Improvising the Dance

[tangomonkey]

It prompted me to look up 'improvise' in my Concise OED. I found:

1. Create and perform spontaneously or without preparation.
2. Produce or make (something) from whatever is available.

Those definitions are inadequate. Improvisation is much more than that. I've played jazz and blues for several decades and there are similarities (and differences too, of course) between improvising in those art forms and AT.

Improvisation is a very big topic and I am not getting into it much here. It requires at least an essay, not a few words in a public forum. Indeed, there are dozens upon dozens of books in print on the topic.

There are primarily two types: anything goes, free-form creativity and creating spontaneous music (or a dance) on top of a defined structure. The second one is by far the most common. Think 12 bar blues, the harmonic progression of a jazz standard; a piece of tango music when dancing.

There are constraints imposed in jazz/blues and tango dancing. One works within those constraints. They define the style.

 

[tangomonkey]

Watching a room full of tango dancers I observe the same things being danced, across my whole field of vision. I see tango (rather than the completely random movements that would be the product of free improvistion)

Thinking of constraints, of course it all looks like tango and not random, freely improvised movements, because it is not supposed to be. It may look like tango but the dancing certainly is not the same from couple to couple. There is a huge difference between the beginner's stumbling attempts to execute a figure/pattern/sequence and the nuanced, controlled execution of simple steps led according to the music. I enjoy watching those skilled dancers and learning from them.

For me, improvisation is not a goal in and of itself. The goal is interpreting the music spontaneously, within the constraints imposed. Improvisation is a tool - a process.

 

[sixela]

For elements, you could perfectly easily substitute patterns, and it is a short step from there to figures, and once you have put two figures together, you have satisfied the definition of an amalgamation.

It's a small step from a nucleotide to gene, from a gene to a chromosome, and from a chromosome to a complete genome. But nucleotides let you code almost any living thing, whereas the H. sapiens genome only lets you code for a H. sapiens.

We aren't all Gustavo Naveira theoreticists who insists anything larger than a gene isn't a building block, but the ideal of AT is that, in essence, anything coded by them is or can be AT (of some style or another). In some other dances, you don't even get to choose the expressed phenotype of H. Sapiens you want.

 

[chanchan]

I don't want her to assume anything at all. I certainly won't feel obliged to dance every part of a pattern (and an ocho is a perfect example) just because the pattern in that form bears a name (and has assumed familiarity).

OK, so what you mean with "If I lead a back ocho, then my partner and I know what's going to happen for at least four consecutive actions"?
Either she knows or she doesn't know: if she doesn't know, it means that you are improvising.
Often she can do some guess, expecially if she had previuos experience with a leader she can say that after the element X there is a probability of 60% that you have element Y and only 10% that you have Z, in some cases she can say that an element has the probability of 0%, which means that, in these conditions, is impossible.
The same is true with music: if a musician is improvising you can still say that some notes are more likely followed by others and some notes are impossible.
Improvisation exists in dance as well as in music and in theatre: it doesn't mean that you do things "at random" it only means that there is no script. But there is still a coherence and harmony between the players: there are always some rules, even if they may be not very strict.

Now, I've learned to break down the components of the patterns, and hope to be able to use them independently.

A back step is just a back step, you don't have to think it as a component of the ocho. You can think is as a component of what you want, or just think it as a back step!

What I meant was that 80% of the time you see the same 20% of all of the available possibilities being used, so that that limited set of actions really are the self-selecting ones that represent the fundamentals of the dance for most dancers most of the time. Some may never extend their repertoire, but be perfectly good dancers, and others will reject available possibilities because they dance a particular style of tango, where only a sub-set is ever used.

Yes, in some style there are moves which are in any case forbidden, no matter what conditions you are in. This is the reason why I don't consider myself dancing a particular "style".

Anyway I think the Pareto principle can be probably applied in any kind of improvisation, included dance or musical improvisation.

 

[AndaBien]

It's a small step from a nucleotide to gene, from a gene to a chromosome, and from a chromosome to a complete genome. But nucleotides let you code almost any living thing, whereas the H. sapiens genome only lets you code for a H. sapiens.

We aren't all Gustavo Naveira theoreticists who insists anything larger than a gene isn't a building block, but the ideal of AT is that, in essence, anything coded by them is or can be AT (of some style or another). In some other dances, you don't even get to choose the expressed phenotype of H. Sapiens you want.

I appreciate your confidence in our understanding of chemistry. For me, that class was a long time ago.

 

[UKDancer]

OK, so what you mean with "If I lead a back ocho, then my partner and I know what's going to happen for at least four consecutive actions"?
Either she knows or she doesn't know: if she doesn't know, it means that you are improvising.

On your first point, I clarified what I meant earlier, but I'll repeat what I wrote, here:

... if I have decided that here, now, I'm going to lead an ocho (or two) then while the decision to do so may have been spontaneous, the pattern itself will determine the course of things for a few moments. I already know that, and my follower will be finding out very soon. If she is focussed on our connection it will make no difference to her whether I depart from or vary the pattern, but I won't. I have thought ocho, and I'm going to dance ocho.

So she doesn't know, but if I have already decided what I'm doing, it can't be right that I am improvising - I'm not, I'm dancing an ocho.

 

[tangomonkey]

So she doesn't know, but if I have already decided what I'm doing, it can't be right that I am improvising - I'm not, I'm dancing an ocho.

I think you are. In this case you have planned a bit ahead. But if someone always leads two back crosses one after the other, that is not spontaneous, not creative, and not improvisation.

 

[UKDancer]

Those definitions are inadequate. Improvisation is much more than that.

Hey, I'm just quoting the dictionary.

Wikipedia has something useful to add:

Improvisation is the practice of acting, singing, talking and reacting, of making and creating, in the moment and in response to the stimulus of one's immediate environment and inner feelings. This can result in the invention of new thought patterns, new practices, new structures or symbols, and/or new ways to act. This invention cycle occurs most effectively when the practitioner has a thorough intuitive and technical understanding of the necessary skills and concerns within the improvised domain. Improvisation can be thought of as an "on the spot" or "off the cuff" spontaneous activity.

The reference to the invention cycle being constrained by the domain is worth noting. An interesting debate could be had over what is the best and most efficient method to build the "thorough intuitive and technical understanding of the necessary skills and concerns within the improvised domain". Taking patterns and breaking the down into fundamental elements makes a strong appeal to me, and no doubt others would feel differently. There can't possibly be a right answer.

 

[UKDancer]

I think you are. In this case you have planned a bit ahead. But if someone always leads two back crosses one after the other, that is not spontaneous, not creative, and not improvisation.

Well, we're not going to agree about that, either, then. But perhaps I can take comfort that if I know, say, all 45 figures in the DanceVision syllabus (+ the connector steps right at the beginning), then as long as I only decide which figure to dance next just a moment or two before I dance it, then "I am improvising".

I need a new dictionary, perhaps?

 

[salthepal]

So she doesn't know, but if I have already decided what I'm doing, it can't be right that I am improvising - I'm not, I'm dancing an ocho.

Wait, that can't be right. You only consider it improvisation if even you don't know what the step you're leading at the present moment is?? Am I completely misunderstanding you?

No one expects anyone to come up with completely novel steps to be judged a good dancer. Just prioritize interpreting the music over the execution of sequences. SO while you're dancing, instead of thinking to your self "OK, now a basic 8-count, then a a molinette exiting with a sacada then i'll lead her to pivot and lead her do a sacada on my left leg, etc" just think "tyAAAAA raaaaaaararareeeeeeeeraaaaa" or "Rum pum paaaram PUM PUM dum dum yaaaramrumpumpum" (OK that's my stupid impression of a Di Sarli melody and a D'Arienzo march, respectively) as you're enjoying the embrace of the lovely lady you're dancing with.

At the end of the day, improvisation is achieved by getting really good at the movements that they are second nature and you don't need to think about them so much. That is what frees you from focusing on the steps and instead focusing on the music and your partner and enables you to improvise, as was mentioned before, within those "constraints" (I hate calling them constraints. How about parameters?) that keeps your dance feeling (and less, importantly, looking) like tango.

 

[tangomonkey]

I like that Wiki description - some holes, but it is quite comprehensive and accurate (at least to my understanding of improvisation).

Taking patterns and breaking the down into fundamental elements makes a strong appeal to me, and no doubt others would feel differently. There can't possibly be a right answer.

I would rather start from the most basic - walking - and build from there, rather than decompose figures/patterns. YMMV, as you say.

 

[UKDancer]

Wait, that can't be right. You only consider it improvisation if even you don't know what the step you're leading at the present moment is?? Am I completely misunderstanding you?

Not completely, but it's close!

I will always know what I am leading at the present (unless I'm completely pissed, perhaps?), but I won't always know what I am going to lead next. Improvisation, for me, suggests possibilities - but if I have already committed myself to dance, say, two back ochos, then there are no possibilities at all, until the ninth action. I accept that I might shape the ocho in some spontaneous response to the music (so no illustration can be completely black or white), but I'm still executing a set pattern, with really very little creative input on my part, just the exercise of skill (hopefully) in dancing it well.

I need to be much more free to be doing anything that I could recognise as improvistion. Of course, in fact, I am free - the decision to lead two ochos was mine, and I could have changed my mind at any point. In the end it is a matter of what capability I have (and I have to consider my partner too). If I am dancing my first ever tango song, at the end of my first ever class, then probably I'll either be doing a very simple walking dance, perhaps with weight changes in place, and may be with simple rock steps or even side steps, but probably not much more, or I'll be dancing an 8CB, and which it is depends much more on the teaching style of the instructor than it does on my creativity. Until I have a reasonable vocabulary of actions suited to tango, I have suprisingly few options. The fact that a highly experienced dancer might be able to turn something very simple into something wonderful is completely beyond the comprehension, let alone the skill, of the novice.

 

[UKDancer]

I would rather start from the most basic - walking - and build from there, rather than decompose figures/patterns. YMMV, as you say.

Actually, I don't think that it has to be one or the other. Why can't an instructor value both equally, and devise teaching strategies that draw on both approaches. They do join up: you can walk into or out of anything.

My instinct as a teacher is to offer material and/or presentation that will appeal to the widest possible range of learning styles among my students (and certainly not just to suit my own preference).

 

[tangomonkey]

But perhaps I can take comfort that if I know, say, all 45 figures in the DanceVision syllabus (+ the connector steps right at the beginning), then as long as I only decide which figure to dance next just a moment or two before I dance it, then "I am improvising".

I need a new dictionary, perhaps?

Yes you do.

Don't stretch the point beyond credulity, please.

 

[tangomonkey]

Actually, I don't think that it has to be one or the other. Why can't an instructor value both equally, and devise teaching strategies that draw on both approaches. They do join up: you can walk into or out of anything.

Because you need to walk before you can run, oh, sorry, I mean do figures.