OK, Guys, forgive another long post, but this one might be good.
I feel that there is a lot of Dinzel bashing around here based mainly on assumptions.
The best way to find out, will be to ask Señor Dinzel himself.
And, so I did. He was a wee busy, and I was traveling, so we didn't have a lot of time for cordials, reminiscing, etc., but we had a few moments. Hopefully, they will, certainly not clear the subject but, shed a little light on a few questions.
For those of us whose Spanish is limited to "Hola" and a few tango terms, would you care to translate?.
First off, Zoops, it means "the native" more or less. He said that I had such an interest in the culture, the language, the people, and their lives, as well as the tango, that I was not like the typical outsider. He was also impressed with how I learned, so he called me El Criollo. I remember that when I told him it was because I had studied a lot of ballroom prior to, you can imagine the scowls and dejections that it brought.
I had to smile about his evaluation of Tango Milonguero style, as it seems to be a matter of perspective.
He said that it was taken incorrectly, and that what he was referring to was the, then, and perhaps still (my words), attempt by several teachers and students to define and label a Milonguero Style. He said that, to them [the argentines] true tango was not defined by a style; that it was inborn, and was all milonguero because they were all milongueros, and no matter how well others learned the tango, they [outsiders] could never be milongueros, and that which they were trying to create would not last, but would eventually fall to the shadows of true tango.
Whatever the reason they have devised a system, the very antithesis of tango it seems to me.
Unfortunately, I still don't have an answer to my original question, as to what this system is.
I asked, flat out, "What is the system?" After a brief chastising for not having the book, this was, of course paraphrased in part, the reply.
The cover and first chapter of the book define tango as being a totally improvised conversation between partners about the music. He stressed the need for the partners to be both present in the conversation, but that the man had to lead, and the lady had to respond correctly much like when 2 persons are speaking in a verbal conversation. He said that if one speaks and one listens then responds, it will be a better conversation than if both persons are trying to talk at the same time. Further, that if the man says something, and the lady replies with a remark that is off topic, or irrelevant, then the conversation will discourse in a direction other than that which was intended. sometimes, the lead can bring the conversation back (by fixing the error, I guess), and sometimes the intention is lost, and the dance loses its connection... the conversation becomes an argument.
He said that the first chapters define "the system", which basically diagrams that the dance is divided into 3 parts: the beginning, the middle, the ending, and it has become custom to call this salida (coming from the term "salir a bailar" meaning to leave the sitting area to dance... accept the invitation from the man, etc), caminar... the walk, resolucion... the ending. He says that the so-called 8CB is a perfect instrument to demonstrate this because it employs all of the basic movements. (Note that I agree w/ some of what he said, but not necessarily all... ) The basic premise to the system is that there are 4 possibilities of movement per step, and that the leader needs to know where he is going in order to implement the proper movement for the next chosen 1 of 4 to be carried out. This is what he refers to as systematic.
Based on this concept, each possible direction has a systematic precede and follow that will enable a specified intention or result. In one sense, this could become contradictory to the ideology that AT is improvisational, yet, in another sense, like in a verbal conversation, one's direction might change according to another's reply, but the point of the conversation remains.
I do not know whether or not I agree with his "system", but I am now intrigued to get the book (which I guess is unavailable in the US). At the risk of sounding pompous, I believe that it is probably not very good for a newbie, beginner, or average learner, but I probably know enough to use it as a cross reference guide to learning/teaching if desired.
In closing, I also spoke with another argentine about Rudy and Gloria, and their declining reputation/s in the tango world. Here is that brief.
Rudy and Gloria were basically folkloric dancers, who knew little real [authentic] tango, when they were approached to be a part of Tango Argentino in the late 70s/early 80s. The producers of the show wanted old [authentic] portenos to be in the show, but weren't finding many because tango, though performed in shows and danced in local competitions, was just not the fantasia that they were going to create, and we now crave with wide eyes and flying feet. After TA (the show), the Dinzels began teaching, not necessarily show tango, but the new tango concepts in favor of the more traditional. Of course, these concepts were/are not seen in the milongas, and this is why they, the Dinzels, do not frequent them. This is probably a mistake on their part since the milongas are an integral part of what tango is.
They are looked upon, today, as basically lesser educated in the traditional ways of the tango of the old guard than many, and frowned upon for not being more a part of the dance as the portenos know/do it. The infamous book/system, though true to the dance in many ways, is largely, not necessarily majoritively, not well liked because it uses the marketed 8CB as a base, and is far too systematic for a dance that it highly regarded for its lead/follow and improvisation (sounds like the argument for most BR syllabi, doesn't it?).
So, at least, now, I understand what Jan is speaking about when she refers to the Dinzels, yet I am glad to know both sides of the story. Sorry again for the long post.