"Figures of Argentine Tango" page
- Thread starter Dave Bailey
- Start date
Here's the link, for those of you too lazy to put it together.
[yt]_eq-VPlSIiY[/yt]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eq-VPlSIiY
I guess a bit of it was in close embrace (I think), but not very much. BTW, I think he stole that colgada ending from me.
Here's the link, for those of you too lazy to put it together.
[yt]_eq-VPlSIiY[/yt]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eq-VPlSIiY
I guess a bit of it was in close embrace (I think), but not very much. BTW, I think he stole that colgada ending from me.
I wasn't that lazy, and I would call that an OE dance.
sixela
Well-Known Member
Depends on what you mean. To me an embrace is a close embrace when the partners make contact at the chest. It doesn't have to be apilado and not even parallel all the time, the partners simply don't have to be separated. One reason for that is that if you define it otherwise, a good number of old milongueros who've been dancing in what they consider a close embrace for 50 years wouldn't be (including all those dancing in a variant of estilo del barrio). Sure, when a "V-embrace" no longer has an acute angle I'd tend to consider it open as well.
If you call a moderate "V-embrace" (typical for "Villa Urquiza" and other estilo del barrio styles) "open", then what do you call an embrace with partners only making contact at the arms? "Very open"? That's the syllabus silliness in reverse.
sixela
Well-Known Member
I'm pretty sure I saw Tete doing sacadas (on the lady's side step, none of that fancy stuff on the trailing foot after a forward step) and even briefly kicking once (although, of course, not like Gustavo does here).While I admire his musicality, I was always taught that it was impolite to kick people between the legs.
Are we going to define tango so strictly that the number of practitioners becomes the null set (except for the True Faithful, which would then exclude a fair number of real milongueros)?
Nah, between the legs is fine. It's when you kick their legs that causes problems.While I admire his musicality, I was always taught that it was impolite to kick people between the legs.
:bkick:
In your opinion, how much of that dance was their contact at the chest? My opinion is, it's certainly less than half, thus I would not call it a close embrace dance.
As for what I mean, if there is no chest contact, I don't consider it close embrace. Also, when the "V" opens up a lot (maybe greater than 120 degrees) their ceases to be chest contact, IMO.
sixela
Well-Known Member
I'd say 50%. I agree it's not merely a close embrace dance. I never said it was (it's not an open embrace dance either, it's a fluid embrace dance). I just said that it's a demonstration that people who say that nuevo dancers can't dance in close embrace and more importantly (which is what I quoted) are less musical are overgeneralising.
There are other examples of strict close embrace (even apilado) if you look for them. Chicho has these two sides of his personality, to give just one example.
That agrees with my definition.
While I admire his musicality, I was always taught that it was impolite to kick people between the legs.
Kicking between someone's legs (rather than kicking them between the legs!) was in all likelihood one of the things that was seen as naughty when tango first went to Europe. It's still a tangoie! thing.
I like the way he picks up the short pauses in the music. Reminds me of someone I know quite well.
opendoor
Forum Master
think you did mistake something: 180° is side by side. Step to left and you are in the shadow position, a.k.a. atras or doble frente.
.
I think that was his point, that they were side by side for parts of the video.
Now don't you go putting ideas in people's heads or we'll have to change your screename to "Seditious"
. BTW, I think he stole that colgada ending from me.
So if I watch this a bunch of times, maybe I'll get it next time we dance!
(reloads video...)