Author: Matteo

For a long time, I felt the need for some sort of language to write down tango sequences.

The occasions are many.

• Sometimes I am at a workshop, and I want to write down the sequences we studied.
• Some other times, I see something interesting in a performance, and I want to jot it down.
• And finally, I often need to note down what to teach in class or what I need to practice with my partner.
  

But such a notation has always escaped me. I have also discussed the topic with my teachers. They tried but came to the same conclusion.

Tango seems too complex to write down.

First of all, there are all the individual body positions, the relationships in the embrace, the feet’ position, and the quantity of weight on each leg.

Then there are all the steps the leader and the follower can take, with either leg, with any possible combination of speed, intensity, length, rhythm, and cadence.

Not only that, but either partner can take a longer or shorter step, and either can turn around the other (or both can turn around a common center).

On top of that, add linear and circular movements, pivots, and leg crosses.

Not to mention all the figures: barridas, sacadas, paradas, lapizes, agujas, planeos, enrosques, boleos, and ganchos. These can also be performed with different leg combinations, directions, speed, rotation, etc. The cherry on the cake: many of these things can be performed by either partner.

There are simply too many variables to account for.

The problems of existing notations, and a revelation

I am not the first one to attempt such a feat. A search on Google produces a few results.

There is the Rasche Notation, with an explanation that fills an entire book. Then there is this academic approach. Someone also pointed me to this solution from Mattias Tripodi. These are all explicitly made for tango.

Then there are more general notations for movement like the Benesh Movement Notation and the Labanotation.

You also have the classical diagrams showing the movement of the feet on the floor.

These all share the same problems: they are too complex to learn, and they are clumsy to the point of being useless (no offense to the creators). And that’s why nobody uses any of these.

The one from Mattias Tripodi seems to be an exception. It’s simpler than the others and seems more practical. I still find it too complicated because it codifies things I decided to leave out, and misses some I find necessary. More about it in a moment.

(It has yet to be seen if what I’m going to propose will get any traction. But I am already happy that I can use it for myself.)

Despite all the problems, I always had a nagging feeling that it should be possible to produce something usable.

If you ask an experienced leader to perform a salida basica, he will have no problem to perform such a simple sequence of eight steps we all learned in our first lessons (probably a tad bit too early).

How can something so simple be so hard to express?

And then, some time ago, the solution hit me.

The problem with all the existing notations is that they try to do too much.

They don’t just express what to do. They try to explain how to do it: how to position your upper body, which legs to move, and in which direction.

A language for experts

Those are all necessary instructions you would give to a student in a class. But that’s not how a tango dancer thinks.

When an experienced leader dances, as opposed to being in class or practicing, he does not think about micro pieces of information. He thinks in macro terms like ochos or sacadas.

That’s what makes performing a salida so simple. And that’s what a language should express. Nothing more.

This was a revelation for me, but it should not be. Languages express high-level ideas, not minutiae.

If I ask you to “open the door,” I don’t tell you to walk until you reach the door, raise your hand, and turn the handle. And that’s not what you think either. You just do it.

An even better example is musical notation.

A musical score gives you a clef, a key signature, and a time signature. You are supposed to know what those are. It tells you that the speed is, for example, andantino and leaves it to you to decide how fast that is. And then, it just gives you a sequence of notes with dynamics. It does not tell you how to produce those with your instrument.

If there is a trill and you don’t know what that is, well, too bad. Go back to study.

What you leave out is more important than what you include

So, our tango notation will be a language for expert dancers. It should not tell you how to perform a step or how to lead it. You learn that in class with your teacher.

The core of the language then needs to be simple. We need to remove all complexity if we want something usable in practice.

The goal is to have a way to express sequences. So the core of the language needs to be structural. What we take away is more important than what we include. 

That means it will not express:

• body positions;
• relationships and distance in the embrace;
• feet positions;
• which leg to move;
• rotation (spirals, pivots);
• systems (parallel or cross);
• direction on the dance floor;
• length, speed, and timing of each step;
• rhythmic interpretation;
• embellishments.
  

In that way, our language will also be independent of technique and style. While, ideally, we should all share the same method, in reality, there are different schools of thought on how to lead specific steps, especially when talking about figures.

The fundamental components of tango

Given how much I left out, you might wonder how such a language can express anything at all.

The answer lies in what some call the three steps of tango. I believe such a definition comes from the work of Mariano “Chicho” Frumboli, Gustavo Naveira, and Fabian Salas.

(I got this piece of information from a single person, so I am not sure about it. A Google search did not produce anything, so if you have better information, let me know).

Leaving aside figures for a moment, you can only do three steps in tango: the opening, the front cross, and the back cross. These are defined not by which leg you move but in relation to the center of the couple (or the other partner).

The opening is easily exemplified by side steps, but it’s much more than that. In a simple walk forward or backward, each step is an opening. If you stop mid-stride, with weight on both legs, and face your partner, you will end with open legs like in a side step.

The front and back crosses are easily understood in terms of back and forward ochos, but again, that’s reductive.

When we step outside partner in t parallel system, both partners do a cross step, one forward and one backward. If you stop mid-stride, with weight on both legs, and turn to face your partner, you will end with crossed legs. The direction of the step gives the distinction between a front and a back cross.

Notice that both partners are moving their legs as they would when walking in front of each other. What makes the difference is not how they step, but their relationship.

With this frame, it starts to become clear how we can express a plethora of positions without focusing on a movement’s minutiae.

For example, when leading back ochos, the leader does a series of openings and the follower a series of back crosses.

Before we go on, I want to clarify a couple of ideas, mainly for very advanced dancers that know these concepts.

First, when talking about openings and crosses, I am referring only to the position of the legs in relation to the partner.

I am not talking about cross-body positions since I expressly want to keep those out of the language. As such, a simple walk is, by definition, a sequence of openings, regardless of the body positions and rotation.

Second, if you are mathematically minded, you might wonder why there are only three steps. Since we both have a pair of legs, shouldn’t there be four combinations?

The answer is yes. That extra combination is known as the cuarta sacada (or fourth sacada, in English). It’s a particularly advanced step that only few dancers can perform.

If you need a symbol for that, just reverse the one for the opening. While technically it might not be entirely accurate to say it’s a reverse opening, it makes sense in some way.

The core pieces of our notation

Now that we have a foundation, we can finally start defining our notation. Our base is comprised of three symbols:

• ∨ – opening;
• ⋌ – front cross;
• ⋋ – back cross.
  

Why did I choose these symbols? 

First of all, they are easy to remember and distinct enough to be readable. Moreover, they are common symbols included in the Unicode characters set, available on any computer and smartphone. 

So they are both easy to write by hand and easy-ish to type (I’ll expand more on the technicalities and alternatives at the end of this article).

Not all tango steps involve both partners. Sometimes, only one moves or changes weight. So we need two more symbols:

• • – no step;
• × – change of weight.
  

Arranging these symbols in pairs, we can express the relationship between the leader and the follower in any step.

And, finally, we need a starting point. As a convention, each sequence starts in the parallel system, with the weight on the leader’s left leg and, consequently, on the right leg of the follower. 

This is a traditional starting position for basic tango sequences taught in classes, which usually start with a back step. And while on the dance floor and in many performances, the first step is a side step to the left, the dance usually starts with a weight shift (you can see this in most videos of maestros on YouTube).

The need for directional information

Unfortunately, the symbols alone are not enough.

Let’s take, as an example, this sequence of six openings:

1.∨∨, 2.∨∨, 3.∨∨, 4.∨∨, 5.∨∨, 6.∨∨

Numbers in a sequence are optional, but I find they make it more readable. On paper, I arrange steps vertically, which makes it more readable. Check the last section.

The sequence above is still ambiguous. Tango steps, and especially the opening, can go in any direction. The sequence above can then express either a forward or backward walk for six steps or any possible combination of forward, backward and side steps in parallel system.

It looks like we need some information about direction.

When I said that we would not have directions in our language, I was not lying. I specified “on the dance floor.” Still, we need to keep directions to a minimum, or we will get lost in minutiae.

Here, we need two rules:

• Direction is not expressed on the dance floor but from the point of reference of the leader. The reason is that it’s the leader that initiates the movement and needs to read a sequence.
• A direction expresses the impulse. Often, that’s the direction both the leader and the follower take, but it can also produce different outcomes.
  

I will use arrows for directions, and we don’t need many. The four main directions and the in-betweens are more than enough. So, our indicators will be:

↑, ↗︎, →, ↘︎, ↓, ↙︎, ←, ↖︎ 

To be clear, the arrow going up means forward because, as I said, it’s from the point of view of the leader. All other directions follow. So, a left arrow means left, and a right arrow means right.

If we followed the direction of writing, we would have to translate each arrow. Right would mean forward, up would mean left, and so on. That’s an unnecessary complication.

It’s important to clarify that these directions are not meant to be accurate. It is not important whether a step is really forward or diagonal, for example. Directions only let you understand how a sequence unfolds. The technical details come from your teachers.

With directions, we can transform the sequence above into a simple rectangle exercise you might teach to beginners in their first lesson (left, forward, forward, right, backward, backward):

××, 1.∨←∨, 2.∨↑∨, 3.∨↑∨, 4.∨→∨, 5.∨↓∨, 6.∨↓∨

I put the arrow between the symbols for the leader and the follower because it makes the notation symmetrical. This helps when writing sequences on paper and with figures (you’ll find more about this in the last section).

If there is a change of weight at the beginning, I don’t number it. This preserves the number of steps in traditional sequences and exercises like the one above. (I took this idea, again, from musical notation. When a score starts with an anacrusis, the first measure is not counted.) 

The power of the language and its implicit information

We have already done most of the work. As I promised, the language will remain simple.

We still miss some “exceptions” to express common tango sequences (like the salida and the ocho cortado) and, obviously, the various figures. Those, though, will be mere adjustments to our core notation to preserve its simplicity.

But before we get there, let’s look at a first, simple example to illustrate how such a simple language can be so powerful. We will use the baldosa, an elementary sequence for beginners at their first or second class.

1.∨↓∨, 2.∨←∨, 3.⋌↑⋋, 4.∨↑∨, 5.∨→∨, 6.××

Let’s analyze some peculiarities of the language.

First of all, we don’t need any extra information to recognize the parallel and cross systems. In cross system, one partner opens while the other crosses. All other combinations belong to the parallel system.

Another piece of information we can find hiding in the notation is the distinction between the inside and outside partner relationships. In the sequence above, step 3 is in outside partner because the leader is doing a front cross and the follower a back cross. If they were inside partner, they would be both doing an opening.

This also shows you that, sometimes, you have to read steps in the context of the sequence and not in isolation. To go from a left side step (step 2) to outside partner (step 3), specific technical details allow the leader to step longer than the follower.

As I said, those are left to the dancers. The notation does not tell you how to perform anything. You need to know or ask your teacher.

This is again like musical notation. Musicians that perform pieces sight-reading usually read 3-4 measures ahead. As a dancer, you are luckier. You will never dance a sequence while reading it.

And finally, rotation, speed, and directions on the dance floor are also left to the dancer since they depend on musical interpretation, floor conditions, and floor management during a show. In the video above, the baldosa is performed several times, with different speeds and directions. Some steps are linear, and some are circular. But in our notation, the sequence remains the same. 

The salida, the ocho cortado, and partial crosses

Let’s now get into the exceptional-yet-common steps of tango I mentioned above.

These are usually called crosses. That might seem to collide with the terms we have used until now, but it doesn’t.

These crosses happen especially in sequences like the salida and the ocho cortado. In both cases, the follower crosses the left foot over the right one, but like anything in tango, you can do it on the other side (which is not common only because of habit).

So how do we express those in our notation?

We might feel we need more symbols, but that’s not the case. The key is both in the name ocho cortado, or “shortened eight,” and in the fact that these steps are called crosses.

That’s because they are “shortened crosses.” In both the salida and the ocho cortado, you could actually lead a longer step and get a front cross, for which we already have a symbol.

What we need, then, is a way to express partial movements (a better name than “shortened”), which will also useful for cunitas (or rock steps) and, later, for figures like the sandwich, barridas, ganchos, and voleos.

All we need to do is to add an underline to our notation, and voilà.

1.∨↓∨, 2.∨←∨, 3.⋌↑⋋, 4.∨↑∨, 5.×↑⋌, 6.∨↑∨, 7.∨→∨, 8.××

On step 4, the opening is partial, ending in the middle of the stride, with weight on both legs. Then, on step 5, the leader completes the weight transfer while leading a partial front cross. Again, the dancers need to know how to lead that step.

The same applies to the ocho cortado.

××, 1.∨↑∨, 2.∨↓∨, 3.⋋↓⋋, 4.∨→∨, 5.∨←∨, 6.×←⋌

The sequence above represents the usual exercise used to teach the ocho cortado, starting with a cunita (steps 1 and 2). The cross happens on steps 5 and 6, which are both partial (and often executed on a double tempo).

Notice also that steps 4 and 6 require a rotation, changing the front, and thus, all directions. That is again something you need to know. The language is agnostic.

Expressing tango figures with annotations

We have finally reached the last, but still significant, piece of tango dancing: the figures.

Again, there are so many of them that it might seem to be a difficult task to add them to our language.

I think this is where most notations fall apart. There are so many figures in tango, all with their peculiar lead, timing, and execution. This is where, probably, many feel the need to decompose every single body movement.

But again, do you need all that?

When we see a gancho, we call it that. We know what it is, and we don’t need to explain how it happens like we don’t explain to people how to open a door.

The simple solution is to use letters for figures, which we will append to the respective steps. That’s it. The details on the implementation are left, as usual, to the dancer.

Here is a list of figures, with the relative notation. If I forgot any, you know how to add them.

• a – aguja
• b – barrida
• e – enrosque
• l – lapiz
• g – gancho
• p – parada
• pl – planeo
• r – rebote
• s – sacada
• sa – sandwich
• v – voleo
  

(There seems to be a debate of whether you should write “boleo” or “voleo.” Searching on Google, I found the better argument to favor voleo, so I’m using that spelling.)

Transcribing complex sequences with figures

I’m sure that you are wondering: does that work? Well, let’s put it to the test with some complex sequences.

ו, 1.∨←⋋, 2.•↓⋋, 3.∨↘︎∨b, 4.sa×↘︎⋋, 5.p⋋↓•

Unlike others, this sequence is taken from the middle of a performance, so it starts in cross system. To notate that, the first, unnumbered step is a change of weight for the leader.

Again, there is no rotation in our language, even though most of the step is circular. That’s, again, information that the dancer must know.

For example, in step 2, the leader leads an overturned back cross without moving. Apart from knowing how to lead that, sufficiently advanced dancers also know that the follower needs to move around the leader to keep the distance in the embrace. The same applies to almost all steps in the sequence.

In step 3, we see that the follower performs a barrida on the leader. Here I also prefer to keep the notation symmetric, so the leader figures are notated before the step, while the ones for the follower, after.

Notice also as directions are always expressed in relation to the previous position. While the whole sequence above turns the full 360 degrees, covering every direction on the dance floor, our notation repeats the same direction three times in steps 3, 4, and 5.

That’s because those are the impulses the leader uses to communicate to the follower to perform each step. The direction on the dance floor, though, is left to interpretation. Sufficiently skilled dancers can do a step in a vast range of directions.

Timing ganchos and voleos

Let’s look at another sequence.

1.⋌←⋌, 2.∨↓∨pl, 3.∨↗︎∨g, 4.s∨↗︎⋋, 5.×↖︎⋋, 6.∨←•v, 7.p••

For figures like ganchos and voleos, the challenge is to place them on the correct step. There is a lot of technique that goes into these figures, and the lead for each starts well before the execution of the step.

But again, we are not interested in that. In our notation, we only express what happens. So, the gancho is on step 3, and the voleo is on step 6 even though the leader starts to lead the necessary directions already on the previous step.

This sequence is also another case where there is a lot of rotation left to the dancers. After the gancho on step 3, the sacada has a simple ↗︎ direction sign. Nevertheless, to arrive at the correct position for that sacada, both the leader and the follower turn a lot in the video.

You might argue if my arrows in the sequence above are correct or should be replaced by other directions. As I said, they are not meant to be accurate. If you want to argue about that detail, I have already reached my goal because it means you understand the notation.

And finally, notice that the “no step” symbol • does not mean standing still. On step 7, there is a parada, which requires a pivot for the follower and is led by the leader. But in the notation, neither partner moves.

The previous step provides that information. If your teacher tells you to perform a back voleo followed by a parada, you have all the information you need. 

I hope I have convinced you that the notation works for most, if not all, tango steps, although, I admit, there might be some rough edges. For example, I have not yet thoroughly thought about volcadas, colgadas, or soltadas. The notation might also need refinement for tango escenario, but I don’t have the vocabulary to codify those as a dancer.

For the improvised tango you see in milongas and performances, though, our language covers pretty much everything. To make sure of that, I tried to transcribe a full performance (although I got bored halfway since there was no extra challenge after I figured out the basics).

How to use the notation on paper and with a computer

I must add a note on the writing process.

On paper, there is no real obstacle. You can trace any symbol you want with a pen. In that case, I prefer to write each step vertically, with the leader at the bottom.

I feel that it’s more natural since it better reflects the position of the leader and the follower, and the eight possible directions from the leader’s point of view.

That is also why I prefer to keep the notation symmetrical. That way, the directions are on the central line, surrounded by the steps of both partners. The figures then become annotations at the edges, which makes them more visible.

(I don’t know where to put numbers, though.)

On a computer or phone, you need the help of a text expander that can replace a predefined sequence of characters with another. 

On a Mac computer, you can set those in the Keyboard settings.

I don’t know Windows or Linux, but I’m sure they have something alike.

On the iPhone/iPad, If you use iCloud, settings synchronize automatically. Otherwise, you can set text replacements in the keyboard settings.

Unfortunately, the iPhone keyboard does not provide these symbols. You have to install a Unicode keyboard. I don’t know Android phones, but, again, I am sure you can find something equivalent.

A solution is to replace the symbols with others that are easier to type.

Here is an alternative, although you can come up with your own.

• o – opening
• / – front cross
• \ – back cross
• x – change of weight
• * – no movement
• N, NE, E, SE, S, SW, W, NW – directions
  

I used cardinal points for direction to not confuse them with front and back crosses. But you can use forward/backward/left/right if you prefer. The capitals help discern them from the letters we use for figures. The symmetrical notation also helps keep letters apart.

Here is the baldosa, rewritten with these symbols.

1.oSo, 2.oWo, 3./N\, 4.oNo, 5.oEo, 6.xx

And here is the last example we saw.

1./W/, 2.oSopl, 3.oNEog, 4.soNE\, 5.xNW\, 6.oW*v, 7.p**

I find this alternative less readable, but you can quickly type it on a smartphone during a workshop, so it can be a good trade-off.

A final note on languages and grammars

For the language nerds among you, I want to conclude with some notes that won’t make any sense for the majority of dancers. So, feel free to skip this section.

You might have noticed that I used the words notation and language interchangeably. But these words have different meanings.

For the practical purpose of notating tango sequences, you can consider this a notation, in that it is useful to write down patterns you see or have in mind.

But behind the notation, there is a language with a grammar that expresses what sequences are possible and what are not. For example, doing two side steps in the same direction is not possible, unless there is a change of weight in between them.

I haven’t done the necessary work yet, but I am convinced that such language is expressible by a regular grammar.

You might ask: what are the benefits of doing that? A couple of ideas could be:

• Being able to formally verify if a sequence is correct, either by hand or with automatic means.
• Automatically generating sequences to discover new ideas for uncommon dance patterns others are not currently using.

I find the second idea attractive, but it has to be seen if anyone will be interested in either.