tango or not tango

There was a recent discussion on Tango-L group about this video (see Milonga en Alemania):



Some comments were lamenting about the "tango nuevo" phenomenon and its repercussion.

I wrote (edited for the purpose of this post):

One thing I like about this context for dancing is the backdrop character of the music.

This music is not danced (tango music is danced) -- it provides a channel, a basis, an opportunity to amplify a mood. And then that mood is danced out in a very personal way, just as the amplified mood is a very personal matter.

Another point about this music is that, for me, it has an equalizing effect on dancing partners in a sense that allowsboth partners to fully and simultaneously create. It presents an enormous playground for improvisation.

In other words, when it is danced well (I have a long way to go, but desire to get there), it allows for a continuous change of traditional "roles" and thus the product, the whole spectrum of dance sensations, is co-creative. Very, very different from classic tango dancing.

As a mater of fact, if you dance to this music in a classic way, you will almost certainly get bored quickly. But venture into co-creation and you will be amazed by the whole new set of sensations. Certainly, some of the "classic" sensations are "out the window" too. Hence, you gain some and you lose some.

Of course, the classic tango is in a way co-creative as well, but with the "roles" very defined and maintained throughout the dance, with very few exceptions.

I am sure there are those on this list who see this in a very different light. I hope we realize that we should not be seeking "the truth" about it, but are simply sharing our own attitude about it which can not be right or wrong - it is very personal.

Finally, should this be called tango? I do not really care and do not wish to discuss at all.

My comment was really only about the music used for that clip not about the dancing. What do you think?

Tengo Miedo

Earlier today I was leafing through the copies of pages from a tango music book I borrowed from a friend thinking which one I'd like to learn. The first one catching my attention was "Tengo Miedo" (if it does not play from that page, try this one).

What a great old tango (it was apparently written in 1929). So, I strummed my guitar and hummed and later sang it with a vigor of new discovery.

Then, I said let me see what I can find out on the web about it. Needless to say, there is lots. I went to Youtube links and found a clip of Carlitos Gardel and Julio Sosa among others (two very different interpretations, I love the Gardel one with the guitars).

A bit further down on the list of links was this one to Three Women of Tango. I thought, great, women are not quite as talked about in tango as men are. What I found was a great story. Well, really three stories, all in one way or another related to "Tengo Miedo." I hope you enjoy it as much as I did.

Tango dancing, singing or reading about it provides me with endless pleasures. It must be magic. No end in sight! Salimos?

Purpose

The other day I was chatting with a friend when the subject of purpose of life in general and that of one's life in particular came up. After a bit of thinking about it my friend declared that the purpose of life is "to find the purpose of life." That immediately sounded paradoxical to me, but I could not quite show why. But, it just occurred to me today what was wrong with that statement.

If purpose of life were to find purpose of life, then either one will never fulfill that purpose and thus live purposelessly, or will eventually be without a purpose. In either case one's life would be without a purpose.

Another way to look at is to say that if a person makes that statement - purpose of my life is to find purpose of my life - he or she indirectly also states that he or she knows the purpose of his or her life - so what is there to look for, thus the statement makes no sense.

New DB blog

Since it seems like I am inclined to talk about politics in broad sense of the word these days more than about other things in my life, I created a new blog to conduct that activity:

http://dbpolitics.blogspot.com/

Florida, Michigan Democrats

Unless there is new voting in Florida and Michigan, which itself would not be 100% just, in my view, becuase of the changed dynamics of the contest, there is no way to make things right for Florida voters who voted or were to vote in Florida and Michigan primaries.

Due to the application of Democratic Party rules of conduct of these primaries, votes of those who voted in Florida and Michigan primaries are not to count. Then there were also those voters who did not vote at all, because they were told that their votes would not count.

I fail to see how this situation can be righted without hurting someone in the process.

The "dream ticket"

Obama-Edwards! It just occurred to me today, dah! There has been so much buzz about the Obama-Clinton dream ticket when it is obvious for a variety of reasons already discussed by all the pundits around that the chances of it are slim and plus that it would bring more problems to the campaign than would it resolve defficiencies.

The obvious dream ticket is really -- Obama-Edwards. I have not heard this combination talked about, but it seems to me really a winning duo. Both are young, lawyers, with good record in public service, good looking, with a vision. One is a true Southerner, the other an internationalist, both highly visible and recognizable. What more do we want? Do they get along? I don't know. But, I hope this pair runs together and wins in the Fall.

After the debate last night

You know, something has been on my mind for a long time - the difference between the conceptual proclamations and political speeches. And here is the crux of it.

One of the conceptual pillars on which US officially bases her life is free market and the right and the responsibility of each person to make decisions for him or herself. That is what the US likes to officially promote around the world as essential components of freedom.

Well, then I hear so much about health care and the health insurance business associated with it and the home foreclosures situation. These are by no means isolated examples of the conflict between political proclamations and the principles US likes to promote both internationally and abroad, but the most glaring to me after hearing the debate last night.

And here's what we are told. We are told by at least one of the candidates that insurance companies should not be permitted to discriminate against the applicants based on the their state of health. In other words, the premiums and/or the approval of the application should not depend on how sick the applicant may be. Now, why is it that in the environment of the free market, where any business must pay attention to the bottom line, insurance companies are not allowed to do that. Obviously, if someone is already sick, the likelihood that he or she will be drawing on the benefits of the health insurance is higher than if not. Why should the insurance company, or all the rest of the insured, have to bare the cost of that? I am not debating the justice of lack of it or of discrimination, but am ticked off by the hypocrisy.

Then the sub-prime crisis and the foreclosures. If we have a free market, as we are told to believe, then why should I, a member of the public, pay for someone taking advantage of cheap loans? This makes no sense in the context of the free market, does it? Candidates are all talking about freezing the sub prime rates and putting a moratorium on foreclosures. Well, either lenders are going to lose their investments or everyone will have to pay for the foolish (or perhaps not so foolish, perhaps it is just a gamble and some lose and some win) of those being lured by low sub prime lending rates. In either case, the fundamental principles of free market and free decision making are severely violated.

Again, I am not debating here whether or not we should have socialized medicine or housing or education and leave behind the free market ideal, just am voicing my frustration with the double-speak of those who advocate free market out of one side of their mouth and then want protection when they speak out of the other. Can we just not make up our mind?