Tango as it crosses over with the relationships, seduction and sexuality

[tangobro]

I'm not a flagpole either and followers who think my job is to stand still while they show off a bunch of random moves can think again.

That's not the way I interpret that saying. The explanations I've heard is that the leader gives support & stability to the follower at all times, but is seldom static. I remember 1st hearing the flagpole/flag analogy from Claudio Villagra when he was dancing with Romina Levin.


I've since heard it from other, more sedate teachers/dancers.

I have encountered women who thought they could lean on me while doing unled boleos, ganchos, wraps or other random moves. After my last injury as a result of an unled boleo I will break tanda rather than continue with follower who does any of the above.

 

[tangobro]

I have the impression that in the milonguero style the woman draws attention, in tango de salón the focus is on the man, while in escenario both roles are more balanced.

Interesting observation. The way I've heard from Argentineans discussing tango de salón - the man dances around the floor, the woman dances around the man. I think that can also be said of milonguero style, but in escenario they both dance around the stage.

 

[Gssh]

This is true, too. Leaders are just as prone to treating followers as accessories to their fanciness as followers are to treating leaders as poles.

I tend to see these two as complimentary and usually co-occuring - i call it "taking turns at dancing". (this is actually what got me to explore counterbalanced dancing - a lot of advice about intermediate leading boiled down to "be a pole for a reasonable proportion of the dance so that the follower gets to do some dancing, too").

Honestly, I do find just walking boring, but at the same time, when I see two dancers being fancy, I kind of like to see them try to walk, to determine whether they can actually dance or just belong to the same mutual admiration society.

I think this is a important idea, and i did not think about this this way before - "being fancy" is very, very difficult (impossible?) to do balanced - it basically always requires one of the partners to be off balance or stuck somehow, whereas more elementary vocabulary can be done with continuous input.
Playing with the rhythm in walking is one of the most fun things to do, but the continuous exchange of accepted and rejected suggestions within the couple (and between the dancers and the music) is basically invisible. And when dancers try to make it visible it often becomes empty gestures - the prime example is the starting to the dance in competition style - the convention is that the follower does some adornments/footwork that communicate to the leader how they hear the music, and how and when they think is the right spot to start moving. Usually only the couple would know what is happening within the connection, so making this tension and negotiation visible is really nice, and helps the audience understand what is happening in the couple.
But then we also see that this negotiation actually does not happen - what happens is that the leader prepares to move and settles the embrace, the follower stops their input and collects, and then the couple moves when the leader suggests. I have never seen a leader agree and move into the followers suggested step. And even if you wanted to you probably couldn't in most cases - the movements are not actually serious, actionable suggestions that the couple could move on, and then doesn't because the leader is not engaging with it and moving would break the connection, but an adornment that is not actually part of the dance and doesn't do anything for the partner, so they have to either wait till its over or signal that now the dancing/connected movement starts and the solo stops.

 

[JournalInTime]

I tend to see these two as complimentary and usually co-occuring - i call it "taking turns at dancing". (this is actually what got me to explore counterbalanced dancing - a lot of advice about intermediate leading boiled down to "be a pole for a reasonable proportion of the dance so that the follower gets to do some dancing, too").

I feel that's a step in the evolution of true partnership: At first, you each take turns dancing, and the other is just an accessory. Then you learn to leave the other person openings to shine or show off, during which you look like an accessory but are more of an accomplice. Finally, you both learn to do everything each of you would like to do without needing a special opening, because your technique is good enough to allow you to manage it. I'm working on going from the second to the third step, but it's HARD.

Playing with the rhythm in walking is one of the most fun things to do, but the continuous exchange of accepted and rejected suggestions within the couple (and between the dancers and the music) is basically invisible.

It's that exchange that gives me the most pleasure in the actual dance. I reject the entire concept of the leader being "in charge." I expect both partners to propose things, though not all of those things will be accepted. But this isn't easy to do with all partners, more than in part because so many followers take a "You're the leader, so lead something!" stance and reject the idea of active following.

I have never seen a leader agree and move into the followers suggested step. And even if you wanted to you probably couldn't in most cases - the movements are not actually serious, actionable suggestions that the couple could move on, and then doesn't because the leader is not engaging with it and moving would break the connection, but an adornment that is not actually part of the dance and doesn't do anything for the partner, so they have to either wait till its over or signal that now the dancing/connected movement starts and the solo stops.

Hmm, I think it's possible, and I try to do it. I've had followers immediately propose to start a tango with an extravagant movement – sort of the opposite of a finale, a dramatic overture or prelude. When it works, it really works. But as I implied above, learning to handle this is difficult and not something that's possible with a random, unfamiliar partner.

 

[Rabbit]

the continuous exchange of accepted and rejected suggestions within the couple

I really disagree with this model of tango. I don't want to spend the tanda arguing with my partner about whose ideas to use. As leader, my job is to inspire the follower to move. Whatever she actually does is definitive, and I don't reject it.

 

[Tangogal]

Where I’d like my tango to be: a partnership of equals where we continuously exchange ideas throughout the dance. A dialogue if you will. It’s possible and I was close before I got ill and then injured and quit tango for a while. I’m there in Lindy-Hop but it still needs refining and obviously practice (stupid pandemic).

Where my tango dancing is: I speculate that after nearly two years with very little dancing that I’m very rusty and probably need a refresher course. I need to get limber again, listen to lots of music, dance a lot and work on posture, breathing and alignment. Then I probably need to look for a practice partner to work on followers voice.

 

[Reuven Thetanguero]

Why? It's probably the single most labour-intensive way to pick up women ever invented!

yes, most labor-intensive, but you get to meet people who have the same interest as you.

 

[Gssh]

I really disagree with this model of tango. I don't want to spend the tanda arguing with my partner about whose ideas to use. As leader, my job is to inspire the follower to move. Whatever she actually does is definitive, and I don't reject it.

I suspect that we are differing only in the semantics - i would not describe the endstate that i am looking for as constant arguing, but as a gestalt of the couple emerging because of the shared input. One of the other images i use is of an ouija board - we both have a finger on it, and what happens from this shared input is interesting and potentially surprising for both of it.
In some ways when we are both respectful of the geometry of the couples it is impossible to really reject what ones partner does - if my partner does something i have to so something, too, to maintain the integrity of the couple. (of course this depends on what we consider to be a rejecting - a lot of the characteristic tango vocabulary is could be considered rejecting intended movement: rebounds, ocho cortados, all other cuts, wraps, ganchos, sacadas, boleos - tango might actually be the dance that is most based on rejection)

 

[Rabbit]

I suspect that we are differing only in the semantics - i would not describe the endstate that i am looking for as constant arguing, but as a gestalt of the couple emerging because of the shared input. One of the other images i use is of an ouija board - we both have a finger on it, and what happens from this shared input is interesting and potentially surprising for both of it.

I'm not sure it is quite ouija board because a lot of the input is conscious. I experience it as what one might call a feedback loop where my object is to inspire the follower to do something she wanted to do anyway even if she didn't realise it yet. So what the follower does in response to a lead (or just initiates herself) influences what I'm going to lead next. If this is working well, the follower generally won't want to alter the dance structure, because why change something she already likes. If it's not working as well the follower usually ends up hijacking the lead at some points until I figured out what she's listening to that inspired her to do it - I don't mind that. If the follower is very active but I can't understand their musicality, then yeah we can technically be 50-50 but at the same time the dance is also not going to be very good.

In some ways when we are both respectful of the geometry of the couples it is impossible to really reject what ones partner does - if my partner does something i have to so something, too, to maintain the integrity of the couple. (of course this depends on what we consider to be a rejecting - a lot of the characteristic tango vocabulary is could be considered rejecting intended movement: rebounds, ocho cortados, all other cuts, wraps, ganchos, sacadas, boleos - tango might actually be the dance that is most based on rejection)

That's where the semantics come in. The way I see it, most ganchos / sacadas / crosses arent rejection but a slight redirection. Rebounds aren't usually a rejection because there was never an intent to fully transfer weight and take another step in the same direction in the first place - I think the main exception is the reversal of pivot directions which usually involves a blocking movement. Boleos can be a rejection if they're led with a blocking movement in this way, but most of them don't need to be led with a block - they can be positively generated.