Tango For Her wrote: > Feel free to start a thread on "The Frame". Sure, you > can say that going through the practice of leading > with no arms is still a frame.
Oh, I'm not offering a counterpoint because I think you're wrong in thinking that trying to determine what I'd call the *minimal* frame is a worthwhile endeavour - in a frame, less is more; having a conversation isn't exactly more pleasant when you shout. But speaking softly isn't the same as shutting up ;). In other words, I'm playing a bit on the semantics to crystallise exactly what we all mean. I just wouldn't want others to be left with the impression that the absence of frame (as I'd define it - something delimiting the freedom of movement of both partners so that they can move together) is something to be excused. I see an absence of frame (in particular, with the leader moving to somewhere and expecting the follower to figure out everything by divination, often because some move "obviously" follows) more often than I see suffocating embraces. _______________________________________________ Tango-L mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/tango-l
