Dour wrote:
"Defining the dance strictly by the music creates a very slippery slope. Tell me - what is tango? Is it only OT Victor and the Old Guard? Does it move forward in time to D'Arienzo (who still played a lot of 2/4 time just as did the old guard)? What about the Golden Age orchestras that played primarily in 4/4 rather than 2/4? Perhaps tango only means Old Guard and Golden Age? What about D'Arienzo of the '50s? Or later years DiSarli. On what day did they quit playing tango and start playing non-tango? Piazzolla was a bandoneon player in Troilo's orchestra. Did he play tango when he played with Triolo? And on what day did Piazzolla quit playing tango? Etc. I don't get black and white." That's the conundrum Doug. I posted earlier (a few weeks ago), that something that can't be described faces a real threat of extinction or at least change that makes it unrecognizable from the original. Especially true when taken away from its natural/cultural environment. In principle I have no problem with natural selection, but as a besotted Tango dude, I feel a line must be drawn in the sand for the thing I probably love most in life. To preserve it the way I long for it every day. I'll call myself a "traditionalist" and use the term to describe others in the Tango world that feel the same as I do about Tango conservation, and while we are still in the ascendancy (maybe not any longer) in the world Tango community, we should take steps to preserve it, before we lose the power to do it. My motto: you want to change Tango. Also change the name. I know that's too simplistic Doug. But I'm sure you get my sentiment. I can't help it. It's simple the way I feel. Anton _______________________________________________ Tango-L mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/tango-l _______________________________________________ Tango-L mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/tango-l
