Man's Walk: Porteños and Panthers

[Peaches]

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!

Look, I get what you're saying. I gather that most of us here do. But will you drop it already? (And other AT peeps, can it be dropped?) No, the ballroom dances are not all the same. No, there is not one magical "ballroom" dance. But pretty much everyone and their brother around these forums understand what is meant when referring to the set of dances generally referred to as "ballroom" dances. Hell, there's even a subforum around here for it. And around these parts, Latin dances generally refer to the set of five dances which are part of the International style and are often danced competitively. AT is usually referred to as something different. Don't tell me that isn't something we can't all agree on.

(Jayzus, do we have to go through and redefine commonly understood terms for things every time someone gets their knickers in a twist about something?)

I get that there is probably a decent amount of technique that can cross over from one genre to the other. However, all too often, that "good universal technique" learned in a ballroom dance setting gets translated into some really strange feeling dancing on a milonga floor. Yeah, some fundamentals work well. And there are lots of other things that don't. I'm not talking about assumptions, I'm talking about what I, personally, have felt happen. While the hold/frame-embrace might seem pretty much the same on paper, and while the posture might seem pretty much the same on paper...in real life they are worlds apart.

Lots of credit to you for dancing and teaching so many styles for so many years. But, in all honesty, that doesn't translate to much of anything except misplaced ego if you're going to learn AT.

 

[UKDancer]

As I'm sure you know, such a lumping is very artificial. Samba and Jive don't have much in common, despite being in the "Latin" bracket - similarly, Waltz and Quickstep.

Do they have anything in common, except for the 1a2 beat division for many of their figures?

As for Waltz and Quickstep, you're mistaken. There are no real differences in basic technique, and they have many figures in common. They, along with Slow Foxtrot are the 'swing' ballroom dances (nothing to do with American Swing music, but coming from the action of the basic walking action having a swing from the hip).

Viennese Waltz has an obvious affinity with (Slow) Waltz - and not surprisingly, it is Tango that is the odd one out. It has its own technique. It's on its own, and shares little with the others - just like AT (in the general sense).

I would agree, readily, that AT is probably harder to acquire any real competency in, compared with any of the 'Ballroom' dances, but personally, I would say that Slow Foxtrot comes a very close second. It's meant to look easy: it isn't!

But the 'sympathetic' view sort of breaks down if you are prepared to lump the 5 Ballroom styles along with the 5 Latin ones in the same context. For sure, lots of us dance all 10, but they have fundamentally different foundations, general principles and actual movements/actions. In that context, AT shares FAR more with BT, than, say Jive with Samba, and that is the view not of an experienced teacher, but as a student of all of them, including AT.

 

[Peaches]

In my opinion any desparaging vibes that you may be picking up come from AT people regarding BR is nothing to do with BR as a dance but the attempts of, most BR teachers who try to teach AT, using their BR methods, without a proper knowledge and foundation of AT and to a lesser extent BR dancers trying to extrapolate their BR knowledge to AT. I don't see the reverse flow.

The views of AT people in this regard come from experience and the knowledge that gives.

Bingo.

 

[UKDancer]

Bingo.

Not quite.

I don't teach AT: and you wouldn't see 'ego' on the dance floor if you saw me dancing AT ....

I'll leave it at that.

 

[dchester]

Do they have anything in common, except for the 1a2 beat division for many of their figures?

As for Waltz and Quickstep, you're mistaken. There are no real differences in basic technique, and they have many figures in common. They, along with Slow Foxtrot are the 'swing' ballroom dances (nothing to do with American Swing music, but coming from the action of the basic walking action having a swing from the hip).

Viennese Waltz has an obvious affinity with (Slow) Waltz - and not surprisingly, it is Tango that is the odd one out. It has its own technique. It's on its own, and shares little with the others - just like AT (in the general sense).

. . .

I'm sure you are very knowledgeable about Ballroom, but they actually do have another forum here for that stuff.

http://www.dance-forums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=7

 

[Zoopsia59]

I have never seen anyone practicing a "ballroom" or "latin" dance using only body contact with no arms or hands.
I have never heard a teacher of those dances advocating that sort of practice.
I have never been instructed to follow a leader in another dance by sight alone without ANY contact.
I have never heard a teacher of other dances say "you don't need the arms for leading".

In fact, I have heard a great deal of instruction regarding minutia of leads based on both the leader's left arm position/changes and things that the leader may do with the right hand on the follower's back.

So if that's not a fundamental difference in AT vs other ballroom, latin or whatever dances, I don't know what is!

I'll be happy to revise my opinion if someone can point me to a video of people competently dancing improvised lead and follow of one of the other dances with only torso contact (wherever it happens to be) and their hands behind them, or no contact at all.

 

[Zoopsia59]

do we have to go through and redefine commonly understood terms for things

Seriously!

We spend enough time debating whether different styles of AT are actually totally different dances. Do we have to discuss whether AT and "ballroom" dances are fundamentally different?

 

[Zoopsia59]

Perhaps they are deeply insecure people..

You mean most people AREN'T?

Who knew!

 

[AndaBien]

...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.

Trying to get back to Argentine Tango, I'd like to know where you get the idea that AT was danced toe-first traditionally, authentically or historically.

I imagine that during all the '30s and '40s the common dancers were dancing heel first, just like they walked. I don't actually imagine that many of them ever thought about the distinction. They probably just danced.

 

[UKDancer]

I have never seen anyone practicing a "ballroom" or "latin" dance using only body contact with no arms or hands.
I have never heard a teacher of those dances advocating that sort of practice.
I have never been instructed to follow a leader in another dance by sight alone without ANY contact.
I have never heard a teacher of other dances say "you don't need the arms for leading".

In fact, I have heard a great deal of instruction regarding minutia of leads based on both the leader's left arm position/changes and things that the leader may do with the right hand on the follower's back.

So if that's not a fundamental difference in AT vs other ballroom, latin or whatever dances, I don't know what is!

I'll be happy to revise my opinion if someone can point me to a video of people competently dancing improvised lead and follow of one of the other dances with only torso contact (wherever it happens to be) and their hands behind them, or no contact at all.

Hmm.

I would say, as a general principle, that the left arm NEVER has ANY role in leading in the ballroom dances, and in my classes we regularly use the exersise of dancing with the man's left hand in his trouser pocket. Much to everyone's initial surprise, we dance better that way.

One of our favourite exercises is to to hold a thin paperbook book between the bodies, and to dance, without hold, without dropping the book.

In Latin dancing, it is common to dance in open position with no contact at all. we use the eyes, and arms/hands give shaping leads by gesture.

The use of the right hand on the lady's back should be subtle, and is there for support and balance, as much as leading. There are exceptions, but generally, we lead from the torso, and not the arms. Once we take hold, nothing in the frame should move: the arms move because the torso moves. The exception is promenade position, but the movement of the frame is the smallest possible to allow the position to be achieved.

I can't oblige you with video evidence to support this, but I am astonished at what you say, if it based on experience. If you ever try these styles again, find another teacher!

 

[Steve Pastor]

UKDancer, you may find this thread somewhat interesting.
http://www.dance-forums.com/showthread.php?t=30478

The evolution of AT, and the multiple ways of dancing it, makes it hard to know where to start. Personally, I think anyone arguing that there is one right way to do just about anything is on very unstable ground .
Their Ho is untenable. (Ho is statistics speak for "null hypothesis", in case that was never followed up on.)

I have never been instructed to follow a leader in another dance by sight alone without ANY contact.

I've written this before... I think it is unfortunate that this is taught.
On the other hand, I've had one woman tell me she could follow so well because she watched my shoulders. But then, that's something you can't do in "close embrace".

I have been very surprised at the similarities of instruction in many dance texts (some of them with "ballroom" in the title!) when it comes to fundatmentals, and what I was taught in my AT classes. Other things are different.

I don't think of AT as a latin dance and will give the minimization of hip movement as perhaps the main reason. The prominence of the German bandoneon in the music, and the lack of percussion are other things that are "non latin". And the dance reflects the music.
Hey, does anyone think of Italy as a Latin country? (Really, I don't. But I'm curious, too.) The Italianization of Tango with the deemphasis of African movements was was of the main phases in the early development of AT.

But, you know, doesn't matter so much what you call it. It is what it is.

 

[UKDancer]

But, you know, doesn't matter so much what you call it. It is what it is.

Your link is interesting. I agree with you, mostly too (for what that's worth), and I think I could happily say that AT isn't very latin, while being, obviously, Latin American.

Funnily enough though, the thing I would take issue with is the percussion point. The 'Bang Bang Bang' of the children's records that pass for neo-tango aside, I find Golden age music incredibly rhythmic, and until I started to listen to a wide range of tango music, I would never have believed that the combination of instruments making up a tango orchestra could play so percussively. The piano is, anyway, a percussion instrument, but the real character comes from the bandoneons and the violinists' use of the heels of the bow. A revelation.

'Latin' music seems to need a whole battery of instruments to make anything like the same impression. I rarely play the latter, except to accompany dancing, but I play tango all the time, although oddly enough I have no interest in the later 'concert style' music. If you couldn't dance to it, it doesn't interest me. But then I dance for a living.

 

[JohnEm]

Funnily enough though, the thing I would take issue with is the percussion point. The 'Bang Bang Bang' of the children's records that pass for neo-tango aside, I find Golden age music incredibly rhythmic, and until I started to listen to a wide range of tango music, I would never have believed that the combination of instruments making up a tango orchestra could play so percussively. The piano is, anyway, a percussion instrument, but the real character comes from the bandoneons and the violinists' use of the heels of the bow. A revelation.

'Latin' music seems to need a whole battery of instruments to make anything like the same impression. I rarely play the latter, except to accompany dancing, but I play tango all the time, although oddly enough I have no interest in the later 'concert style' music. If you couldn't dance to it, it doesn't interest me. . . .

Ah, common ground at last!

 

[Zoopsia59]

Hmm.
the left arm NEVER has ANY role in leading in the ballroom dances

In Latin dancing, it is common to dance in open position with no contact at all. we use the eyes, and arms/hands give shaping leads by gesture.

In case I missed it somewhere in the thread, which I admit to scanning, not reading thoroughly, would you list what dances you feel fall into the "ballroom" and "latin" categories?

I have danced Salsa with no contact, but as soon as the leader wants to indicate something specific other than just doing the basic forward/back thing, he has taken at least one of my hands. The same has been true for chacha.

I don't count dancing as two independent units who are both using the rhythm, but without the leader actually leading specific moves for the follower (which is what happens with many salsa dancers I know) I would call that individual freestyling within the set rhythm parameter for a dance, not lead/follow.

I know several bachata teachers who all emphasize that the hands/arms convey quite a bit.

I have also heard these distinctions in East coast swing.

I'm not an advanced ballroom dancer at all, but I've never seen or heard anyone around here advocating no contact with the leader's left arm.

 

[Zoopsia59]

Samba and Jive don't have much in common, despite being in the "Latin" bracket

Jive is part of the Latin family of dances? I thought it was part of the Swing family....

Ok... clearly I don't know what Jive is, I guess.