Dear Larry, Damian, et al. Damian wrote: >>> ...You never *NEED* (emphasis added - Ed.) to stop a lady with your hand for a parada mid weight or not...Does it mean that it's wrong - no, this was taught for years and years so must be valid. It's just that it *CAN EASILY BE DONE* (emphasis added - Ed.) without the hand in the middle of the back and therefore create a smoother, gentler lead <<<
Damian, I very much appreciate the distinction you're drawing between "what is right/wrong" and "what is necessary" for leaders to do, or to think about, or to focus on, when trying to communicate through the "wiring" of the lead/follow "circuit". Sometimes in class we point out that I can get my follower to "do" something by sticking out my tongue at her, if we have a prior conscious intellectual agreement that me sticking out my tongue means she'll consciously "do" a gancho/boleo/front cross step/whatever. In most of the conversations about "leading with xxx", or "how to lead xxx", this stick-out-the-tongue maneuver qualifies as a successful (albeit unconventional) choice of a lead/follow conversational element. What apparently keeps it from being a POPULAR choice is: 1) this particular successful form involves a lot of things which aren't necessary, and 2) it has no historical validity as a commonly observed behavior in Buenos Aires tango. But focusing solely on 2), we must return to the effort to figure out the fundamental nature of "lead/follow" by observing others' behavior. But there are so many aspects of tango communication that are NOT apparent to observers! Often, these aspects are not visible in conscious awareness to the partners themselves! While most of us probably agree that we would like to maintain continuity in general observable form of movements (although perhaps not worshipful imitation thereof) with the traditional choices of tango's originators and their descendants, we often hear tango teachers abstracting their observations of a particular move into interpretations of what is *necessary* for the communication to succeed. This is done often by very talented natural dancers of long traditional experience whose considerable dance skills are not matched by an equivalent depth of insight that would enable them to explain HOW they do what they do in a teaching setting. Like the tongue-sticking-out example, this process of abstraction-from-observation can succeed on its own terms in class settings, but involves lots of confusion between what is sufficient (due to specific prior agreement learned in class) and what is the "minimum necessary" (due to the predictable intrinsic qualities of two partners pursuing a shared state of awareness from two polarized perspectives). I appreciate that you took the time to point out that it is not "wrong" to follow the pedagogical ideas developed in many cases by talented dancers who genuinely sought to pass on their experience to highly motivated learners. But I support your apparent interest in a closer investigation of what is actually the "minimum lead necessary" to communicate across the lead/follow boundary. This inquiry has the possibility to lead us into very fruitful tango explorations without hamstringing our "tango conceptual framework" with unnecessarily cumbersome and misleading ideas about how all this lead/follow stuff actually works. All the best, Brian Dunn Dance of the Heart Boulder, CO 80302 USA www.danceoftheheart.com "Building a Better World, One Tango at a Time" _______________________________________________ Tango-L mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/tango-l
