[Tango-L] Dancing socially to Piazzolla

[Alexis Cousein]

Myk Dowling wrote:
> melvillefox at aol.com wrote:
>> Dancing to Piazzolla (never danced to socially in Buenos Aires) does 
>> not make it tango. Piazzolla himself said he did not compose music for 
>> dancing.
> 
> I'm always amused when people make definitive statements on mailing 
> lists. They are nearly invariably incorrect. 

Especially when generalised to the absurd. There is quite some variability
in the music of Piazolla - 1955 "Bando" and "Preparense" are nothing like
the jazzy or classical music structure pieces that he later composed,
some of which are undeniably undanceable; others are obviously *written*
to be listened to although some people do seem to like to dance
to them ("Oblivion" is an obvious example that seems to be firmly
entrenched in the slow and more daring sets of the wee hours here).

And let's not forget that Piazzolla also composed some pieces when
he was working for Anibal Troilo -- should these also be deemed
"not tango" by contamination?

At what exact date did the tango Gods themselves cast a curse upon
the fruits of Piazolla's imagination? Is the soundtrack of
"Bólidos de acero" still tango?

Should Troilo also be damned by association?

It's obvious that Piazzolla himself did not see himself as *merely*
a composer of music for dancing, and it would be patently absurd to
claim he did.

But if you want to draw "conclusions" from this, you must clearly
learn how to form the negative of some boolean operators correctly
to avoid logical fallacies (in this case, illicit conversion, i.e.
the invalid inversion of a A- or O-type proposition.)

-- 
Alexis Cousein                                  al at sgi.com
Senior Systems Engineer/Solutions Architect     SGI/Silicon Graphics
--
<If I have seen further, it is by standing on reference manuals>