> What people think of as "nuevo" isn't really entirely new. Perhaps we should some up with a term other than > "nuevo" like "post-nuevo" (sort of like modern architecture was in the 1940's and then came post-modern).
They movement vocabulary associated with tango nuevo dancing is not really new at all. The main thing that separates what people now are calling "nuevo" from what people are calling "traditional" is that more things are permitted in nuevo. Dress code, embrace code, and feet on the floor code are all subverted in tango nuevo. As has been mentioned before many times, the main things that are transmitted by so-called "tango nuevo" teachers are not so much the figures as the teaching methods and approaches to practicing. ( I think one of the clearest posts on this ambiguous term called "tango nuevo" is by Tom Stermitz : http://pythia.uoregon.edu/~llynch/Tango-L/2005/msg00035.html ) I agree that "tango nuevo" is a misleading name. For a descriptive purpose, I think it is more accurate to label styles according to place (e.g., ballroom/salon, street/canyengue, club, suburban/orilla, west coast) or according to originator/propagator (Susana Miller, Fabian Salas). To label types of dancing as the traditional and the new tends to be reductive and subjective. _______________________________________________ Tango-L mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/tango-l
