[Callers] Pre-existing dance?

Luke Donforth via Callers callers at lists.sharedweight.net
Tue Oct 18 13:37:25 PDT 2016


Lots of interesting points, thanks for sharing!

>From my perspective, while I know that I lay in bed thinking about dance
moves and came up with the sequence; I can not say that in the last decade+
of dancing, I haven't already danced it. Did I write it then, yes. Under
the influence of some tentative memory? I can't counter-prove that (the
lawsuit over George Harrison's "My Sweet Lord" comes to mind as an extreme
example).

I write a lot of dances, with varying degrees of compositional meat behind
them. I think it's more challenging to write a fun easy dance than a fun
hard dance; and so am perhaps more inclined to give credit for glossary
dances. I greatly respect David Kaynor's contribution to the community. If
he doesn't want to label a dance, that's his prerogative. But when I call
something I got from him (directly or indirectly), I try to note that (even
if only to myself). Figuring out earlier authors of sequences feels, to me,
like a way of honoring the heritage of a tradition I'm grateful to
participate in.

I think a name (emphasis *singular*) also helps discuss and organize
dances. The name is a short-hand for discussions about good first dances
(for instance). It can be unpacked if the folks in the discussion don't
know it; or not if everyone is familiar with it. Multiple names mean we
might not realize we're talking about the same thing. If I keep identical
dances with multiple names in my (digital) box, then it complicates my own
record keeping of what I called the last time I was at a venue. So I'll try
to avoid re-naming something that already exists. I may note on my card
that I also wrote it, but only as a tertiary matter. If someone asked me
what the dance was, I'd say "To Wedded Bliss" by Mark Goodwin.

A side note, I like the title "If you can walk, you can dance". I'll try to
find something else it fits.

And I do think that little shifts can make a noticeable difference in a
dance. You might say this dance is functionally identical if you replace
the promenade with a right and left through, or a half hey; or replace the
N DSD & Swing with a Balance & Swing. I don't think those would work as
well, and wouldn't add them to my box; this one I will. (Although I will
freely admit to tweaking dances at the mic, possibly including those
changes, to fit programmatic needs.)

As a final note, I spend a lot of time in my own head thinking about dances
(see the earlier comment about lying in bed writing them...). Knowing that
Mark Goodwin wrote a solid accessible dance means that I now know another
choreographer to go look up and crib from. Win all around.

Nice to hear how other people think about it. Thanks again for sharing.

On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Bill Olson via Callers <
callers at lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> Yep, I agree..
>
>
> bill
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Callers <callers-bounces at lists.sharedweight.net> on behalf of
> Dave Casserly via Callers <callers at lists.sharedweight.net>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 18, 2016 7:25 PM
> *To:* Neal Schlein
> *Cc:* callers
> *Subject:* Re: [Callers] Pre-existing dance?
>
> Regarding attribution, I like the way David Kaynor puts it on this
> website: "Some of my dances are "compositions" only in the loosest sense of
> the word; they fall into the category of "glossary" contras which basically
> amount to minimally imaginative resequencing of ordinary contra dance
> elements. Do such dances…especially if conceived spontaneously in a
> teaching/calling situation… qualify as "compositions?" Maybe. Maybe not."
>
> I'm in the maybe not camp.  They're not protected by any copyright here
> (at least in my view, which has generally been shared by most people on
> this list when the topic comes up on occasion).  I don't call regularly;
> most of the time when I call dances, I'm doing so late at night after a
> singing event or at somebody's house or at a more-or-less spontaneous
> outdoor gathering, where I don't have dance cards with me.  I know several
> dances by name and memory, but most of the dances at such events are things
> I've made up on the spot.  I am almost certain that every single one of
> these dances is a progression I have danced before at some point in the
> past, and that somebody has written and put their name on Partner Balance
> and Swing, Circle Left 3/4, Neighbor Swing, Long Lines, Ladies Chain,
> Left-Hand Star, New Neighbor Do-Si-Do.  Good for whoever that person is,
> and if it's a catchy title, that can be a useful way for us to refer to
> that particular glossary dance.  But I wouldn't call it a composition, and
> I certainly wouldn't feel like I need to research whoever wrote that dance
> and the title and attribute it to that person.
>
> Where I differ from Neal is that I don't really want a dozen people to be
> putting their name on that above dance I just made up (after I've danced it
> many times already, after somebody else made it up, etc).  It's just not
> interesting enough of a sequence to be worth attributing at all.
>
> It gets a bit tougher when we're talking about dances that, when written,
> were really compositions, adding something new or fresh to the repertoire,
> but could now be considered glossary dances because of how common those
> figures have become in modern contra dances.  But that's not the case for
> most of the dances.
>
> -Dave
> Washington, DC
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 2:59 PM, Neal Schlein via Callers <
> callers at lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
>> As someone with an academic background in the field of Folklore, the way
>> we talk about attribution and authorship bothers me.
>>
>> (NOTE: what I'm talking about here is distinct from trying to track down
>> the source of a dance you collected somewhere, or according respect to the
>> first person to dream up a sequence.  Both of those goals are entirely
>> legitimate.)
>>
>> The dance Luke described was created by him, not Mark Goodwin.  The
>> sequence happens to be the same as one dreamed up by Mark Goodwin at a
>> previous place and time, which is very important to know, but Luke's
>> creation was independent and should be attributed to Luke.  If we attribute
>> everything to the first person ever to dream up a sequence, we are grossly
>> misrepresenting how dances are created and spread.
>>
>> When we attribute Luke's dance to Mark, we are saying that Luke (and
>> everyone else) got the dance from Mark, or from a source tracked back to
>> Mark.  That is factually incorrect in this case; Luke can point to when and
>> why he came up with the dance.  Legally, it would also mean we are claiming
>> that Mark holds the only legitimate copyright claim, which is again both
>> incorrect and total nonsense (as copyright usually becomes when applied to
>> folk genres).
>>
>> As both an academic and participant in our tradition, I want to know if
>> many people independently came up with the same dance (making it a FOLK
>> DANCE).  Otherwise, I am falsely giving credit and responsibility to a
>> single creative genius.  The difference between those two is a significant
>> matter in the question of how folklore is created and who owns it.
>> Personally, I feel our cultural tendency to accord authorial rights has
>> misled us.
>>
>> So please...if you came up with a dance put your name on it along with
>> some of the details---and then tell me who else came up with it, too.
>> Don't just stick their name on it.
>>
>> Just my 2 cents.
>> Neal
>>
>>
>> Neal Schlein
>> Youth Services Librarian, Mahomet Public Library
>>
>>
>> Currently reading: *The Different Girl* by Gordon Dahlquist
>> Currently learning: How to set up an automated email system.
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 8:31 AM, Luke Donforth via Callers <
>> callers at lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks. I'll attribute it to Mark Goodwin.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 11:03 PM, Michael Barraclough via Callers <
>>> callers at lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have that exact dance as To Wedded Bliss by Mark Goodwin (2014). I
>>>> use that in my Lesson and then, after teaching ladies chain and right &
>>>> left through, follow that with my dance The Lesson (2009) which is
>>>>
>>>> A1 -----------
>>>> (8) Neighbor Do-si-do
>>>> (8) Neighbor swing
>>>> A2 -----------
>>>> (8) Ladies chain
>>>> (8) Long lines, forward and back
>>>>
>>>> B1 -----------
>>>> (8) Right & left through
>>>> (8) Partner promenade across
>>>> B2 -----------
>>>> (8) Circle Left 3/4
>>>> (4) Balance the Ring
>>>> (4) Pass through
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> and yes, I know it doesn't have a swing - it's in the lesson and I want
>>>> to  minimize the use of partner swings so that new couples don't get bad
>>>> habits.
>>>>
>>>> Michael Barraclough
>>>> www.michaelbarraclough.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, 2016-10-17 at 22:45 -0400, Luke Donforth via Callers wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hello all,
>>>>
>>>> I was thinking about what I do at the "welcome to our contra dance"
>>>> introduction, and what dance would easily move in to that. Noodling around
>>>> with moves, I thought of a sequence with glossary moves, but I didn't have
>>>> it in my box. Anyone recognize it?
>>>>
>>>> Improper
>>>>
>>>> A1 -----------
>>>> (8) Neighbor Do-si-do
>>>> (8) Neighbor swing
>>>> A2 -----------
>>>> (8) Men allemande Left 1-1/2
>>>> (8) Partner swing
>>>> B1 -----------
>>>> (8) Promenade across the Set
>>>> (8) Long lines, forward and back
>>>> B2 -----------
>>>> (8) Circle Left 3/4
>>>> (4) Balance the Ring
>>>> (4) Pass through
>>>>
>>>> During the introduction, I often teach the progression with a "ring
>>>> balance, walk past this neighbor", and I wanted something that included
>>>> that. There are lots of great accessible dances with that (The Big Easy,
>>>> Easy Peasy, etc), but I'm not seeing one with a partner promenade
>>>> (something I also use in the introduction; to go from a big circle to lines
>>>> of couples for a contra set).
>>>>
>>>> If someone already wrote it, I'll happily give them credit. If not,
>>>> I'll call it "If you can walk, then you can dance" (which I'll note is not
>>>> an if and only if statement).
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Callers mailing listCallers at lists.sharedweight.nethttp://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Callers mailing list
>>>> Callers at lists.sharedweight.net
>>>> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Luke Donforth
>>> Luke.Donforth at gmail.com <Luke.Donev at gmail.com>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Callers mailing list
>>> Callers at lists.sharedweight.net
>>> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Callers mailing list
>> Callers at lists.sharedweight.net
>> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> David Casserly
> (cell) 781 258-2761
>
> _______________________________________________
> Callers mailing list
> Callers at lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>
>


-- 
Luke Donforth
Luke.Donforth at gmail.com <Luke.Donev at gmail.com>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sharedweight.net/pipermail/callers-sharedweight.net/attachments/20161018/6e997541/attachment.htm>


More information about the Callers mailing list