You can stick to this nonsense if you wish and dance Tango walks badly for the rest of your life.

Not using CBM on the left-foot walks means that only one of each two steps will appear to have any turn, producing a jerky, ugly figure instead of a consistent curving action. Not using CBM on the left-foot steps means that the lead would have an exaggerated action to effect the right-side lead on the right-foot steps. Using CBM makes that lead a seamless continuation of upper body movement that doesn't distract from Tango's essential character.

I'll simply invite others to view the demonstration in Learning the Dances on this site or the demonstration of Tango walks on Victor Veyrasset's video. The use CBM is quite clear. Of course, I suppose that they're wrong, too.

I'm done with this thread. Prattle on all you wish. You are not helping the original poster.

jj

"Not using CBM on the left-foot walks means that only one of each two steps will appear to have any turn, producing a jerky, ugly figure instead of a consistent curving action."

No. You forget the implications of tango's right side lead - in effect, the appropriate amount of CBM for the first step has already been done - it occurred when the tango hold was taken. As a result, none needs to be applied during the left foot step.

"Not using CBM on the left-foot steps means that the lead would have an exaggerated action to effect the right-side lead on the right-foot steps."

No, one needs only a slight body rotation during the right foot step to maintain the right side lead.

I'll simply invite folks to open their technique books and read up on the use of CBMP in left foot walk, making careful note that only CBMP is stated with no mention of CBM. Then they can compare this to how the actual reverse turns have explicit mention of CBM in addition to the CBMP, so that they can accomplish actual "turn" instead of mere "curve"

Now, if you want to overcook the rotation of your left foot walk, then you might use some CBM... but in such case you are halfway to making a reverse turning figure, instead of a simple walk.

But to take this back to Patrick's difficulty, because tango has steps forward on to the left foot explicitly stated to occur both with and explicitly without CBM, it's important to learn to be able to take a well supported step into CBMP both ways. And doing that is, as I said before, mostly about having enough yield in the standing leg - especially in the more transparent cases without CBM, such as the progressive link or resuming another pair of walks.

I hope that you meant to write "clockwise." Anti-clockwise rotation would have the man turning his body to the left.

The argument is not about CBMP but CBM.

Nowhere have I claimed that the Tango walks do not employ CBMP.

If the right side advances at all - as it should - while CBMP is effected with the left foot then there is also CBM on the step.

CBMP is emphasized in Tango because of the unique nature of the dance.

CBMP involves the feet; CBM involves the body.

I'll quote from Len Scrivener's notes on CBM: "It is largely through the use of C.B.M. that the Walk action in dancing is controlled, certainly turning or curving movements cannot be controlled without it (sic)."

He also says (in the same notes): "Unfortunately the standard technique, whilst not exactly wrong on this facet of movement, it very often is not exactly correct and can be misleading unleass a special study is made (sic)." Note the use of the lower case; I have a feeling that Scrivener didn't care much for Moore's teachings.

jj

Correct ( scrivs. dis a greement with AM ) but remember , Len was considered radical and controversial, in dance terms; he made some statements which went against the establishment, possibly part of the reason he was never asked to judge the " British " .

Given what I've learned about the dance estabishment (in the US at least), I believe that his views were probably considered radical because they were correct.

The overall feeling that I get when reading his notes is an appreciation for how much Scrivener both understood and loved dancing. I'm willing to bet that he intimidated the hell out of some who considered themselves to be his "superiors."

jj

I was actually refering to many Pros in the UK.

Most U.S. teachers did not know he even existed ( and many , still dont know his contributions )

A lot of the difference between Scrivener and the others really comes down to usage of language.

The "official" techniques are quite specific - one might even say pedantic - in the usage of words. This often leads to intended meanings counter to what someone not schooled in the details would assume upon first reading.

In contrast, Scrivener tended to write in a more "call it like I see it" style using everyday meanings of words. That's fine for making specific points to live students - we all have places where we'd really like to reword the technique to make things clearer, and in fact do restate it for our students.

But the problem is that such case-by-case description doesn't establish a language that can be consistently used to describe the entire subject of ballroom dancing. Unless one is extremely careful to evaluate each "change" in the context of the entire set of figures, clearing up the wording of one situation tends to break the wording of another.

In the end, that's why we have technique books - which are carefully written descriptive but not proscriptive references for TEACHERS and technically inquisitive students who can take the time to study the language in which they are written. But why we also need live teachers, who provide specific proscriptive advice for specific problems, often based as much on their personal experience as on the theory of how something "should" or "is officially" done.

To whom are you replying, jj?

Your message is attached to mine, but attempts to refute mysterious content from some entirely other source not apparently part of this thread.

EDIT:

Okay, now I see you are replying to Boris's pending message which was not previously displaying for me.

Boris is in fact correct about the classic tango setup having the body rotated anti-clockwise relative to the intended direction of travel (though many would say the feet are included in that rotation). This indeed will automatically cause CBMP steps of the left foot, and the "wide curve to the left" (as Moore puts it) to the walk.

Modern interpretations vary in the details, but if you are one who retains no aspect of the right side lead in your tango setup, then you may have to make the curve intentionally as this automatic CBMP and thus curve resulting from the setup would no longer apply. In that case, if setting out to describe your own tango from first principles in isolation from the historical description of the technique, you might be tempted to say there is CBM in your personal tango walk.

I know that Boris was correct and I also know that you can't resist trying to have the last word.

If there's a "right side lead" in your setup and you maintain that lead when stepping forward with the left foot then you are using CBM.

Unless, of course, you have the habit of stepping without moving your body forward.

Glad that we agree.

Have a nice day.

jj

"If there's a "right side lead" in your setup and you maintain that lead when stepping forward with the left foot then you are using CBM."

FALSE.

CBM would require rotation of the body, not just of the foot.

A right side lead relative to the intended direction of movement means that stepping forward in that direction *without body rotation* will result in CBMP. Alternatively, we could say that the direction of the step is on a slight diagonal to our right, such that the heel of the left foot is brought diagonally onto the line of the right instead of purely forwards on its own line.

Is there a grey area in practice between the standing knee action used to generate a strong directional drive into CBMP and one which will produce some rotation? Of course. And a given interpretation could fall on either side of it depending on the dancer's commencing position and goals. But the concepts are distinct in the organization of the technique.

In practice, you can do the official version of the walk with a directional drive into CBMP but without substantial body rotation during the first step. Or you can apply some degree of the technique of actual reverse turns and use CBM rotation on top of the CBMP direction to accomplish more than the original "wide curve". Or you can be like many today who strongly apply CBM, but ultimately don't manage to get their foot quite into CBMP, counting instead on the degree of turn to at least partially conceal the problem.