many dancers of the tango renaissance would give that a go, and I've no idea whether that approach has any historical authenticity.

if a woman is barrel chested she wont get into the crook of my elbow, unless we have some kind of vee embrace, which i wouldnt be comfortable with. If that is the case i drop my elbow and put my hand on her scapula. I've read that thing about the straight arm too, seems rather contrived.