Even the most elementary book of universal history in high school, not only contains a pile of facts based in unquestionable documents, but also offers a weighing of the events, indicating its value and instant effect in that period, as well as the relation with the past and the influence in the future.
Oddly, those books that are dedicated to the “history” of Tango can be usually differentiated in both aspects, because the indisputable facts are missing, at the same time that those works don’t give justification on the importance of the fact narrated, in the evolution of the genre. One of the reasons for this shortage could be the reason that often authorizes the authors to write or to speak: they do it, because there is a consensus that they “know” about the subject. Therefore the weight of their reputation is enough to believe in the truth of their opinions.
Also in this aspect there are differences with historians of other themes, who acquire their knowledge poking in documents, for then interrelating the results in giving expression to what is known as “historic reconstruction”. That way they satisfy the obligation that is expected from them, in terms of checking, explaining, justifying the various “why”, the “when”, the “by whom”, etc. In sum, they work very hard in knowing the “behind the scenes” of the periods, to evaluate in that context the derivate consequences of a fact in itself.
On the other hand, often the “knowledge” in the Tango subject is based in the gathering of some facts, to which great clarifying power is assigned, when in reality they would be auxiliary tools of an historian, since just by themselves they are not enough to understand the magnitude of the events. It’s also confused knowing about one aspect in particular, for example authorship, with knowing generically “about Tango”. Like this, maybe without realizing, the person is being given suitability in all periods, styles, etc.
For example, somebody that knows off by Herat the authors of a hundred Tangos knows “something”. Who can recite the composers and authors of a thousand, would then be “somebody that knows a lot about Tango”. With that approach, my computer would know then more than anybody, because if you ask for it, it provides you the authors, record company, dedication of the score, date, etc... of approximately twenty thousand Tangos. And without forgetting or making mistakes.
But luckily, my computer didn’t think yet of writing a book of history. It could never do it, because it’s unable to make the necessary connection, interrelation of causes and effects that would reflect and explain the diverse aspects of something as complex as the cultural, social and economical phenomenon that lies under the word “Tango”.
Another characteristic is the intensive use of the anecdote to complement and enrich the account, confusing its role as a “historic event” of real importance and indisputable.
In sum, it’s often that the development of the themes is reduced to misinterpret a series of facts unworthy of a historic weight, avoiding giving the next step: to extract from them the explanations or conclusions that would have allowed understanding and valuing the events.
Fortunately, there are documentary sources that make it possible to study the socio-musical phenomenon known as “Tango”, from the latest decades of the XIX century onwards. Among them we can list the daily newspapers and magazines from each period, as well as the material available in the National General Archives and in the Police Archives.
In compensation, its discovery involves arduous and lengthy searches. Maybe for that reason, when writing about Tango it’s often fell back on fallible oral testimonies. Or as an inappropriate variation, apparent facts impossible to be verified are given, because its source is not mentioned, being the reader forced to “believe”. And even when the source is mentioned, it’s common to find circular quotes, closed in themselves without anybody contributing an endorsing document: Tom quotes Dick, who quotes Harry, who by chance… quotes Tom! It’s easy to think “How would it not be true, if three well-known authors affirm it?”…Note: They affirm it, but they don’t prove it. And being about history, it must be proven; if not, it’s theories, or literature.
For example, “Who doesn’t know” that the Tango “El Entrerriano” was composed in 1897 in the house of Maria La Vasca, in Europa street 2721?... Everybody seems to know about this, even though nobody has specified where that information figures indisputably.
Searching back, we arrive to the book of The Bates, who give that fact as a revealed truth. But in reality the documents indicate that this lady didn’t have her establishment in that address until 1905. So “El Entrerriano” was composed in that period, or if it was in 1897, was composed who knows where.
This detail would be irrelevant to the “big” history of Tango, that is, its character of massive socio-cultural phenomenon.
Who show not having this globalizing vision, on the need of showing erudition, are inclined to generate so-called milestones, which in the light of an integral study of the period become mere irrelevant anecdotes.
In the face of the importance assigned normally to the creation of “El Entrerriano”, we must ask ourselves what would have happened if it wouldn’t have existed. Maybe the Tango, as a genre would have disappeared before reaching its destiny of greatness, even worldwide?... Of course not; it would simply have lacked another good composition, in its extremely vast repertoire of excellent themes.
Enrique Binda
