It is all very well making statements like “Neotango is the modern evolution of tango”, but some sections of the traditional tango community have been extremely vocal in saying that any modern or ‘non-traditional’ tango is not really tango at all. Occasionally this goes as far as insisting that anyone promoting modern or fusion tango should immediately stop using the name “tango” as that should be reserved for real ‘authentic’ tango, and to change their dance so it looks different in some way.

These pronouncements are not only an attack on dancers, but are a direct attack on the businesses and communities that have been built around modern tango events. Accusations levelled often reference the UNESCO grant of Intangible Cultural Heritage status (ICH) for tango that was established in 2009 as being evidence to support their position, and they sometimes even describe modern tango as being “cultural appropriation”. But do any of these accusations have merit?

Intangible Cultural Heritage

The grant of ICH was made in 2009 after a bilateral nomination by Argentina and Uruguay. The aim of this was to preserve and protect the valuable impact that tango had made on the history and culture of the region, and to ensure that the traditions and history of tango did not get lost through apathy or by people just assuming “tango will always be here” until it was too late. ICH status is important, but what does it mean for tango globally? Does this fix tango to a point in history, or does it allow for any leeway?

Much debate about this began almost immediately after the ICH status was granted, so in 2011 with the agreement and support of the petitioners, UNESCO updated the definitions in the document to say that (with my emphasis):

“… it recognis[es] [tango] as ‘traditional, contemporary, and living at the same time’, allowing for the incorporation of the urban dimension and contemporary manifestations. Additionally, the concept of identity was expanded to include continuities not only from the original source but also from re-creations, displacements and adaptations resulting from movement by both sedentary and migrant groups.”

(summary from icom.museum document ref: Vol19_03_52_EN.pdf)

In other words, the UNESCO definition agrees that tango is not static, that it will continue to grow and evolve over time, and that the ICH does not only apply to tango in Argentina but to any or all derivations of tango globally so long as they can trace their roots back to Argentina in some way.

This effectively removes the use of ICH as a tool against the modern tango and neotango communities, as these would come under the definitions of “contemporary” and “living”. Even if the main issue was with the occasional incorporation of a move or step from another dance style, that would surely come under “adaptations” so it would not be a problem there either.

So if modern contemporary tango is not in conflict with the UNESCO grant of Intangible Cultural Heritage, how does it stand up against the accusations of ‘cultural appropriation’?

Appropriation

For contemporary tango to be found guilty of cultural appropriation the test would have to be applied to all other forms of tango as well, and there are a lot to choose from.

The most well known of these would be the ballroom tango dances of International and American Ballroom Tango, as well as the newer addition of Ballroom Argentine Tango in recent years. These styles of tango are regularised and tightly controlled, and were based on a very small sample of the myriad styles that were danced in Buenos Aires in the very early years of the twentieth century. They are often taught with little or no accurate reference to its origins and history in Argentina, and some of the stories attributed to the early days of tango by ballroom teachers read more like tabloid reporting than documented history. If you were to talk to people in the street about tango this is likely to be the first dance style that comes to mind; sharp, staccato head movements, bent knees, and a rose between the teeth.

The next style to consider is contemporary tango, which could be considered a catch-all term that includes neotango, tango nuevo, modern tango, fusion tango, and all the other flavours of the dance that deliberately have a modern style or vibe. Whilst the styles may vary the common feature of this group is that the dance itself is seen as the most important part, and that attempts to replicate early 20th century Argentine social clubs are no longer relevant in a modern setting nearly 7000 miles around the world. The music can be anything whether intended for tango or not, and the rules and expectations at social dances are no different to those in use at any other dance style.

Then there is the traditional Argentine Tango sector, where you will find tango being taught in a way that is intended to approximate the style of dance seen in Argentina in the ‘Golden Age’ of tango (roughly 1935-1952). The structure of social dances (milongas) from that period, incorporating the cultural and social sensibilities of the time, are used as a model for current social events, and effort is usually made to re-create the atmosphere of the Argentine and Uruguayan clubs of the period. Most venues require that attendees follow the ‘codigos’ to a greater or lesser extent, rules that are unique to tango venues, and which originated in the 1920s.

There are other less well known instances of tango around the world, including Finnish tango with its very different rhythmic structure that reference habanera and beguine influences. The embrace or hold is different in this style, and the timing of the dance is closer to the ballroom versions of tango than the Argentine original. Then there is Japanese tango, which is closer to the original version, but it still has elements that identify it as distinct and separate, and although its popularity is not what it was in the 1930s it still has a large following today.

So how do these groups stand up against accusations of ‘cultural appropriation’? At first glance it would seem that the ballroom and contemporary sectors are the furthest from the origins of tango so maybe we should assume that any accusations against one would have to be tested against both. But is this really the case? Are their claims to being part of the larger tango community and the use of the name ‘Argentine Tango’ any less valid than the more traditional sectors?

We have already seen how the early years of tango were characterised by complex evolution and incorporation of other styles and influences into the dance. For over half a century it changed, adapted, and included aspects of music and movement from around the world until it slowly began to settle into the dance we know today. That version remained relatively stable until the 1950s when world events pushed it aside, and then it eventually began to return to popularity in the 1970s and 1980s.

When tango returned it was immediately apparent that it would be very different to how it had been before. There had been no organised milongas for years and so the steady flow of dancers learning their craft at the milongas was gone. Many of the orquestas had disbanded and musical tastes had expanded to include all the new styles from rock and roll onwards, so there was less live music to choose from and the milongas began to make more use of recorded music. Some milongas even began to play a variety of musical genres, with tango being only one among several played during the evening.

Europeans, North Americans, and people from the rest of the world began to visit Argentina to learn the tango, taking what they learned back with them to teach students and eventually to teach more teachers. The maestros from Buenos Aires began to travel themselves and spread their styles of tango wherever they went, but without a structured style and the strict regulation found in the ballroom world the versions of tango that were disseminated varied wildly. Maestros each taught their own style, and this led to there being a very wide variety of tango being danced around the world.

Few of the new generation of global tango teachers were native Spanish speakers, so the language used in teaching began to change. The moves and techniques generally retained their original Spanish names, but pronunciation would vary wildly, and without the underlying knowledge of Spanish the terms often ended up taking on different or more specific meanings than had originally been intended.

The performances of Tango Argentino and Forever Tango that travelled around the world took with them the image and atmosphere of the earlier Golden Age in Buenos Aires, and in most places where tango became popular the local organisers sought to recreate that mood in their events. They copied what they had seen, they asked the visiting maestros about the early days, and they created a version of Golden Age tango that was as close an approximation as they could manage. However with the milongas in Buenos Aires already having changed so dramatically from their earlier incarnations, and the only other sources of information being word of mouth and two stage recreations that presented their dramatised versions of the Golden Age, errors and adaptations began to creep in. It was like taking a photocopy of a photocopy – eventually the image becomes unrecognisable and you can no longer identify the original.

There is also a belief that this progression of history might have been more linear than at first thought, as it is possible that the popularity of the two shows might have resulted in their version of history being brought back to Buenos Aires and used as a model for all subsequent tango there. If this was true then all traditionally styled tango could be shown to have traced its roots back to those stage performances, and any true history would have been lost.

My opinion is that this is unlikely, as the shutdown in tango only lasted around twenty or twenty-five years and there would have been many people still alive that remembered how it had been. The shows would not have been the only source of information when tango restarted, and many people would have been keen to jump in with “you have that wrong” if the show version became the only way. On the other hand it is highly likely that the shows would have strongly influenced the way tango progressed from the eighties onwards in Buenos Aires, as the surge of tourists heading to South America as a result of those shows would have been disappointed if what they found there bore no resemblance to what they had seen on the stage. The balance of probability therefore is that tango in Argentina was heavily influenced by the styling and approach of the stage performances, and so the tango we see there now has been shaped and influenced in part by its own history and in part by the theatrical visions of Hector Orezzoli and Claudio Segovia.

Progression

When the history of tango is viewed in this way it is clear that there is no one path that can be considered to be “true tango”. All versions of the dance have forked from the original path, some in the very early years of the twentieth century and some many decades later. Each retains a part of what the early years of tango must have been like, but none of them – not even the so-called ‘traditional’ version – is entirely accurate.

With that being the case it is hard to see how ‘cultural appropriation’ can apply to any single group. Either anyone who is not an Argentine or Uruguayan national who teaches any form of tango outside of the River Plate region is guilty of it, or no-one is. It would be more accurate to say that by promoting Argentine Tango in any form, all tango teachers whether contemporary, traditional, or ballroom, are upholding the core principle of the ICH declaration and contributing to the preservation of a ‘living’ style of dance. As there is no ‘protected geographic identity’ (PGI) implied in the ICH documentation there is nothing legally or morally preventing anyone from teaching tango in any style anywhere. Additionally there are countless tango experts of the highest standard from Argentina and Uruguay who travel the world to teach people how to dance and how to teach, and many of them teach a style that is not ‘traditional’. Are these experts therefore ‘wrong’ to promote tango in this way? Should we accuse them too of ‘cultural appropriation’ and send them back to learn how to teach ‘more authentically’?

Whilst most clubs in Buenos Aires do still have an attachment to the older music, even in the city where tango began this is no longer universal. Many clubs are dropping the codigos in favour of a more modern approach, and although Golden Age music is still played in most places there are an increasing number of clubs moving away from it in favour of electro-nuevo and alternative music. Performances by Argentine dancers both locally and when they are on tour around the world often use music that was not written for tango, and a growing number of younger generation dancers from the region are incorporating styles and techniques in their performances from a huge range of sources. Tango in Buenos Aires is far from static.

Tango has the opportunity to be the most inclusive and accepting of all dance styles. It requires no great fitness or flexibility to dance it well; you can dance with any other tango dancer from any background regardless of where and how you both learned it; and its own history shows how adaptable and accepting it can be of other styles. So let us stop all the in-fighting about whether or not something is “true tango” and instead revel in its diversity and range.