3817  Tanda vs mixed

Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 13:47:44 -0500
Subject: Re: Re: Tanda vs mixed

On May 25, 2005, at 3:30 AM, Gee Dublu wrote:

(snip)

> Can you tell us anything about the structure of the
> tunes that the tango orchestra played?

I personally had the opportunity to see the orchestras of Hector Varela
(ex- D'Arienzo bandoneonist), and Alfredo De Angelis, just about when
the sun was setting down on the glorious Golden years.

My understanding is that each orchestra had a repertoire consisting of
"standards," and exclusive themes especially written for the orchestra
by the conductor, some of his musicians or free lance composers.

(snip)

Each orchestra also had two vocalists with contrasting registers,
baritone, tenor.

> Did they play in a tanda-like structure, alternating in some fashion
> between tango, vals and milonga, akin to today's tandas?

Definitely no.
Take Di Sarlil, for example.
It was 99% tango, with an occasional milonga and a sprinkle of valses.
That is reflected in his discography.

Pugliese didn't play many milongas and valses either.

On the other hand D'Arienzo mixed them up in a very balanced way to the
delight of the dancers everywhere.

What does that tell us?
Di Sarli, Troilo and Pugliese were epitome of what tango should sound
like according to the experts. The genre was just about all they cared
about. They put a lot of emphasis in their distinctive styles to please
their legion of followers.

Milongas and valses were fillers rather than part of the mix.

This was in part, I believe, as a deference to Sebastian Piana and
Homero Manzi, who had crafted the milonga genre in the 1930's from
elements discarded a long time ago, taking some poetic licenses
regarding history, and aiming to incorporate their work into the
theatre.

Piana and Manzi didn't expect that Milonga del 900 and Milonga
Sentimental, and everything else that followed would strike a chord
among the dancing population excited by the arrangements of Minoto Di
Cicco, and the talent of Luis Riccardi, Ciriaco Ortiz, Cayetano
Puglisi, just to name a few of the great musicians who laid in vinyl
grooves the
sounds many years later unfairly would generically be referred to as
the Canaro orchestra, even when Canaro never played a note in any of
those recordings.

> Or did they employ some other structure? Did different orquestas
> employ the same or similar structures?

Yes and no.
The structure tended to be much the same, whether it was on the radio,
at the cabaret or at the dance hall. What varied was the duration of a
set. Fifteen minutes segments were common on the radio.

The orchestra would open with a standard, followed by a vocal with
singer number 1, followed by a theme of their own, followed by singer
number 2, maybe a duet (valses where played mostly for that reason). At
dance halls, the orchestras were under labor regulations that
determined how many minutes a musician should play, and how many
minutes he should rest. (Don't ask because I have no idea about the
arrangement). A set typically would last about 45 minutes which they
covered with about 15 songs.

As I recall, the orchestra would play a minimum of two sets, mostly
three, and seldom four, unless it was Lomuto or Enrique Rodriguez for
example, who mixed rumbas, fox trots and pasodobles with tangos,
milongas and valses.

(snip)

One of the main purposes of the orchestras playing in all these places
was to sell records. So they would play their latest releases
frequently, and their sets would almost sound like their recent
releases mixed with crowd pleasing favorites.

(snip)

I hope this helps.

Alberto