Man's Walk: Porteños and Panthers

[UKDancer]

I'm quite able to hold my own in debate, but I don't like (or really recognise) the label 'ballroom dancer' to the extent that it is being applied to me.

I'm an experienced dance teacher, and a full member of a teaching society of International repute. If I've got something to say within my own area of professional competence, it is probably worth hearing. If it is of no interest, there's no need to post back at all, just to move on to other topics, and there's certainly no need for the sarcastic rudeness I have read in this topic. But such is life.

As I have previously said, I dance all of the standard 'ballroom' styles, along with a whole load of others, including, but not limited to all of the standard 'latin' styles. I have a professional interest in dance technique in a whole variety of dance genres, and have been a keen student (not teacher) of AT for some time. I shall probably start teaching AT at some point, but that is for the future. When I do, you can rest assured that my demonstrations will NOT look like Corky's.

Meanwhile it amuses me greatly that so many of 'you' are obviously so very uptight about your relationship to the rest of the dancing community. I originally mentioned the two different walking approaches of two big teaching societies (and they are at least as entitled to have an approach as are any of you, individually), and, judging by the number of constructive posts since, it is a topic of interest to some, if not all.

But please remember that it wasn't me who raised ballroom at all, but once someone had, I gently pointed out that ballroom is a very small part of the work of the big teaching societies and their members, and that other genres: ballet, tap & freestyle (in particular) have dominated for years. On closer examination, it seems that we are lumping all sorts of dances into the 'ballroom' category, including a load of latin club styles, and we are just talking about completely different things.

At the time of the political upheavals that brought the Golden Age to an abrupt end, AT dominated social dancing in the urban centres of Argentina, and here in the UK, every town of any size had its Palais de Dance, and just about everyone danced ballroom as a matter of course, often without any formal instruction.

But it changed here too: not for political reasons, but because of changing fashions and demographic shifts. The baby boomers didn't dance ballroom, and the teaching societies rapidly changed their spots to suit. This was all decades ago. At my studio, ballroom & latin are the minority styles, and have been for years, and that is probably widely true in the dance 'industry' as a whole.

The bogey man you all fear is a paper tiger.

 

[dchester]

I'm quite able to hold my own in debate, but I don't like (or really recognise) the label 'ballroom dancer' to the extent that it is being applied to me.

I'm an experienced dance teacher, and a full member of a teaching society of International repute. If I've got something to say within my own area of professional competence, it is probably worth hearing. If it is of no interest, there's no need to post back at all, just to move on to other topics, and there's certainly no need for the sarcastic rudeness I have read in this topic. But such is life.

FWIW, my recollection was that the rudeness was introduced to this thread by this post below.

You must decide that for yourself. But it irks a bit that tango dancers only ever seem to refer to 'ballroom' in order to be desparaging. Perhaps they are deeply insecure people.

That post doesn't appear to be the best way to win friends, or be taken seriously in a tango forum.

But please remember that it wasn't me who raised ballroom at all, but once someone had, I gently pointed out that ballroom is a very small part of the work of the big teaching societies and their members, and that other genres: ballet, tap & freestyle (in particular) have dominated for years. On closer examination, it seems that we are lumping all sorts of dances into the 'ballroom' category, including a load of latin club styles, and we are just talking about completely different things.

My recollection is that you were the one who brought Ballroom stuff into this thread with your post about the IDTA. It didn't seem to impress many people here, which appears to have upset you, and eventually led to your rude post that I've previously mentioned. You reap what you sow.

 

[UKDancer]

My recollection is that you were the one who brought Ballroom stuff into this thread with your post about the IDTA.

Then your recollection is wrong, isn't it?

There is no general equivalence of IDTA = Ballroom and I don't know why you would think that there is, but I didn't mention ballroom, I was posting about AT technique. Specifically, I was comparing ISTD technique with that of IDTA. If you want to interpret that as me trying to 'impress' anyone (why would it?), then there's probably not a lot I can do to convince you otherwise.

I responded later to others' comments, but that is what debate is about. Perhaps you think that I have insufficient 'credentials' to hold an opinion about AT, but in any event, I don't think I have anything further to contribute to this topic, but it has been interesting.

 

[v22TTC]

In terms of the origin of the Tango music a lot depends on how and from what you think Tango evolved from. Personally I believe it had an African origin, that evolved into Milonga and then the more cutting Tango of the early 1900's (listen to 1920's Lomuto). I think it was at this time that the European BR had an influence on the Tango being danced, which changed the style from a rougher more earthy dance to a smoother style that started to acknowledge breaks in the music and cutting of movements and it was this change in style that encouraged the music of the Golden Age in the 1930's onwards. If you believe this form of evolution the music we now know followed the dance style and the lyrics had very little influence.

Aye, the murky origins... who knows? I'll freely admit that I don't know much about this yet, and will always get quickly out of my depth when it comes to music; but I suppose what I'm saying is that if you take something like Gardel's 'Mano a Mano', it's rhythm and 'sing-song-ness' is very in-line with a Romance language - you'd have a hell of a time fitting English or Germanic words, with similar meaning, into that rhythm, and it would probably also sound flatter?.. dunno....

Is culture dependant on either of these influences or the environment in which it (the culture) developed? Where music and language are only incidental parts of that environment.

Big, big, big question - we could go around the houses on this one forever. You do see interesting general 'rules' about languages though, like pitch correlating with altitude (in terms of how the sound then carries through thinner air), and languages that evolved in hilly places being more 'sing-song' than those that evolved in flatter places... we won't find the answer (probably), so just something to think about, if you want....


[BTW: Roger Waters and Dave Gilmore were the (main) lyricist/singer, and main guitarist (respectively) of Pink Floyd... they split up, went to court to battle over who kept the name, judge found in favour of the musicians; so it's a pretty good case study in terms of debating the relative privileging of lyrics v. music... for whatever that's worth....]

Interesting you feel more soulful with still hips. I feel my most "dance passionate and intimate" when moving my hips but this may not be what you mean by soulful.

Yeah, there's different stuff getting mixed up here: all being equal, moving hips would beat still ones hands down. But I dance more from the soul (despite still hips, which I consider personally right in TA) in TA than I do in Salsa (despite slick hips)... but that's way more down to what's in my own soul at the moment than anything else (way more melancholy than joy).

What this means is that for some, the greater part of a dance's soul can reside somewhere other than the hips... not so for others - fair enough.

In quite a lot of disciplines that I've come across, it is the waist that is the thing to be most mindful of (and spiritual/energy centre etc), rather than the hips... there's still plenty of waist-mindedness in TA.

I think language merely describes reality and sometimes it does not even do that very well.

Yea -verily! - to the second part; but I've really, really studied this and I honestly don't think that the first part is (mostly) right... big subject again. I suppose the best examples to ponder a little about is words that can't be translated into other languages/cultures meaningfully; and the approaches to concrete realities and abstracts in alphabetical v. pictographic/ideographic languages.

Fascinating but most likely too big for here....

I think using the hips to dance is far more natural than not. On the other hand AT subscribes to the limited movement of hips but likes to think of itself of the dance of natural movement. So for me there is a dichotomy here. This dichotomy manifests itself in a certain stifling of my dancing during AT.

OK, I've chosen to go about it the hard way, but I've never fathomed this: "[AT] likes to think of itself of the dance of natural movement." The apprentices used to practice just the walk for years before showing their faces in milongas... and it's 'natural movement'?!

I guess it's sort of 'natural with qualifiers': Zoops' 'natural when walking backwards down an incline'; or maybe 'natural when walking forwards into a gale, if you couldn't hunch over for some reason...'?...

I suppose it's YMMV according to technique choice and in comparison to ballet? Dunno....

In this context I feel that AT is very difficult to classify as I think it stands somewhere between BR and Latin. I see the influence of both in the various walking styles that are seen at Milongas. The straighter pendulum leg action of BR and the high knee, high foot action of the Latin. To be fair though until recently I did not much care for the high knee, high foot action but I now find that stlye helps me when I dance certain tracks of Pugliese, especially La Yumba.

I'm enjoying reading the debate about this, since I know nothing about this, and like to know stuff. I'll have another listen 'La Yumba' and think about how to step to it.

I am not sure about a deeper meaning in the walk other than as a tool to interpret the music.

Well, I'm 'a deep one'.... I always approach everything that I care about with my analytical and artistic eye... finding then capturing essences and all that (very true but always poncey-sounding).

So Salsa-approach/embodiment was easy ['I am the sexiest Cuban mofo on the planet!'], and vastly improved my dancing - attitude always counts for a lot.

The 'I am...' isn't quite so easy to find in TA, but it is at the core, and will inform the whole lot (especially the walk, given what the dance is), me being me.

 

[Ampster]

Wow.

Now we've got a ballroom dancer discussing AT technique, and AT dancers opining on ballroom technique.

Just for the sake of the arguments...how many people here have actually really studied both AT and ballroom (either/both Latin/Standard) seriously? Because, really, without that sort of a background...it's all just talk. So much of dance is an illusion--both in AT and in Standard (if various threads around here and my own limited experience are any guide).

I did.

As far as I'm concerned AT, and BR should not be transposed, compared, nor combined. Neither translates well into each other. They should be learned and treated as totally different dances... Because they are.

 

[Angel HI]

I have been reading, and not saying a word, however......

1. As mod, I feel that it is now becoming necessary to ask that we take this down a notch, and get it back on track. That track could be comparing/discussing personal/AT/BR differences... constructively, but should not get into techniques/styles/differences unless relevant to AT.

2. As a dancer/coach/adjudicator, I have studied dance for well over 2/3 of my life, taught BR/Latin for over 25+ yrs, danced AT since '85 (recognized by the BsAs Council of Cultural Affairs). Though it changes from week to week by demand, I have mostly been primarily AT for the past 10 yrs or so. This is not to boast, but only to speak to Peaches' post as one qualified to legitimately respond to some issues.

There are other threads in this forum that compare BR to Latin - amer to int'l, and debate the pros/cons of each. I do not believe that something will be accomplished by doing it again here unless it has some relevance to AT. In that regard, and in reply to a couple of posts....

1. leading/following in BR w/o the usage of hands (only body contact) is a very well used method of teaching... nothing unusual.
2. if one's preference is not BR/latin, that is ok, however, regardless of how many teachers one has had, or how many years one has had them, if someone has danced BR/latin, and not felt the joy of dancing, then they have had bad training. BR?Latin can be just as intense/touching/feeling/innate/connecting/personal as AT. One can prefer AT to BR/latin, just as one might prefer wheat bread to white bread, but its' all bread, and the same feeling of fulfillment can come from either.
3. I train many BR Smooth/Standard competitive winners, and Broadway show dancers, and have used/use AT to train all of them. The point is that AT has some core movement/dance fundamentals that are extremely pertinent to good BR, and if known, the dancer will a) dance better BR, and b) develop a better appreciation/fulfillment of BR.
4. I seriously considered Spectator's post about hiring 'Corky' to teach something in AT as a joke. Personal preferences notwithstading, based on his vids, and past experience, that would be an abomination.