Media Luna (Half Moon)

[mshedgehog]

Well not at my expense, thank you very much.

I shouldn't think so.

To summarise, you are right. They are the same. The names are just for convenient reference. Once you can lead the movements individually (a forward step, a side step, a back step, a bit of pivot in various directions) whenever you want, you can combine them in absolutely any way (and with any timing) that turns out to make sense with the music and the floor. That's how AT works. It's kind of scary but also has a lot of potential.

It does happen that people make a list of 'steps' or 'patterns' that they want to teach or learn, and this can be quite effective for some techniques, and spectacularly bad for some other things. For instance, because they are taught out of the context of social dancing they can cause people to think it's OK, and even expected, to take a giant step backwards against the line of dance, which imagination (or indeed experiment) will quickly tell you is a baaaaad thing to get into the habit of. (Hint: just make it smaller, a tiny weight change, if you are puzzled how else to start - and angling yourself a little will make the side step less of a dangerous weave into someone else's lane).

If you are a self-directed student then I'd say just don't worry about the names at all, they tend to be distracting and used in inconsistent ways. You will constantly find that things boil down to each other, as you've already noticed. One approach that has worked very well for some people I dance with is to make themselves some rules like just sticking to certain very simple elements, using only close embrace, picking good music and seeing what they can do with it: it can be very creative, and then when you change or depart from whatever set of rules you have chosen, or you discover a new possibility, you will know what you are doing.

 

[v22TTC]

Well, not that I'm attached to our particular terminology, but round our way the media luna does use the giro/molinete steps, but reverses direction - generally rotate the follower through 90 degress CCW (usually with a forward step to start), then through 180 degrees CW, then 90 degrees CCW back into the LoD.

But we're encouraged to mix it up as much as we can, as an exercise in getting used to having to perform sudden rotation-reversals (and not thinking in terms of preset sequences).

They tend to be very playful.

 

[Clive]

I have a bit of a hangup about all this 'don't step backwards' stuff. I'm an experienced dancer in several different styles (but a relative beginner in this one), and it wouldn't ever occur to me to step backwards against the line of dance if I was at the slightest risk of being an inconvenience, less still a danger to myself, my partner or another dancer. That's just basic floorcraft, and every social dancer should know that courtesy and safety on the dancefloor are a very high priority at all times.

That said, there is a great deal of teaching going on that starts with the Basic Eight and all those back steps. It's not my fault: I'm the student, not the master. The IDTA syllabus is built around the figure, and it seems to me to be at least a reasonable way to introduce some fundamental actions, or ways of moving, in this style, and to build progressively from a simple foundation. I would only look upon the 'figures' provided as being illustrative of valid ways that particular movements or actions can be danced, rather than being prescriptive of the 'proper' (less still, only) way to dance them.

I took a quick look through the material for the IDTA Syllabus, and came up with this list of fundamental actions or movements to be found in the first dozen illustrated 'figures':

Cruzada, Ocho Atras, Ocho Adelante, Ronde, Giro, Sacada, Media Luna, Cunita, Parada, Passada, Sandwitchito & Barrida.

There's a lot you can do with those, given the development of a technical ability to lead and follow (as required), and a basic understanding of the principles of walking and moving from one embelishment or action to another, surely?

I don't know enough yet to judge whether the particular syllabus I am looking at is actually good, on its own terms, and of course, I am aware of the existence of a philosophy of learning this dance that would reject any sort of formal codification at all. However, adherents of that view are often the most vocal in saying that you shouldn't do this, or shouldn't (or can't) do that, and I would reply "Oh? Says who?"

 

[v22TTC]

Hi Clive,

This is a subject that tends to come up quite a bit - pretty recently we had the 'How Useful is the DVIDA Syllabus?' thread (a few below this one on this page of the forum) which you might benefit from having a gander at (it goes into the 8CB specifically too).

You'll find plenty of similar others further back - it really does lie at the heart of an ideological approach to TA, so it tends to be one of those subjects (which, I think, is what Dave Bailey was referring to).

Without going into it here too much, if you, specifically, are the kind of person who can learn a sequence whilst simultaneously absolutely internalising the fact that it isn't an actual sequence (each tiny component is individually led and it may have to be gracefully morphed into something else at any time etc) then you shouldn't have too much of a problem (and hopefully all of your potential followers and fellow couples on the floor are equally mentally-agile and responsive).

 

[Clive]

I suppose it is because I dance in many styles that I tend to look upon anything new from the viewpoint of 'how does this relate to what I already know', but equally, 'what makes this different - what am I supposed to be doing, and how do I do it?'

My greatest experience lies in Ballroom, which one of my AT friends dismissed as 'dancing by numbers' the other day (firmly tongue-in-cheek, BTW). She was right, and wrong. The styles (there are five, not one) are fully codified, and identifiable figures are strung together in highly organised ways, but its a poor dancer (there are a lot of those) who can only put together the figures in the order they were taught them, and would actually collide with another couple rather than change course; but this isn't good dancing. A good ballroom leader leads every single step, and a good follower need know nothing at all about the intentions of the leader, and yet follow with perfect ease. It is because they share the same vocabulary of basic fundamentals that they can speak in the same language with nothing more than their connection and the music. Connection isn't an expression you will often hear used in a ballroom, but it it what drives ballroom dancing at a high level. An intelligent leader 'reads' the room - the physical space at his disposal, makes an assessment of the capabilities of his partner, and then moves, in response to the music. Once he has started to move, the course of just a few steps at a time will be readily predictable to an experienced follower, but the possible ways of linking preceding and following figures, the degrees to which rhythm can be altered, and direction and turn adapted are almost infinite.

Three minutes later, the leader is dancing another style, completely, and this continues all night. To dance a little AT, having assimilated something of its unique style and technical requirements, is not really so hard ...

I find the hardest challenge, given a mixed dance programme, is to switch between Ballroom Tango and AT. They are both fantastically rewarding, and equally difficult to do really well. I love them both.

 

[Ampster]

I suppose it is because I dance in many styles that I tend to look upon anything new from the viewpoint of 'how does this relate to what I already know', but equally, 'what makes this different - what am I supposed to be doing, and how do I do it?'

My greatest experience lies in Ballroom, which one of my AT friends dismissed as 'dancing by numbers' the other day (firmly tongue-in-cheek, BTW). She was right, and wrong. The styles (there are five, not one) are fully codified, and identifiable figures are strung together in highly organised ways, but its a poor dancer (there are a lot of those) who can only put together the figures in the order they were taught them, and would actually collide with another couple rather than change course; but this isn't good dancing. A good ballroom leader leads every single step, and a good follower need know nothing at all about the intentions of the leader, and yet follow with perfect ease. It is because they share the same vocabulary of basic fundamentals that they can speak in the same language with nothing more than their connection and the music. Connection isn't an expression you will often hear used in a ballroom, but it it what drives ballroom dancing at a high level. An intelligent leader 'reads' the room - the physical space at his disposal, makes an assessment of the capabilities of his partner, and then moves, in response to the music. Once he has started to move, the course of just a few steps at a time will be readily predictable to an experienced follower, but the possible ways of linking preceding and following figures, the degrees to which rhythm can be altered, and direction and turn adapted are almost infinite.

Three minutes later, the leader is dancing another style, completely, and this continues all night. To dance a little AT, having assimilated something of its unique style and technical requirements, is not really so hard ...

I find the hardest challenge, given a mixed dance programme, is to switch between Ballroom Tango and AT. They are both fantastically rewarding, and equally difficult to do really well. I love them both.

I also came from a ballroom background. IMHE, one of my mistakes was transpose what I knew in BR and into AT. It was bad. My BR polluted my AT, and my AT degraded my BR. They are just so very different that even the music is so diametrically opposed. I would advocate coming into AT with a clean slate. They are quite different.

Case in point, here's Corky Ballas transposing his BR tango with AT and him trying to teach it. It looks, uh... really strange

My (humble) take on my the differences AT vs. BR Tango--> Click

 

[Steve Pastor]

Surely the IDTA is a teaching society with International reach, and the overwhelming majority of its members are not from the UK

FYI, here in Portland, OR, which has a nationally known AT scene, this organization has practically zero influence.

 

[v22TTC]

Clive: I suspect that you know a great deal more about TA than I do Ballroom, so there's not much I can really say here... just a few things that inform the 'traditional' (especially) TA approach to not-sequences learning:-

The almost insane 'over-crowding' in some milongas forces rapid responsiveness;

The deep connection and play dynamics can break down with sequences: the invite; accept (follower begins move); leader follows follower to completion of step: or invite; decline; invite something else etc; or the playful tease and surprise of (to use my media luna example above) leading the follower back and forth through 90 degrees, rather than all the way round, or pausing where she might expect motion (as her sequence-mind might be expecting); and so on;

Really expressing/'being in' the music is of pivotal importance to many TA-lovers, and that and sequences are clearly mutually-antagonistic;

So yeah - that's the thinking and mission-statement, but most of us aren't Maestros so... yes we do use some sequences here and there (generally with a view to ridding ourselves of those crutches as we improve).

I suppose the main point is that the connection can be so deep and precious, and so precarious, that it's better to err on the side of caution and collectively just not teach/learn sequences as much as possible (or carefully foster a dualistic and subtle 'it's taught as a sequence but you mustn't think of it as one' attitude that works).

I, for one, had a pretty bad dancing experience with a girl this week, due to her absolute refusal to follow anything that didn't compute as the prescribed next bit in her sequence algorithm (but we'd got into a position where it was impossible to get to that next step, since she wouldn't even take a small step to get her weight on the correct foot - since that didn't compute either)... horrible....

 

[Clive]

Oh, I've come across this pair's AT before. I don't want to be rude, but watching them stride through a Basic Eight, counting in 2 x 8s, cheered me up no end when I first saw it some time ago. Anyway they are Latin dancers - very different beasts, but someone really ought to tell them ...

I don't aim to merge AT with Ballroom in my own dancing, but there are only so many ways a body can move, and you can't ignore that they share quite a lot of them, even if the finished result looks and feels very different. They have a common ancestry, of course.

 

[Clive]

FYI, here in Portland, OR, which has a nationally known AT scene, this organization has practically zero influence.

In the field of AT, where they are the new kid on the block, I wouldn't expect otherwise - but they are one of the biggest teaching societies in the world (7,000+ members) and along with ISTD, pretty much pre-eminent in almost every major dance genre you could name.

 

[Steve Pastor]

pretty much pre-eminent in almost every major dance genre you could name.

Except for....

 

[AndaBien]

...I don't aim to merge AT with Ballroom in my own dancing, but there are only so many ways a body can move, and you can't ignore that they share quite a lot of them, even if the finished result looks and feels very different. They have a common ancestry, of course.

On a basic level, one that can be expressed verbally, that's true. Your free foot can step in place, forward, backward or sidewards. It can also step across in front or in back. All dances have the same possibilities. And, a hop or leap can be done on the weight bearing foot. It's my experience that ballroom is taught using these descriptions and closely adheres to them.

On another level, one inhabited by experienced milongueros, there is infinite variation in the ways a body can move. Every milonguero dances differently. I think AT tries to celebrate these variations. They are what distinguishes AT from other dance forms.

 

[mshedgehog]

They have a common ancestry, of course.

I think that's historically very true, in much the same way (and in roughly the same time frame, you could argue) as baseball and Test Cricket. This is an interesting thread.

 

[JohnEm]

If you are a self-directed student then I'd say just don't worry about the names at all, they tend to be distracting and used in inconsistent ways. You will constantly find that things boil down to each other, as you've already noticed. One approach that has worked very well for some people I dance with is to make themselves some rules like just sticking to certain very simple elements, using only close embrace, picking good music and seeing what they can do with it: it can be very creative, and then when you change or depart from whatever set of rules you have chosen, or you discover a new possibility, you will know what you are doing.

As someone who came from other dances including ballroom I found AT initially
very counter-intuitive. I would agree with this approach as it is finally what
made it work for me. Fortunately I had been taught a very good basis of technique
from teaching which seems to be difficult to find.

To use a tango cliche, eventually you find your own tango or maybe it finds you
as weirdly you can suddenly find yourself dancing with your partner in the moment,
to the music, that you hadn't planned or previously thought about.

This is a long, long way from ballroom. I did find though that the urge to
improvise in tango back influenced some ballroom (waltz and foxtrot particularly)
much to the concern of my regular partner who couldn't cope with the interruption
of her expected and fixed patterns.

Ballroom is only a memory now, for the moment at least!

Cruzada, Ocho Atras, Ocho Adelante, Ronde, Giro, Sacada, Media Luna, Cunita, Parada, Passada, Sandwitchito & Barrida.

There's a lot you can do with those, given the development of a technical ability to lead and follow (as required), and a basic understanding of the principles of walking and moving from one embelishment or action to another, surely?

Yes, and if you don't know the "vocabulary" maybe it's no bad thing to learn them,
then throw them away at least consciously. And maybe it's learning the wrong way round.

I don't know enough yet to judge whether the particular syllabus I am looking at is actually good, on its own terms, and of course, I am aware of the existence of a philosophy of learning this dance that would reject any sort of formal codification at all. However, adherents of that view are often the most vocal in saying that you shouldn't do this, or shouldn't (or can't) do that, and I would reply "Oh? Says who?"

Everything you write though indicates that currently you are in the "must learn
moves" mindset which is typical of all kinds of dance teaching. I have a very
sceptical view of teachers and teaching in general and I was married to a teacher.
People who teach dance usually come from a step orientated approach,
maybe even a choreographic approach which I've found in both ballroom and tango,
because that's really the only approach that works in group classes,
especially large ones.

So if you don't like being told on here what you should and shouldn't do,
don't ask on here (there you are, I'm telling you!). Go and find your own tango,
to use another oft-spoken phrase apparently. There's plenty of video of all kinds,
milonguero, VU, stage/show etc and all shades in between.

Research, maybe read the blogs from jantango's Tango Chamuyo jantango.wordpress.com,
Ampster, TangoPilgrim and you'll find links to others. Look at Planet Tango's
multifarious sites (if you must), Keith Elshaw's www.totango.net with some interesting
comments about him coaching not teaching there, and finallywww.tangoandchaos.org
my personal favourite. And perhaps the rather dry tangovoice.wordpress.com

Then make up your own mind. That's Tango - it isn't prescriptive.

 

[Dave Bailey]

Firstly, I forgot to say - hello, and welcome, Clive.

I have a bit of a hangup about all this 'don't step backwards' stuff. I'm an experienced dancer in several different styles (but a relative beginner in this one), and it wouldn't ever occur to me to step backwards against the line of dance

Good

if I was at the slightest risk of being an inconvenience, less still a danger to myself, my partner or another dancer.

To be honest, I don't believe it's OK to step back, even if it's (seen to be) safe. I think it's just not a good idea - even discounring safety issues, to me, it disrupts the dance flow.

That's just basic floorcraft, and every social dancer should know that courtesy and safety on the dancefloor are a very high priority at all times.

Heh. Yes, that would be nice. But having been at a venue last night where I saw one guy regularly do airstep moves with his partner, and another guy literally run across the floor, I can confirm that basic floorcraft is not something that many dancers make a priority.

That said, there is a great deal of teaching going on that starts with the Basic Eight and all those back steps.

Why does the 8CB have a backstep? Anyone know?