Discussion in 'Tango Argentino' started by aqua, Jan 5, 2010.
As usual Gssh comes through with clarity and wisdom! :applause:
Just because a follow has learned a weight shared close embrace, does not make her technique wrong. Perhaps it is wrong for you, or the style you dance, but you should read Gssh commentary on this.
Aaaaargh! the scourge of Tango L!!!
I wouldn't know; I don't know the vast majority of close-embrace dancers in BsAs.
How did they learn then? Did they just pull themselves up by their bootstraps? Seems an incredibly inefficient way of learning to me...
Again, what's the alternative?
Spookily enough, I'm trying to learn Spanish now myself.
Well yes. Even Spaniards have classes in how to use Spanish. Similarly, children in this country have English classes. It doesn't just "happen" - or if it does, it doesn't happen effectively.
Are you saying that children in Spain don't have Spanish classes?
Where? In a milonga?
(Actually, that might explain some London venues I know....)
A private class, in fact.
Their teachers are their parents, siblings and other people they associate with in their formative years. I am sure almost everybody would agree this is the best way to learn when the people around them are loving and capable, yes even this way of learning is conditional. However, not many of us have this facility when learning Tango.
What you are saying to get around this is to take private lessons. I would suggest almost everybody would agree with this as well.
However not everybody has your obvious financial resourse and as a consequence must compromise their learning process and attend classes.
I wouldn't go that far; I'd just say "dance to the music". If the music changes to be more OE-esque, transition. If it doesn't, don't.
But I'd agree that the transitions are difficult, and it's easy to lose connection with them.
One of my New Year's resolutions is to (re-)learn OE, I'd gotten very very bad at it over the last year.
With one clarification, he adds. This may be splitting hairs, but I think many of you will get my drift.
Someone who "shares weight" in apilado is managing the amount amount of weight she is sharing, keeping it more or less constant. I interpret this to mean that she is indeed managing her axis, which still exists along with the "shared axis" created by the joined bodies, but with a different goal than being "on her own axis".
And just to be clear, this second axis is from her center to to floor, but through her body and foot, rather than the "vertical axis" we commonly refer to, but without the word "vertical" as a modifier.
I'm hoping that those of you who have a really good grasp of things won't find this idea too troublesome.
And BTW, thanks everyone, for bucking up my contention that so many people dance non weight sharing version of close embrace, and that it limits what can be done.
(I'm still waiting for someone to start that thread about advanced stuff you can do in an apilado close embrace.)
I'm sorry to be perhaps out of order, but there is no point in arguing with Chris, you will just go round and round in ever increasing circles until he starts equating a badly taught class with rape. see Tango UK for more of the same old same old, or tango L.
Ah, right, I understand.
Well, this is a moderated forum, so I'm sure untoward behaviour by anyone will be discouraged.
PS. Welcome back
I believe you're right.
Sure, here are a couple videos:
[yt]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/brDyL7wEjJc&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/brDyL7wEjJc&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/yt]
[yt]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/46P2HqKGAns&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/46P2HqKGAns&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/yt]
Why should the instructors sexual orientation have any relevance here or are you saying this instructor only teaches guys to dance CE with other guys in the way that you enjoy.
And if their early pre-school models didn't use proper grammar or used the words themselves the wrong way, then they will have to relearn some things when they get to school. They will also expand their vocabulary as they get older, and perhaps use words more effectively (or correctly) As mentioned up-thread, people DO receive instruction in their native language as children in school. This is especially true of written language (check out the rigorous schedule for children in Japan!) Children are speaking in their pre-school years, but they're not completely fluent in their native language at that age. They don't have the vocabulary or grammatical knowledge yet.
The problem with learning a language as an adult is that you KNOW a word for what you want to say, but you can't use it. You HAVE an extensive vocabulary and its hard to go back to having a limited vocabulary that you aren't even sure is correct. You CAN sound like an educated person and its uncomfortable to go back to sounding like a child without good grammar. You have become accustomed to communicating effectively.
And of course, it took years to achieve all that in one's native language, whereas, usually there is some desire/need to reach a level of competency quickly when learning a foriegn one. Sometimes the need is just the usual impatience we have as we get older.
Children learning their native language are given much more leeway in expressing themselves. They also are not as concerned with "knowing" their language. They are willing to take it as it comes. Something presents itself, and they wonder what the word for it is. Adults often don't want to learn something.. they want to KNOW something. Unfortunately, you don't get one without the other....
Same with Tango.
I know so many argentines (students, job hunters, banker, ambassadors, footballers (scoccer) a.s.o) that never had danced TA before in Argentina. But once they have returned to BAs after learning for two years like mad, they bluff around then, that they cut their teeth on Tango...
chris is new here and has been made aware of our guidelines which make reference to not engaging in group stereotypes.
So, I hope you will all over look that part of his post and carry on with what to me is the more interesting, and appropriate, topic that the thread is about.
What i mean is that i find the basic means of generating movement for what i consider the most efficient CE style (shared axis) and the most efficient OE style (independent axis) to be largely incompatible, and at least i find it difficult to switch movement logic - and watching other people they seem to have the same problem.
they are both jaimes friedgen, but in the first they use what i call CE technology, and in the second they use OE technology. I am deeply convinced the jaimes knows how to dance CE, but look at the second video, starting at roughly 2:00 - he leads a single axis turn (where the axis is shared so it is the same in ce or oe), but then he continues to lead ce for a few seconds till about 2:06, and his follower does continue following oe which makes her look (and probably feel) a bit uncomfortable. it is possible to imagine how the sequence from 2:00 to 2:06 would look like if she also had switched to an apilado style at that moment - and (it would have been mechanically more efficient and more aestheically pleasing.
This is all imho - i am actually cringing as i write this as i usually consider being critical of the of something that i couldn't do half as well to be exceedingly bad form. They are all way better dancers than me, but i needed an illustration.
I don't really know how to describe it, but i think the difference is similar to the difference between a boxing punch and chinese internal martial arts punch. Especially in JKD there are a lot of people who have learned both the boxing mechanics and the 1-inch-punch mechanics - they are both part of the curriculum. In theory it should be possible to transition trhough these different body mechaincs as the range opens and closes, especially as most trapping techniques can be done form both bases. But I don't know anybody who even in half speed play sparring does not use mainly one of the methods of power generation - they either do the boxing mechanics and then move into the the boxing ingame (body hook, shovel hook, overhand), or they enter into trapping range, and go from trapping to the chinese style short range straight punches. Most practitioners can do both, and can set themselves up to use either of these technologies, but it is exceedingly hard to change from using one of the approaches to using the other approach while under pressure and using it.
And anybody who thinks language is learned without classess by pure osmosis has never seen a mother doing "Say mama ...mama .... ma ma ...." for hours
Would you consider that teaching or instructing?
Separate names with a comma.