Technique: A false friend

Technique is a real bugbear of mine. It comes up all the time. Perhaps I should carry this post about in hard copy form for whenever someone brings up the T word.  It might have a new title:  Don't Talk To Me About Technique!  People do talk about it though: in the milongas, in practicas, in forums - presumably non-stop in classes.  Even when they have forsworn learning figures and movements they still have faith in this vague but apparently so necessary...what? What is exactly is technique supposed to be? 

'False friend', to recall:

False friends are words in two languages (or letters in two alphabets)[1] that look or sound similar, but differ significantly in meaning. An example is the English embarrassed and the Spanish embarazada (which means pregnant) - Wikipedia

You can see the misunderstanding can be substantial.

So it is with the false friend: technique. In the language of tango dance class, technique is part of “the basics”, "the building blocks", “the toolkit”, “the ABC” that will let you become competent, fluent, advanced in your tango dancing.  It is nothing but a con. A true confidence trick because people who believe they have (by paying for it in time and money) technique or “the basics” have simply tried to buy confidence - worse, confidence that is rarely underpinned by anything of real substance.

"Girls like the one described here I try to stay away from. Despite what she says such a girl is so mentally alert, so self-aware, how could it be 'about us'? Such a girl is actually so conscious of all the 'oughts' - her own, and his, that she is unable to just be.  She is talking about incompatible things. How could you 'dance from the heart' when you are thinking about: "perfect balance, solid connection and flawless timing (have patience; it is a work in progress). I want to inspire him with my musicality and entertain him with beautiful, creative styling"?

I suppose she'd say all that technique is practiced with hours of work so it's second nature. And that's the point: second nature, not natural."

Good Lord, I don't want  - per that article - to be "inspired" and "entertained" by a girl and most guys I know don't look for that either. They are about the the last things I would look for or that would even occur to me. I want to dance with partners. With them. I don't want them to dance at me, which is what inspiring or entertaining is about. This isn't a show.  The reason I avoid such girls is because  - contrary to what she says - such things are actually about her, not about us. 

Technique is not thinking about your posture, your walk, your musicality, your centre of gravity, your axis, the position of your feet or your chest or your arms or your legs or your head or what you do with any of these things. It is not about the engagement of the core, or the degree of pressure in your hand, or the "connection with the floor".    

It is not thinking about your embrace and most of all it is not about teaching someone to embrace someone else. If someone needs classes on how to embrace another comfortably, with mutual enjoyment and that amazing sensation of another personality, that exchange of energy, then they probably are not ready for this dance. 

Technique is not about stretching your leg back. Those girls - like runaway trains - are a curse on the social floor and a pain to dance with especially when it is busy. I remember a teacher telling me in one of two private lessons I ever had that the girls he most enjoyed dancing with were those who could really walk properly with extended leg.  Sure, if you're a show dancer and how I wish those girls would divert into the show-tango performance track and keep out of the milongas or join milongas for people like them. Clue: they tend to wear short skirts and real eye-catching clothes. Similarly, the girls who think that technique is how your feet and legs look are nothing but a nuisance distraction to the guy or girl dancing behind them - pulling him or her out of absorption in the music and their own partner by their taps, flicks and the affectations of their lower halfs.  Next time your friend considers signing up for a class in "Adornments" do remind her that affectation in someone's feet can be so strong as to make one almost ill though it is a great indication of personality.  Guys often say they will look at a girl's feet before deciding whether to invite her.  They aren't just checking the height of her heel or whether she has practice shoes.

There is no standard technique, no “one size fits all”. This is why the notion of teaching technique is absurd but of course, teaching that stuff sells.

It is famously true that if you don't teach steps your class empties.  So it is with not teaching technique.  So they teach and those few who get from class to the milonga are by then are in such a poor state of 'sub-beginner' that not many who can dance then want to go near them - unless perhaps  they have non-dance advantages.  In fact, girls seldom get dances because of their technique.  They get them for other things.  But a lot of girls get rightly cross that they have spent hundreds, thousands on the classes and workshops (that have affected them adversely if only they knew it) and still pick up few dances. They become sadly resentful of men and the unfairness of life and it is a downward spiral from there.  That is quite serious, affecting a person's life considerably.  What has happened there is in large part down to dance class teachers but how many dancers join those dots?

Real technique is the wordless sensing of what movement is possible between two different individuals with their respective experiences not to mention all the many differences between them physically and psychologically. 

Good technique is the accommodation of the partner and the finding of how you best fit with them in all senses. How this happens is unseen to an onlooker. It is a close coming-to-understanding of another person. It is the confidence to do this, subtly and carefully. Technique is actually the wrong word for this. Technique sounds reducible, scientific, "buildable" replicable in a standard way and it is none of these things. It is wholly personal, wholly unique to each couple.

Technique is nothing more than the habit, gained from time and experience on the dance floor of making dance comfortable, easy and enjoyable for your partner and hence for the couple.

Technique: Interference

A: It's a hard thing to embrace a stranger. You have to let go of everything, abandon yourself to the unknown. I imagine it's a totally alien idea to most people, it certainly was for me. Terrifying and thrilling I think is how I remember it, and still sometimes find it that way. And besides that you have to remain yourself, keep that balance of abandonment and still being yourself. How could you teach any of that, right at the start? 

B: You can't. 

A: How can you even bring it up? The fact is, no one would. 

B: Absolutely. A 'professional' telling two regular people how to feel about each other is actually perverted. And so leads to the perverted dance that is class tango.

Tango technique 101: “How to embrace”

Yes, you’d be pretty weird to buy a class on this. People do though. Really suspect people do. Or people who are told spurious things like "Tango is a technique driven dance".   And boy does that false idea get touted so much it becomes like one of those empty, faith based notions that the credulous believe in the face of all evidence to the contrary.

To get round that “Woah, weird” issue which is the natural, common-sense reaction to seeing a class on "How to embrace", these things are more often called “How to Connect”, “The Connection” or it’s hidden in part of a “Basics” course, or a "Technique and connection” course or, a real-life example: ‘Posture, connection and the 'tango walk' . It kind of normalises it for people and makes them think actually, it’s OK to pay to get someone to teach you how to embrace someone else. They’ll even provide some people for you to practice with because, um, they don’t necessarily want to teach you how to embrace (I mean connect) by, like, actually doing it with you themselves.  So, provided you’re not too fussy, they give you a bunch of people to practice on. 

 It’s fine, right..? If you're ready to move up a level just sign the form at the front for our advanced interactive course: “Personal DNA exchange: the basics”.  Places are limited so don't delay.  And there's no need to you know, think about it too much.  That's what your teachers are for, they have all the knowledge and experience so you don't need to worry about a thing.  Except when you're actually doing it.  Then you have to think a lot.  Really focus and think about what you're doing, but not, you know, what you're doing...I mean think about it close up, but not like, far away.  You don't want too much perspective.  Perspective is only good if you're in charge. And you're not, cos you're a beginner.  

Standardisation and individuality

Social dancers, taken by multi-talented Adam Szczepański, based in Aberdeen.

On my bedroom wall a “handbag" hangs on a hook.  It is made from two pieces of paper stapled together to which is attached a paper strap. On the front my my elder son has drawn a picture of a bridge, a river, fish jumping, ladders up trees and a flying fox over the river. On the front it says "To Mama".  In this I keep all the the little notes full of love (and bedtime procrastination) that they have brought me.  They are probably the most treasured items I have.

When I think about what is precious in life, it is the time I have spent with family and friends. It is also in things I see or hear that have been created and are original, particular, individual, personal. 

 I see it also in nature, or in the games we play. Both of these use something like templates but each time the game is played it is different, each time the seed grows into a plant, it is similar to others of its species but different in its variety.

I see asimilar quality in museums and historic properties and in the performance of drama or music:

I believe it is in the gardens people create, in how we decorate our homes. in the learning we choose to do and in the food we make.

In material things, I find it in the architecture unique in its design or setting. It is in art, in sculpture, installations, in photography, graffiti, design. 

It is in the cards and presents and costumes we make. I see it even in face-painting, tailored to the child.

I feel it part of the milongas and dances we go to and the parties we throw...

I see it in both simple things made by people I know and love or in rustic things made by others... 

 ...as well as in elegant or sophisticated things made by strangers:

They all seem to me individual in some way.

I do not find this in chain store shops or in chain-type attractions.  Whatever was originally created in these mass produced material goods has lost its charm somehow. I find it in things that are not part of a general trend towards process, control, mould-made and standardisation.

What is dancing tango? So many class advertisements today scoff now at teaching moves or steps, let alone patterns or sequences. That I think is a good thing.  So now they focus on "the basics".  If anything though this can be worse since it usually seems to include teaching "How to embrace" or the slightly more subtle versions: "How to connect" or just "Connection".  Sometimes it comes under the conveniently vague term:  "Technique".  However it is phrased I see it as an attempt to standardise and interfere with something unique between two people.  How could anyone have the sheer face to industrialise something special that happens each time a couple chooses one another and embraces?  How could anyone in class hope to achieve such a thing through partner rotation where indeed there is no such choice at all?  How could people in class even have any inkling of what that kind of improvised, individual dancing is really like given the conditions in a tango dance class?

I think some things can be imparted, shared, implicitly learned better than they can be explicitly taught and I think this is true of dancing tango. Otherwise, tango dance class is like trying to industrialise, to fabricate something where the value is in its handmade quality. It can be no coincidence that “fabricate” has two meanings - to make, especially to make something inauthentic, but also to lie. 

How class dancers dance

Perth museum

I was looking for a visual idea of harmony to contrast with what some of this post is about.  I took this photo today because I like the space which I once thought about using for a dance.  We were in Perth Museum (picture), one of the oldest museums in the UK.  We went to see the new Cradle of Scotland exhibition about a breathtakingly large pallisaded enclosure - one of the largest in prehistoric Europe -  near here, the iron age hillforts which developed nearby and the Pictish royal residence of the ninth century.  This is the arresting image used to advertise the exhibition.  What a difference colour makes.  The exhibition is co-directed by Steve, who dances tango and so does his wife, Kate.  He is an archaeologist and Kate a Celtic specialist. We always have interesting conversations. Plus they keep me right during wine tasting when I get distracted by just such good conversation.    

Actually the harmony I want to refer to is perhaps less well illustrated architecturally because it is more of the human kind. I see it best in my boys, in togetherness, in movement, in a sort of shared being.  Yes, of course they fight too!

This was yesterday on our way across our gorgeous if currently rather sodden park, the “North Inch” to the other museum here which is about the infantry regiment called The Black Watch and since 2006 a battalion in the Royal Regiment of Scotland. 

My elder son dances tango. The "little" one still likes to be picked up for dance which these days doesn't happen often.  When we walk arms around one another the elder falls in step with me, and I shorten my stride He moves to tango music, two as one so naturally, with a sense of shared axis despite our difference in height. I guess he gets, they get, that sense from practice through being so often attached (literally) to one another.   

It isn’t true that beginners are always rough to dance with.  Beginner girls, even beginner guys can be lovely when they don’t get - inevitably - ruined by going to class.  It is true though that class dancers make great partners for other class dancers.  I don’t mean beginners, I mean that subset of beginners who dance in classes.  But that separation keeps them away from social dancers. That would be useful - particularly so they don’t screw up the ronda, as class dancers more than any other invariably will.  It would be useful if it were not also such a shame, such a waste, such a lost opportunity for new dancers who want to learn to dance tango and for the existing dancers who want to dance with them.  

It is also true that I find class dancers stiff in dance; worried about all the things they aren’t doing “right” as if “right” was the standard currency in this improvised social dance.  It is - but only between other class dancers, but then they don’t do much true improvising. Such dancers hardly embrace - look at the photographs taken in most British milongas - of couples, one awkwardly “driving” the other, usually at a distance, the other awkwardly tolerating it.  They don’t dance the way other dancers, class-free dancers do.

No surprise that when class types encounter the resistance they feel in social dancers who they try to force into “moves” they find them a bit stiff too.  But to me class dancers  can feel robotic, contrived, insecure.  They feel stressed so they try to push through that by pushing you into the moves they’ve learned. While they are dancing they are simultaneously trying to remember their classes on Technique, Grounding,  Posture,  “How to Embrace” (!), Connection - as if they have a hope of connecting with all that going on in their heads.  They feel and look worried as the contradiction between the dancing they want to do and the thinking in which they have been instructed finds expression in that obvious tension.  They think about dance instead of listening to the music and responding to the individuality in the partner they are with their own.  You only need to give the other person your attention, to listen, to dance with them, not at them not by doing moves done to them.  We can do  it untutored, naturally if we only turn off the jabber of the class teacher who wants us to do it their way.

I had a message this evening from someone I don’t know yet.  It finished  “I'm very much of the learn by dancing "school", and learning by experimentation.”  It’s just lovely to hear things like that.

The boys, by the way, walk, run, stand move like this all the time. It's natural.