There was a comment a few weeks back that '...it's not right to think that the dance cannot change', and I'm still not really sure what that can mean. On one level the dance is always changing. No two dancers dance identically; everyone dances their own tango, and that is how it should be, in constant renewal. We aren't choreographed show dancers who work hard to present simultaneous and identical moves; we don't slavishly imitate our teachers. Moreover, there's a limit to what two people in close, or fairly close embrace can do together to that music on a crowded dance floor. But my impression is that that limit had been very fully explored by 1950, if not earlier.
'Nuevo' dancers seem to suggest that they are the creative leaders of a new tango, of exciting new directions and new possibilities, but I wonder if that isn't just marketing talk. I have to admit I don't watch them a lot, but I've never noticed anything that wasn't explored by Todaro (1929-1994) (in this video of him and his daughter from the early 1950s) and 'Petroleo' (1912 - 1995), as taught today by Mingo and Esther Pugliese, a detailed exploration of all the possible ganchos, saccadas and barridas at every step of the giro. The style and presentation may change, but I'm not sure the core of the dance has changed.
Pablo Veron dismisses claims to a tango nuevo dance as deceitful, in an interview with El Tangauta in December 2008 (you have to create a login to access the material). 'Speaking of tango nuevo as a dance is difficult because the name proposes a division with the past, and that is very debatable, relative and deceitful. It is the definition of the music of Piazzolla, and to copy the name, as if that was enough to be equivalent and thus to be different, does not seem correct. It is as if they want you to believe that they invented tango. In that case: What was danced before? Tango is tango and has always been transforming itself since its origins, and if each renewal was a new tango, today we would have many new tangos. Tango was made by all of us dancers of all generations who contributed something, and this has been happening for more than 100 years!'
A rapid exploration of possibilities seems to have happened in cinema in much the same period of time. The language of cinema, the way stories are told with pictures and sound, was perfected between 1900 and 1930 and that language is still current. The way von Sternberg shows the stories of his two 1932 films, Blonde Venus and Shanghai Express, both with Marlene Dietrich, is totally familiar, even contemporary. The opening to Shanghai Express is one of the most memorable opening sequences ever, a classic piece of film-making. There have been technical advances, but the basic visual language hasn't changed much, and yet we still enjoy films.
Contact improvisation seems the only area in which a tango-like dance actually changes and develops, but there it starts to move into an area of contemporary dance. Personally I find there's a huge legacy in tango to discover, to try to perfect, and to enjoy. Dancing it well is most important to me: and it's important to enjoy dancing to the music, and I can only hope that as many partners as possible will enjoy it with me. & if 'change' means to be a step collector, what's the point? That's sterile, futile.
I recently came across this from Ney Melo: 'There will never be a step, sequence, or trick in tango that will come close to matching the power of the embrace.' Yes, yes, and yes again!
6 comments:
On the other hand I think it is very legitimate to aim to preserve and keep alive tango as it was danced.
Nothing wrong with groups pushing it in new directions, bringing in elements of other dances, new contact, new "grammar and vocab" of dance, new music even.
But for some, the magic was in tango as it was danced and honed by societal and environmental factors.
I basically agree with everything you write here, the vocabulary developments of 'Tango nuevo' are often greatly exaggerated. Most of it was present in tango fantasia in the 40s and 50s.
Being the devil's advocate, though, I can't remember Naveira, Salas or Chicho claiming that they invented many new steps either (nor calling what they do tango nuevo). It mainly started out as an effort to preserve and describe in a systematic way what was already there. What they came up with, can be very useful, but it has some limitations.
Devil's advocates always welcome! No, Naveira and Salas don't claim to teach or dance 'nuevo': they say their tango is 'salon' or 'Argentine tango'. Nor do they claim to have invented many new steps. What I think Naveira claims is to have invented a new teaching system, based on understanding the structures of tango. He also claims to have named or renamed a number of movements that were already present in tango.
@ anonymous, agreed, although rather than 'preserving tango as it was danced' I'd rather think in terms of dancing the tango I find best suits the way I hear the music, and the way my partner hears it too. I don't think there was ever 'one tango'. Individuals choose from what they've seen and learned to express their feeling for the music. By contrast, ballroom tango seems to be structured around a 'correct' form that has to be followed, and you are judged on how well you adhere to it.
Naveira will be teaching a seminar in Denver next month entitled, "Tango Milonguero." Talk about marketing hype...
I completely agree that "Nuevo tango" as a label is as useful as "New Labour" - it's largely a branding exercise.
However... what about the music? There is - clearly - a distinct neo-tango musical form. Yes, I know it's not really tightly associated with nuevo tango dancing, but that at least would give some claim to distinction. It makes sense that if you dance to a different musical style, you're probably dancing in different ways.
I think Pablo Veron's points are that there is a new kind of tango music, Piazzolla's music and beyond, which was called 'tango nuevo', and that if someone calls their dance 'tango nuevo' they are being deceitful because there's nothing new in the forms of their dance; they are just emphasising the 'tango fantasia' (to use the BsAs term) end of a spectrum that was explored long ago. (I'm surprised how academic he sounds; my own prejudice, I guess, that a good dancer can't be an academic and intellectual too.)
It's an interesting point that a new music might change the dance, but I'm not sure that there has been anything new in the dance: I've seen only old forms used to new music.
It's curious how different the musical and the dance forms are. A tango band plays three-minute tangos with little variation, night after night from written scores, whereas from night to night a couple would improvise entirely different tangos to that same music. Piazzolla, with his respect for the European classical tradition wanted to rewrite tango from a European classical viewpoint, and wrote great music with a very wide appeal. & perhaps he was bored, playing the same lines night after night with Troilo: he was young, and I've read that he played practical jokes the whole time.
I've also seen contact impro, which seems to take the basic idea of tango, that a dance can be improvised between partners in contact with each other, and extend it by making synergy, the way partners can take up and use each other's movements, the guiding principle. I find that area very interesting, but it doesn't use the structures, the common language, of tango, and I don't think it can be a social dance on a crowded floor.
There seem to be two possibilities: that something can be in continual development, and that a whole area is rapidly explored, leaving little ground for anything new, and I think the latter is true of tango as dance. If tango is to remain a social dance I'm not sure that it can go further. I don't think that an improvised form needs to go further, because it has so much freedom. We all dance differently, we all dance our own tango, and doing it well is the challenge. & 'well' means...?
It's an interesting debate.
Post a Comment