Argentine Tango is highly improvisational dance, and can be danced to many different kind of songs.
If you can, and choose to.
I dance to alternative and nuevo music. But I wonder, how many people are actually willing to? My impression is, probably 20-30% of milonga goers can dance to alternative songs, and fewer, 10-20%, choose to dance. It is a sad state.
"Can" is about ability (or lack of). If you do not have ears to enjoy alternative songs, probably you don't want to dance to the song. If you do not know how to interpret and dance to a song as a Tango dancer, and have not been trained to "stretch and breathe" your moves, you cannot.
"Choose to" is about your choice. There are good dancers who refuse to dance alternative songs. The reason is in their head, so I wouldn't know.
There are many ways for Tango dancers to narrow their choices. You need to remember, choice is something of self-imposed and perhaps is something you need to check the validity from time to time. In some cases, narrowing, focusing, and specializing, is good. But for Tango, narrowing you options are not always good, especially when you want to be a good dancer. Stay open to possibilities.
There are different set of skills to dance different songs in an expressive manner. Don't dismiss alternative songs that can teach these skills.
This is my plea for alternative and neo/nuevo songs. Be nice to them and dance to them.
I have been doing this blog for a while at roughly once-in-a-week interval. I gave a thought about why I keep doing this blog. It's not going to be like "Why I write" [wikipedia link] by George Orwell, though.
Simply put, I am doing this blog because I think writing is beneficial for me. If the writing serves to the readers in some ways, it is great.
Why do I think writing is beneficial for myself?
(a) To think. A business book author asserted, "You are thinking only when you are writing". Do you agree? I liked his assertion. Writing gives shape to fuzzy ideas, and forces me to clarify the idea. In the writing process I realize many aspects of the idea I am trying to write. Writing is choosing, too. I am forced to give reasons why I choose to write it in this way and not the other way.
You can actually quantify how much you are thinking (or not thinking) in your life if you follow this assertion.
(b) "Remember, kids, the only difference between screwing around and science is writing it down" (Adam, Myth Busters). I like the remark too.
In science it's for record keeping. In blog and other things, it's for capturing and keeping ideas. There are many piece of thoughts coming and going. Some of them are, once gone, gone forever. And they may grow some day, if not lost.
Last weekend I had a cold, and was staying in bed. I had many weird dreams. But I don't really remember what they were now. I did not write them down and they are gone.
(c) To know my thought habits. While I write the blog, I learned that my "thinking" is quite intuitive and can jump around to an extent that it may be impossible for others to follow. My ideas and thought process do not always go step-wise like 1-2-3. They can go 1-3-10, Q.E.D. Writing really has helped me to recognize the habit, and has helped me to be able to reorganize the jumping "logic" and write in a more communicative manner.
(d) Training/practicing. If you are involved in regular writing, then casual writing is like athletes lifting weights. There are many occasions for me to write as a scientist. Writing something casually can be good for practice purpose.
Besides, blog writing can be done while relaxing. I may be making grammatical errors here and there. But I have learned not to worry too much. When it is important professional writing, I usually ask an editor to weed out errors, anyway.
Practicing is good. Usually we are at the worst state at the first time or without practice. But if we do not act or practice because of our fear for failure, that will keep us at the worst state forever.
Orwell's thesis was more on his analysis on general writer's motive (or so it seems), then he applied them on himself and identified what kind of writer he was. My reasoning is more on the merit for self, and I am not even sure how broadly applicable my reasoning is. Orwell wins, and I don't mind.
This book is a compilation of essays (2013-2014) by Veronica Toumanova, Russian-born Tango dancer/teacher based in France. The book was published in Sept 2015.
I came across her writing some time ago at an online Tango magazine site, "Gancho" http://gancho.info/magazine/
The particular essay was titled "Why years of tango will not make you an advanced dancer and what will". Interesting, isn't it? Even provocative?
The essay was very well written and I liked it. [The essay is included in this book as well].
[Here begins a little bit of my opinion, not to be mistaken as hers.]
Tango is a dance, a physical art, in contrast to arts with conceptual emphasis like philosophy or math. When we engage in a physical art and wish to perform well, we have to engage in at least two aspects; physical and conceptual. You need to know what you are doing (conceptual), then you got to be able to physically perform it.
If one aspect is lacking in the art in you, your art probably is lopsided. Imagine a Tango-professor/otaku guy who knows (or thinks he knows) so much and can talk about Tango non-stop, but can't really dance as a dancer. Or a beautiful dancer, who cannot really explain how he is doing it. There is something sad about them.
Her essays are eloquent proof that she knows, or has put a lot of thoughts on, the art of Tango. There are many piece of her insights that can be picked up and be useful immediately, and there are some opinions that you may argue or may need extra time to digest and understand. I thought this book is full of nutritious thoughts that can strengthen your conceptual understanding for the art of Tango.
Not many people can capture the dominant thought process in an art. Her writing was much more than a bunch of personal opinions that are in many case useless. What she captured from her standpoint as a Tango dancer/teacher is quite a valuable asset to the learners of Tango.
I recommend the book fully.
PS 1
I did check out how she dances with YouTube. Sure, she can dance with good looks. That means she knows her stuff in her head and body, and can perform it physically. I can put trust on what she says. (Scientists are skeptical people and tend to check authenticity of the source). She is good. I'd love to read other writings when she publishes them.
PS2
For human-based social arts, dominant opinions held by many are not always the best one to follow. Few good practitioners tend to capture the core of the art much better than mediocre mass. It's not democracy. And I think these essays are by one of the few good ones thus well worth reading.
Today I was talking with a Professor in another research center to get feedback for my grant in preparation.
The grant announcement is for a research field somewhat outside of my core expertise, so I needed second opinion from an expert in the field. I enjoyed the discussion, and the time (about 70 minutes) was well worth it.
We scientists have particular ways of understanding and doing science. Depending on the research fields, the way of doing science and the "norm" can vary. What we value and be particular about may not be well-recognized by researchers from other fields, and vice versa. That is why we feel compelled to ask second opinion from someone who has been in the field when we attempt to expand our research.
Of course lacking "common sense" can lead to a big discovery. Novelties are often brought by the young, by the outsiders, and by the "fools" who are not bound by traditions, which may or may not be the best approach. But in academia, schooling is important and is emphasized. The main reason for the emphasis is to break down the wall of ignorance and be able to get on the shoulders of giants. We should know what is known and what is not known. We cannot wait for average guys to rediscover double helix structure of DNA. Cut the process short with education. So we can start from where previous people ended. That way we have much better chance to expand the boundary of human knowledge.
Above may be a little bit romantic view of science. There are business aspects in science, too.
To remind myself,... much of grant writing is for convincing the grant review group that (i) we are well qualified group, knowledgeable and capable of what we are proposing to do, that (ii) what we are proposing is scientifically sound and is significant and novel, that (iii) we will produce useful results from the standpoint of the granting agency, and that (iv) their investment (funding) will yield return. The (tax) money is well spent and the results will justify the research expense. This is also a very real aspect of contemporary medical science.
Sometimes I wonder what happens if we can just perform all the experiments with limitless resources. Much of analytical components can be outsourced nowadays. Outsource expensive but informative -omics or mass-sequencing without prohibited by cost, and some part of science would advance much faster than how it is now. This may be a very effective way to decentralize science.
I digress. I summarized his comments to 8-9 actionable points. Most of them can be addressed in the writing level, but one or two may require some time to address. That would affect current schedule. Tomorrow I'll be discussing with the director of our research center about how we proceed.
If you are not interested in this kind of work, that is fine. But I find it interesting and actually am having so much fun out of this. It is good to work on something you enjoy, even if it does not appeal to everybody. Reversely, there are many works I am not interested, and the fact that I do not have to do something I am not interested is a blessing for me.
