Tango Diaries

[JournalInTime]

Precision and clarity in communication enabled by shorthand terms are more than outweighed by confusion caused by not everybody using, agreeing on the meaning of, or even having heard those terms. Respecting that axiom is essential on an Internet forum where – however narrow the shared interest might appear to be – participants hail from all over the world, have dozens of different first languages, range across at least six decades and two generations of age, and acquired their knowledge of the shared interest in different places and at different times, from different mentors. That goes double for a 100-year-old dance developed in one small region by people who mostly spoke one specific language, and then exported, reimported, reexported, etc. N times. We spend a lot of words here saying "around here," "where I live," "in my area," and so on.

"Projection" is a great case in point. It would be better, if wordier, to spell out what you actually mean each time. Me, I lead by grounding myself (weight over metatarsals, soft knees, torso seated on pelvis, etc.) and pushing into the floor, and using that foundation to develop such things as slight pressure from forward lean, or torsion, or suspension, or whatever, communicated via engaging a chain of muscles from my feet to wherever I'm in contact with my partner. My coach refers to this engagement as "intention," and reserves "projection" to mean what my follower does with their free leg when stepping in response to "intention." So, "projection" sounds bizarre to me . . . it's a response, not a way to elicit a response.

When dancing, I don't use words to explain what I want, or rely on my partner to watch me and get visual cues, or apply force with my arms. I quietly step, ground, engage, and communicate. It works with all but total beginner followers – and even many total beginners – so I couldn't be too far from right.

Back to shorthand: I use "signal" or "indicate" to refer to requesting a movement from my partner via this process. In my terms and my coach's, I use "intention" to "signal" or "indicate" a lead, which generally results in my partner "projecting" a free leg. But I'd bet a coffee and croissant that at least one person here won't agree with any part of that vocabulary.

 

[JournalInTime]

Sorry, then I misunderstood you. For me, words like "proposer" always carry contradiction, reservations or uncertainty regarding execution. Projection, on the other hand, is always unambiguous. The follower is remotely controlled, resistance is futile. Followers usually decide before they embrace an leader whether they want to dance with someone who projects or not.

I think you can be unambiguous without remotely controlling your partner. I was taught explicitly and in no uncertain terms NOT to try to control my partner – only to make it extremely clear what I am proposing. I was also taught to think of "what I am proposing" as "what I would like, absent something better," not as "what I am insisting on." Execution is my follower's job, not mine, and they might accept my proposal or insert something better. I was clearly warned that were I to attempt to control interpretation, I would cross the line between partners and risk being labeled a bad dancer. Finally, I was taught that a follower retains the right to resist any lead they feel would be risky, inappropriate, or just plain unmusical, even if they've accepted to dance with that leader . . . accepting is inviting the leader into your house, not giving them permission to smoke, much less break dishes.

 

[Brummbaer]

I think you can be unambiguous without remotely controlling your partner. I was taught explicitly and in no uncertain terms NOT to try to control my partner

I don't disagree, but it also depends on your stage of AT and what you've learned. The original point was from, apparently, a beginner/novice. It's up to the teacher to find a form of words to communicate the ideas. From experience different (good) teachers manage to emphasize something which clicks with the student. If not, yry some other description. No phrasing seems totally to capture the actions in their entirety (hence my dislike for some newer offerings).

Languages generally develop many words to describe something similar that mean something to the person. Once upon a time 'man' and 'woman' seemed adequate, but those no longer work in many cultures.

 

[TTanguero]

Projection, on the other hand, is always unambiguous. The follower is remotely controlled, resistance is futile.

For me, one doesn't follow the other. You can be clear in your proposal, and the follower can execute it exactly as proposed or can respond in other ways.

For example, if you lead a turn around you, your proposal might suggest four steps while the follower might respond with eight double-time ones. Same result, same timing, doesn't interfere with your lead at all.

 

[TTanguero]

I was also taught to think of "what I am proposing" as "what I would like, absent something better," not as "what I am insisting on." Execution is my follower's job, not mine, and they might accept my proposal or insert something better.

100% this.

 

[JournalInTime]

It's up to the teacher to find a form of words to communicate the ideas. From experience different (good) teachers manage to emphasize something which clicks with the student.

In my ongoing tango teacher training, we're going with the premise that doing is more useful than saying, because we are teaching people to dance, not to teach dance (and have as a stated goal not creating new dancers who think they're teachers because they can parrot buzzwords). So, if I say something in 50 words, using 3 buzzwords (like "connection," "intention," and "projection") and 5 old-timey tango vocabulary words (like paso, cadencia, cruzada, and ocho adelante), my trainer might ask me to make it 20 plain English words while doing a quick demo ("Step like this and now this on strong notes, so you end up like this, and then pivot like so.").

To be clear, I am aware of the concept of "learning styles" or "learning languages," and that not all people are somatic or visual learners who will appreciate the above approach. For instance, I'm a verbal learner – I need theory, terminology, abstract debate, etc. to acquire new capabilities, and no amount of showing or doing helps me half as much. But my coach, who has taught for 30+ years, tells me that I am in a rarified minority, and that probably 90% of people in a typical dance class could be taught chiefly through being shown what to do and then asked to do it, a good percentage of them probably needing no words at all (and often ignoring any words offered in any event!).

So, in the context of lead-follow, I guess I'm saying that some of those early, simple, nontechnical words be things like, "You should try to keep your torso pointed toward your partner at all times, and walk in a way that respects rather than fights their presence and momentum, which might mean turning your lower body a different way from your upper body." Nothing said about "connection," "intention," "dissociation," and whatnot, but perfectly simple stuff for a total beginner who grasps ordinary English.

I'm not entirely convinced that the traditional tango vocabulary and modern dance-theory buzzwords are anything but gatekeeping via shibboleths, wrapped up in a nice dream about "preserving tradition" and "creating dancers."

 

[JournalInTime]

For me, one doesn't follow the other. You can be clear in your proposal, and the follower can execute it exactly as proposed or can respond in other ways.

For example, if you lead a turn around you, your proposal might suggest four steps while the follower might respond with eight double-time ones. Same result, same timing, doesn't interfere with your lead at all.

Indeed, this is an essential part of what I am working on with my partner right now in the coaching sessions that are not about tango teacher training!

I'm cleaning up my expression of counts – most importantly, 1 and 3 in tango and 1 and 2 in vals – so that my partner has more liberty to interpret. Already, she is finding it more fun to dance, because if, say, the piano inspires her to interpret a classic SSQQ (4 steps) as QQQQQQ (6 steps), I'm not in her way, futzing about with counts I should be giving to her. And as I'm waiting, I have more freedom for my own expression with entradas, patadas, barridas, lapices, enrosques, planeos, etc. . . . All I care is that she is not pulling me off axis and, at the level of the phrase, that she moves an odd number of steps when I expect odd or an even number when I expect even. (Honestly, she can even change parity as long as she also signals me to wait using her back engagement!)

The interesting thing is that beginners dance this way naturally. It's years of teachers giving them recipes. and of controlling leaders restricting their interpretation, that creates followers who have to be (re)taught to (re)claim their power. Just the other night, I danced with a 6-month beginner who knew nothing about salon-style turns (leader pivoting in place), as she had experienced only walking turns, and she responded with perfectly valid inventions that were right on the music. The same evening, I danced with some many-years veteran tanguera who waited around for me to move her legs for her . . . it was tiring and, worse, boring.

Obviously, there are these crazy-legs tangueras who just do whatever, whenever, without respect for the music, my axis, or anything else. That's bad, and totally unrelated to what I mean when I talk about follower counterproposals. I danced with one of those the other night, too.

 

[Rabbit]

(Honestly, she can even change parity as long as she also signals me to wait using her back engagement!)

I don't even care exactly how many steps the follower takes so long as I know which leg she's on, since cross system exists.

I have the same experience as you with beginners. A lot of tango teaching creates BAD dancers, not good ones.

 

[JournalInTime]

I don't even care exactly how many steps the follower takes so long as I know which leg she's on, since cross system exists.

Pretty much this. It depends on my follower signaling well, meaning committing to a system and letting me know with something resembling presence, ideally in the back.

I have the same experience as you with beginners. A lot of tango teaching creates BAD dancers, not good ones.

I am all for people getting coaching, but strictly from good coaches. Better not to get coaching than to work with a bad coach.

 

[Rabbit]

Pretty much this. It depends on my follower signaling well, meaning committing to a system and letting me know with something resembling presence, ideally in the back.

They don't even need to consciously try to communicate it, just moving with intention is enough. The problem is many leaders aren't really listening to their partner

 

[TTanguero]

not all people are somatic or visual learners who will appreciate the above approach. For instance, I'm a verbal learner – I need theory, terminology, abstract debate, etc. to acquire new capabilities, and no amount of showing or doing helps me half as much.

Yeah, this is why teachers need to adapt to their students. They can demonstrate the movement all they like, but I need to understand how and why it produces the result it does.

 

[JournalInTime]

They don't even need to consciously try to communicate it, just moving with intention is enough. The problem is many leaders aren't really listening to their partner

It shouldn't have to be conscious, no. However, it's still communicating. You can't listen to what isn't there to listen to, but of course a person can give you something to listen to passively, simply by moving in a way that makes sense.

 

[Brummbaer]

They don't even need to consciously try to communicate it, just moving with intention is enough.

Not for a beginner, or maybe even novice. You have to adapt to your follower's skills, or current lack. 'Advanced' followers make that easy for the leader - and have an extensive vocabulary to interpret that 'intention'.

 

[Bailango]

Followers usually decide before they embrace an leader whether they want to dance with someone who projects or not.

That’s again confusing. Projection is a part of leading mechanics. Whether consciously or not, followers respond to projection. I would like to hear from a follow who doesn’t like projection and why. I haven’t heard a single follower complaint about it. Leaders may develop ability to project innately or learning it in a class.

 

[Bailango]

Precision and clarity in communication enabled by shorthand terms are more than outweighed by confusion caused by not everybody using, agreeing on the meaning of, or even having heard those terms. Respecting that axiom is essential on an Internet forum where – however narrow the shared interest might appear to be – participants hail from all over the world, have dozens of different first languages, range across at least six decades and two generations of age, and acquired their knowledge of the shared interest in different places and at different times, from different mentors. That goes double for a 100-year-old dance developed in one small region by people who mostly spoke one specific language, and then exported, reimported, reexported, etc. N times. We spend a lot of words here saying "around here," "where I live," "in my area," and so on.

You captured my thoughts. You have far more patience to write them out.

"Projection" is a great case in point. It would be better, if wordier, to spell out what you actually mean each time.

Yes. We can understand the concept at high level but detailed level meaning/execution may not be the same. Leading to loss in translation.

Me, I lead by grounding myself (weight over metatarsals, soft knees, torso seated on pelvis, etc.) and pushing into the floor, and using that foundation to develop such things as slight pressure from forward lean, or torsion, or suspension, or whatever, communicated via engaging a chain of muscles from my feet to wherever I'm in contact with my partner. My coach refers to this engagement as "intention," and reserves "projection" to mean what my follower does with their free leg when stepping in response to "intention." So, "projection" sounds bizarre to me . . . it's a response, not a way to elicit a response.

What your coach refers to as “intention” is what I call “projection”. The followers’s part is “response” to the said “projection” (or “intention”). If someone were to ask me what is “projection”, I would say “it is conveying of intent of the direction of the movement, prior to actual execution of the movement”. That still may not be clear. What is “execution”. Does the movement start with the “intention”? To me “intent” is part of execution of a movement. If you say start of physical movement, there is a physical element to creating “intention”. To be more precise now you have to get nerdy to say “before start of physical movement through space”. That still is not accurate enough. “Intention” can itself be said to be the start of physical movement through space, but it can also be with withdrawn. You can hold it, or withdraw it and re-propose. To be precise and accurate the leaders action of going through the execution of the movement , post-“intention” it requires getting granular by defining weight distribution, displacement, foot position, etc. (reminds me of scalers and vectors).

When dancing, I don't use words to explain what I want, or rely on my partner to watch me and get visual cues, or apply force with my arms. I quietly step, ground, engage, and communicate. It works with all but total beginner followers – and even many total beginners – so I couldn't be too far from right.

Agree. It just works. More people dance the more they imbibe.

Back to shorthand: I use "signal" or "indicate" to refer to requesting a movement from my partner via this process. In my terms and my coach's, I use "intention" to "signal" or "indicate" a lead, which generally results in my partner "projecting" a free leg. But I'd bet a coffee and croissant that at least one person here won't agree with any part of that vocabulary.

Even when there is shared consistent understanding of the vocabulary and the concept, it can be difficult to communicate. Here we are talking about a concept that people perceive differently and non-standard nomenclature.