Discussion in 'Tango Argentino' started by Madahlia, Jan 30, 2010.
surley no ganchos to the front; the knee doesnt bend that way?
where is chopped, splinters must fall
haven´t you seen the photo of my knee with the splint?
I want to dance with everyone on DF! We should have a DF convention! Let's have it here so my local community can get some exposure to something other than what they've been seeing!
What's with the sticking out of tongue, you brat?
I don't know that I would call the one at :15 and the other one slightly later that was similar, "ganchos". There's not much about them that "hooks" as an interruption of her movement. But then I don't know what the actual definition of "gancho" is.
What he leads is the downward sinking into her standing knee. As a stylistic thing, she raises her free foot. I guess there's nothing in his lead that causes her to raise her free leg; she could just as easily straighten it behind her on the floor. So you could say that the raised leg that sorta ganchos is her embellishment.
Her effort is going into raising the leg, whereas with a traditional gancho, it takes effort to NOT raise the leg and allow it to hook, because it is relaxed and it's motion is interrupted. It is simply a step and something gets in the way.
It appears to me that this is almost the opposite: instead of leading her to step backward and interrupting the step, he sends her forward (and down) and she raises her free leg behind her. As he twists, it contacts his bent leg and hooks. But the contact is not what causes the raising of her leg.
I don't really care one way or another whether people want to call these more nuevo-y moves ganchos. I'm not sure what else you WOULD call them. The question is (and I don't have the answer, because I haven't been led in this specific move) what changes if the follower extends her leg rather than lift it? Does anything in his lead physically cause the leg to come up, or is it more like a learned response based on style rather than an inevitable one based on physics?
It seems to me that many of the more nuevo'y moves use raising a leg to counterbalance the off-axis movement. It's what some followers do when they feel they are off-balance to regain their balance (ie: counterbalance by letting something else go the other way) except in this style it is intended as part of the dance rather than being a rescue attempt by a falling follower.
I can't tell if he's leading that or not, but some people teach that the follower's free foot is lead by the leaders left hand against the follower's right hand. I saw some evidence of the leader using that technique on the pasada right before the gancho (@ 0:13), but he turns when doing the gancho, so I can't see if he's still leading her free foot movement, or if it's a follower embellishment.
For what it's worth you can read Alberto Paz's definition of gancho here
or, if that crazy url doesn't work google this
gancho alberto paz gotta tango
You mean like a secret handshake move? "When I do this with my hand, it means you do that with your foot" ?
In other words, something you have to learn the "correct" response for rather than simply following based on the usual body mechanics?
Yes, that is more or less correct. Basically, if the leader lifts your right hand up with his left hand, then your free foot is supposed to move up accordingly. Similarly he can move your free foot left and right in similar fashion. I mentioned this technique in The Pasada thread a while back.
BTW, I was told this is very "natural" for the follower.
Funny you ahould mention this....
....because my thought is that though all of the wraps (I'll call them that b/c they all are not ganchos, enganches, etc) are not traditionally "led", they all do result as a/the natural float of the movement. This, of course, by definition, is what gancho is, as Zoops has mentioned.
And speaking of Zoops......... uh, what's up with this...... .....
mm, women as puppets, mind bogggles :
I've seen this taught as well. I think it's a ridiculous way to lead. Not only is it unnecessary, but it gives you water pump arm. :rocker:
One aspect of pretty much any art, is that different people will like different things. If you ask Leonardo da Vinci, Claude Monet, and Pablo Picasso how to paint a landscape, you will get very different results. What's necessary has very little to do with artistic expression. It's more about feelings and emotions, and we all are quite different there.
I completely agree, but within the somewhat narrower scope of tango, elegance is viewed by most to be one of the defining virtues of the dance. I may be wrong, but I think that adding unnecessary complications would be considered inelegant, and thus counter to the spirit of tango.
Well, I want to dance more with some than others... don't worry honey, you're still my favorite completely unknown fantasy dance! :kissme:
I can't say that you're wrong, just that it's not how I view it. For example, Milonguero style is not not elegant at all (IMO), but it has the fewest "complications" (if I'm understanding what you meant), of any style. In contrast, Villa Urquiza style does have an emphasis on elegance, which is why (IMO) they add "style elements" or "complications" to give it more flair. Not everyone will like all the extras that some people will add to their walk or turns to make it more elegant, but I like some of them. Of course ganchos are not commonly done in VU style, so this example goes a bit away from the OP, but the point still remains.
To be honest, I'm not really into the mantra that says one should only lead with their chest. I think one should use whatever they can to help make the lead both clear and comfortable/enjoyable to the follower. If the lead is clear, and is comfortable, what difference does it make whether some hand or arm action was used, or whether some added "complications" were used. However, it's also true that what's clear and comfortable, is not the same for every follower. I try to learn a many different techniques as possible, and then try to figure out which techniques to use with which follower. Maybe some day I'll get there, but whether I do or not, I'm enjoying the journey.
Of course, in a real life situation, you use whatever you have to use in order to make the dance work.
Ugly is ugly, no matter how open minded. You have all these artistic movements; within all of them, there are great artists and ***** ones, who shouldn't be defended on the grounds of it being a different style.
Yeah and there are snobs who try to convince themselves that their opinion of great and ugly is worth more than any one else's. It doesn't change the fact that beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Sorry man, that's still politically correct BS. If that were the case, you would just call everything beautiful, just not in the point of view of everyone. You can't make progress by making excuses for bad dancing.
I'm not making any excuses for dancing that I think is bad. The issue is that a lot of people have different ideas on what is good or bad. You may think the way those ganchos were led is ugly, while others think it's great. Just like some people think Picasso's paintings are ugly and find Monet to be boring.
Separate names with a comma.