Man's Walk: Porteños and Panthers

[Dave Bailey]

Well, if by ignoring them, you are discounting walking on either the Heel or the Toe, you have to come up with an alternative: there aren't many.

I'm not ignoring them - I'm just saying that we shouldn't pay too much attention to what they say. But I'd still be interested in their justifications for their positions, if you have a link to post?

Totally different posture? Very far from convinced. Most tango dancers seem to know next to nothing about ballroom dancing, but hold strong opinions about it.

As I understand it, the "ballroom dance" ballroom posture is connected below the waist, and separated above it - to help create that classic "X-shape" you see in ballroom poses. Whereas the AT posture is connected above the waist, and separate below it.

So yes, that seems different to me. Admittedly I know very little about ballroom.

Primarily ballroom experience? Not really. Certainly with my lot, ballroom is less than 5% of the whole. Ballet, Tap & Freestyle dominate. Ballroom has been backwater for decades. Comparisons with Latin American technique are often more profitable. Tango is, after all, a Latin dance.

Tango is not a Latin dance.

 

[UKDancer]

Blast! The forum has just 'eaten' my response: I have to go out, and cannot rewrite. I may be back later.

 

[UKDancer]

Another go...

In reverse order:

Tango is not a Latin dance.

Argentina is in Latin America, and modern Argentine culture typifies that which defines Latin America. Argentine Tango is inescapably therefore a 'Latin' dance. What would you call it?

As I understand it, the "ballroom dance" ballroom posture is connected below the waist, and separated above it - to help create that classic "X-shape" you see in ballroom poses. Whereas the AT posture is connected above the waist, and separate below it.

Well you can perfectly well dance AT in open embrace with no body contact at all, and that is also true of ballroom (and I would say it is the norm in most social ballroom dancing). However, I would say that actual body contact from the hip to the diaphram is necessary to all high level ballroom dancing, although it is interestingly not even mentioned between the covers of authoritative texts such as Howard: Technique of Ballroom Dancing, 2007, so ultimately has to be optional. I would prefer to think in terms of a good ballroom hold looking like a Y (and certainly not an X) and the tango embrace like an A, but the 'slope' of the latter can vary very widely, and as the dance doesn't have an accepted standard technique, there can be no right or wrong.

However, the basic posture or poise of the individual dancers is much less different than you imply. This would be no bad starting point for a tango leader:

"Stand in a natural upright position with knees slightly flexed, body inclined forward from the feet, braced at the waist, with shoulders relaxed at normal level and with no tension in the chest, body weight over the balls of the feet with the feet flat." (Howard: as above).

The Y shape of the couple comes from the lady being poised backwards from the waist, which shouldn't be exaggerated. The lady's balance is the same as the man's, though: forward, and that forward balance is maintained even when moving backward.

This really isn't fundamentally different from a typical tango setup. It looks a little different, but it has the same object, and for the same reasons. All ballroom movement is led from the body, which always moves first. Tango is therefore very good for ballroom dancers, whether leader or follower.

I'm not ignoring them - I'm just saying that we shouldn't pay too much attention to what they say. But I'd still be interested in their justifications for their positions, if you have a link to post?

Many in the tango community would not give much credence to the views of the established teaching societies, but then very few are members of one, or would care to be. I can't provide a link to the texts, as they are not available online, but I can quote from printed matter.

ISTD publishes: 'Argentine Tango - Syllabus Notes for Pre-Bronze, Bronze, Silver & Gold'. My copy is undated, but I think its been around a few years. They say:

"Forward walks are usually taken with a heel lead, while all backward walks are ball flat (no raised heels)."

Nothing more, and no explanation.

IDTA publishes: 'Argentine Tango - A Guide to Basic & Beyond', 2009. They say:

" ... smoothly extend the leg along its own line by sliding it along the floor. ... The footwork for this step is first ball then toe as it reaches its full extension. Weight is then transferred to the moving leg lowering the heel to end with the foot flat. Note: Due to modern trends, musical phrasing and increase in body energy, heel flat is used on limited occasions. Ball flat remains to be the priority footwork."

IDTA seems to me to be more in line with 'traditional' Golden Age technique (as described by Christine Denniston, anyway - I wasn't there), and perhaps ISTD is more in keeping with a 'modern' approach. The modernists largely reinvented the dance thirty years after everyone else had stopped, so who knows which is better. We could probably agree that neither can be right or wrong.

 

[v22TTC]

JohnEm: Sir! Please believe me that your last few posts have been solid gold to me! I really wanted to know this, but was reluctant to ask since there are so many 'Oh no! not another shoe thread!' threads about here... though none of them that I've been able to find have gone anywhere near this subject for men, for TA.

Any more advice that you'd care to share will be devoured by me!

Most practically, I've trained myself so hard to stand on the ball (for other things) that I haven't been noticing that my shoes' heels were actually barely touching the ground at all, and that I was using bad Tango technique to counter this on the occasions that the followers were leaning on me for support (which they shouldn't have, but did).

I can also see that I shouldn't be practicing on my own with just socks on my feet (though this is where I have my best technique... I don't seem to need an artificial heel...), since then my shoes throw me out a bit. I knew this anyway, really (like in martial arts where you're encouraged to train in the types of shoes that you would actually, generally, wear), but I hadn't realised how very adversely my shoes were affecting my technique - cheers again!


UKDancer:-

Well, if by ignoring them, you are discounting walking on either the Heel or the Toe, you have to come up with an alternative: there aren't many.

Foot landing exactly flat - for the man's walk anyway - is really working wonders for me, personally... it's a hard technique to consistently pull off though; but nothing better than when it works! You can really drive that compás into the floor like you mean it, and the follower has no doubt whatsoever that you've stepped. I'm finding that this also works better in providing a contrast - since she knows that my steps are solid, when I want to change my own weight but without her also doing so, she is less inclined to notice my more subtle step/weight transfer.

Apart from how hard it is to master (I'm giving myself 2-4 years to be able to reliably do it), I haven't found a downside to this way of walking yet....

Totally different posture? Very far from convinced. Most tango dancers seem to know next to nothing about ballroom dancing, but hold strong opinions about it.

For what it's worth, I hold no opinions about Ballroom dancing whatsoever - knowing nothing about it (yet), as I do. So, thanks for your explanations!

Tango is, after all, a Latin dance.

Yup - I'm extremely intrigued as what DB meant by saying it wasn't....

 

[dchester]

Yup - I'm extremely intrigued as what DB meant by saying it wasn't....

A lot of people say tango isn't a Latin Dance, and of course there are plenty of other people who say it is. It all comes down to what your definition of "Latin Dance" is.

If you define it as any dance that came from Latin America, then yes, it is. If you define it as a category of dances (predominantly from Latin America) that have the similar "Latin" movement (like Cha Cha, Merengue, Rumba, Salsa, Samba, Bachata, etc), then tango would not be in that category.

At the end of the day, does it really change anything about tango for you, if it is, (or is not) categorized as a Latin Dance?

 

[UKDancer]

At the end of the day, does it really change anything about tango for you, if it is, (or is not) categorized as a Latin Dance?

Yes and No.

Latin American culture is wider than its dance forms, but the range of dance forms that take the name don't sit entirely comfortably with the 'family' that you mention: what are you going to do with Paso Doble? It has nothing of latin (small l) motion, but is without doubt a Latin (capital L) dance. The normal indicators are the affinity with Romance language & culture (so Spanish, Portugese & French), and Southern American geography.

Argentine Tango ticks all the boxes, and it can only really fail the test if you have defined 'Latin American' in a rather contorted way.

Does AT have anything in common with those dance forms normally referred to as Latin American? We must, surely, agree to put Jive to one side, here, as it's inclusion comes from the time when the dance category (not the culture) was Latin & American. The '&' got dropped.

I wrote a day or two ago about the character of the Golden Age walk having much in common with Latin technique, and I would contend that the 'ball flat' footwork, and keeping the foot in contact with the floor is very like a Rumba walk (without the cuban hip motion that would go with it). So in that sense, AT could be a Latin American, Latin dance, if you see what I mean.

Those that advocate 'heel first' don't have history on their side as regards authenticity, but perhaps they aren't bothered about that, and the recent history of this dance is long enough for them. I am not in a position of sufficient experience to have a strong view over which is 'better'. My inclination is to go with the traditional style, but I do use heels too, when the music and the movement seem to call for it.

 

[JohnEm]

... though none of them that I've been able to find have gone anywhere near this subject for men, for TA.

Any more advice that you'd care to share will be devoured by me!

I think I'm clean out now!! Just try it all for yourself as you are doing.

Most practically, I've trained myself so hard to stand on the ball (for other things) that I haven't been noticing that my shoes' heels were actually barely touching the ground at all, and that I was using bad Tango technique to counter this on the occasions that the followers were leaning on me for support (which they shouldn't have, but did).

Basically you were attempting to balance on the balls of your feet;
it's possible but not ideal for the circumstances we find ourselves.

I can also see that I shouldn't be practising on my own with just socks on my feet (though this is where I have my best technique... I don't seem to need an artificial heel...), since then my shoes throw me out a bit. I knew this anyway, really (like in martial arts where you're encouraged to train in the types of shoes that you would actually, generally, wear), but I hadn't realised how very adversely my shoes were affecting my technique - cheers again!

Not sure about this as I can't commit forward reliably in bare feet. You may find
that in practice all sorts of strange work around things are actually going on.

Yes, train (practise) in the shoes you will use, definitely.

 

[v22TTC]

Dchester: Ah, OK: makes sense.

It doesn't really change much either way, as you say, but I'm just incredibly inquisitive... I always ask questions at exactly face value: I like to know stuff... and am genuinely curious as to what DB meant....

I suppose it might inform the attitude to how I dance (using some generalisations about the 'Latin' attitudes of back in the day), in order to dance TA more 'properly'; like 'the method' in acting... that's why I used the term 'Porteño walk', to denote a masculine pride etc....

But aye, we'll all have our own interpretations, and attach different significance to them - as it should be.

 

[Dave Bailey]

Argentina is in Latin America,

Sorry, but that's irrelevant. Unless you think every single folk dance in the entirety of a region defined as "Latin America" is a "Latin dance"? Is Capoeira a Latin dance? What about Incan folk dancing?

Tango is not a "Latin dance", in any real sense. It's Tango. There are very very few relationships between, say, Tango and Salsa for example. Posture, progression, lead technique, music - they're all very different.

and modern Argentine culture typifies that which defines Latin America.

The term "Latin America" simply denotes a region whose people were conquered / colonised by Spain, Portugal or France. It's an entire continent's-worth of people, and there's no such thing as a "Latin American culture", anymore than there is such a thing as "Asian culture".

Argentine Tango is inescapably therefore a 'Latin' dance.

I find it extremely easy to escape from. Your comment is like saying Morris dancing is a ballroom dance because it's done in Western Europe.

What would you call it?

Tango. It's not like other dances.

Well you can perfectly well dance AT in open embrace with no body contact at all,

You can do, yes - but the posture is still the same. You're still "leaning forward", even if you're not actually in contact with your partner. And that posture is still different from ballroom.

I would prefer to think in terms of a good ballroom hold looking like a Y (and certainly not an X) and the tango embrace like an A,

The "X" was for posing - I'm aware that the default is a "Y".

AT posture, to me, is more like an upside-down "Y" than an "A" - but either way it's very different from BR posture.

"Stand in a natural upright position with knees slightly flexed, body inclined forward from the feet, braced at the waist, with shoulders relaxed at normal level and with no tension in the chest, body weight over the balls of the feet with the feet flat." (Howard: as above).

That sounds OK-ish for the man, yes.

The Y shape of the couple comes from the lady being poised backwards from the waist, which shouldn't be exaggerated.

And that's where it goes horribly wrong in AT. The lady needs to be forward, or really bad things happen.

This really isn't fundamentally different from a typical tango setup.

It really is.

Here's a really good example of someone attempting to use BR posture in AT walking - trust me when I say it looks laughably bad.

To sum up - I'm sorry, but I think you've got a number of assumptions about AT, which I've seen others coming from a BR background make. I believe OpenDoor and Steve Pastor might weigh in with their opinons - I think they've had similar experiences.

 

[ant]

Another go...
Argentina is in Latin America, and modern Argentine culture typifies that which defines Latin America. Argentine Tango is inescapably therefore a 'Latin' dance. What would you call it?.

I think DB's criteria was the hip action used in almost all the Latin dances rather than the geographical location.

This really isn't fundamentally different from a typical tango setup. It looks a little different, but it has the same object, and for the same reasons. All ballroom movement is led from the body, which always moves first. Tango is therefore very good for ballroom dancers, whether leader or follower.

I am not sure I agree that the BR setup is good for AT.

I am wrestling with the similarities and differences between the frame/embrace in BR and AT at the moment. In my opinion there are similarities. Such as the pushing down into the floor from the waist and pushing up of the spine from the waist and the use of the body to hold the arms but I think there are also some important differences
- a stiffer arm within the frame in ballroom
- the distance required between the elbows in BR compared to the wrapped around right arm in AT
- the space needed between the upper bodies and head in BR
- the leading part of the body in BR is the stomach area and the chest in AT
- the way the body "dissociates" in BR in the ankles/knees rather than the waist in AT.
- the way you use the disociation in BR, when initiated it is used more to prepare a turn, where in AT it is used as an immediate indication of an action.

I am sure there are many more and over time these may change but these are what seem important to me at the moment.

 

[UKDancer]

Your comment is like saying Morris dancing is a ballroom dance because it's done in Western Europe.

Well that would be at about the usual level of sophistication when it comes to the average tango dancer having an opinion about ballroom dancing in general. It is interesting that AT is a unique dance, whereas all of the dances we know as ballroom + most of the ones we know as Latin all get conveniently lumped together as 'ballroom'. What is this amalgum dance of which you write? I don't know it. If you can put Samba and Rumba in the same sentence you can plainly dance neither, and it is about as silly to put (Ballroom) Tango and any of the swing dances in the same category, either.

Sure, I have assumptions about AT that come from my extensive ballroom + latin training, but as someone who dances in over fifteen styles, most of which I teach, I'm quite adaptable, and very eager to see (and understand) the differences, as well as the similarities.

Having assumptions is not the sole preserve of the 'ballroom' dancer (although there IS no ballroom dance), and some assumptions bear closer scrutiny than others.

BTW, a lady in a typical ballroom poise, dancing AT in open embrace, might look a bit odd, but if she has the correct forward balance (common to both AT + ballroom), she will get on, just fine.

Corky is, indeed, laughably bad: but then he isn't a ballroom dancer, and we could readily agree that everything about his presentation of the dance is just awful!

 

[dchester]

Yes and No.

Latin American culture is wider than its dance forms, but the range of dance forms that take the name don't sit entirely comfortably with the 'family' that you mention: what are you going to do with Paso Doble? It has nothing of latin (small l) motion, but is without doubt a Latin (capital L) dance. The normal indicators are the affinity with Romance language & culture (so Spanish, Portugese & French), and Southern American geography.

Argentine Tango ticks all the boxes, and it can only really fail the test if you have defined 'Latin American' in a rather contorted way.

I think your argument is with someone else. I was simply explaining that there are different opinions on what "Latin Dance" means. FWIW, I really couldn't care less about whether the tango, paso doble, or the chacarera, is categorized as a latin dance or not.

 

[UKDancer]

I am wrestling with the similarities and differences between the frame/embrace in BR and AT at the moment. In my opinion there are similarities. Such as the pushing down into the floor from the waist and pushing up of the spine from the waist and the use of the body to hold the arms but I think there are also some important differences.

A very interesting list. Allow me to comment on your points briefly:

a stiffer arm within the frame in ballroom

The arm(s) shouldn't be stiff - that's just a fault.

the distance required between the elbows in BR compared to the wrapped around right arm in AT

The hold is 'bigger' and makes a different shape. It still has the purpose of making a connection between the partners. The ballroom tango hold is significantly different from the others, though, and is characterised by a much more 'compact' frame, and the man's RH much further around the lady (in the middle of her back, usually), and is really quite close to an open embrace.

the space needed between the upper bodies and head in BR

This comes from the shape of the frame, but the distance is similar to an open embrace.

the leading part of the body in BR is the stomach area and the chest in AT

I would say that the torso is the source of both. The point of contact is different (or may be wholly absent).

the way the body "dissociates" in BR in the ankles/knees rather than the waist in AT.

the way you use the disociation in BR, when initiated it is used more to prepare a turn, where in AT it is used as an immediate indication of an action.

We have Contrary Body Movement (and a related foot position, CBMP) in ballroom, which isn't really the same thing as dissociation. They do share some physical similarities, but really have a different purpose, equally valid in their respective contexts.

 

[Zoopsia59]

Firstly, there's no such thing as a "natural walk backwards", so the whole "walk naturally" meme is rubbish. Secondly, if you were to walk backwards, your natural walk would be to throw your weight back and fall onto it - that takes the least effort, after all..

The follower's backwards walk is actually what would be natural if you were walking backwards down an incline. (which would require you to keep your weight forward to avoid losing control and falling backwards)

Maybe backwards walking came easier to me than most because I'd walked backwards down so many loading ramps keeping a road box from getting away from me. (proper way to take a road box down a ramp by yourself is to be on the downward side of it putting whatever weight necessary into resisting the movement, not on the upward side trying to lean back to hold it from getting away from you... if you can't do it that way because of the weight, you need another person, but I've managed pretty heavy boxes and amp racks alone this way)

Try it (without the road box) Backwards walking with forward pressure will make a lot more sense once you've felt it on an incline.

 

[UKDancer]

I think your argument is with someone else.

I was trying to answer the question, not argue, because for me, there are significant similarities between AT walks (a big chunk of the dance) and Latin technique.