3 Jan
2013
3 Jan
'13
2:22 p.m.
On Jan 3, 2013, at 4:04 AM, Alan Winston wrote:
On 1/2/2013 10:07 AM, Louise Siddons wrote:
Two people made the point about different roles not necessarily being lead/follow roles,
and I think this is true. But in the case of the courtesy turn -- or even an open chain --
i do think that the dance is improved/perfected by one person allowing themselves to be
led by the other. Yes, you *can* get where you need to go without help, but it's a
better dance if you don't. I could twirl myself when I waltz with someone, too, but
it's a lot less satisfying.
I think for me the key point is that when you have a lot of figures that are improved when
the same dancer in a couple, or the same gender throughout the group dance, is leading,
then the dance becomes a dance that is characterized by a lead/follow structure. Not
necessarily limited by that, but it is one aspect of their overall character. And that
characteristic can be strong or weak in any dance form or style -- it isn't black and
white.
<snip>
And when you pile up a bunch of figures that involve a certain amount of leading that
tends to fall to one role more than the other, then you have a dance where there's a
lead role and a following role. (I would include promenades and butterfly whirls in this
category of led figures.) Yes, there are dances where the "unexpected" dancer
leads these figures, but the very fact that it is unexpected (and that a gents' chain,
for example, prompts murmuring and often a "hoho, you didn't expect that, did
you?" tone from the caller) supports my point.
Didn't you just make an
argument that the roles are different, rather than that they are inherently lead/follow
figures? (For example, the Scots (and Fried Herman, following them) call the twiddle at
the end of rights and
lefts a "polite turn". Is that a led figure by definition? (It's usually
done with same-sex neighbor.) Similarly, "hoho, you didn't expect that, did
you!" accompanies dances with same-sex swings, men gypsying, etc.
Certainly the sets of "led by a follow" and "unexpected figure" do not
have to be fully contained within each other.
And on a similar front, English dancing has ladies
chains, both open and with courtesy turns. Would you argue that English dance is
inherently lead/follow?
I would suggest that the transition between ECD and contra demonstrates an increase in the
lead-follow characteristic of the dance that is analogous to the increase in lead-follow
characteristic between contra and, I don't know, polka. (I would also suggest that we
can trace a decrease in lead-follow characteristics through 20th-century dance forms all
the way to hiphop, if we look for it -- but that's getting off-topic.)
At risk of, in some sense, changing the topic dramatically: I have to admit I'm always
surprised at why people feel so strongly negative about the idea of lead-follow as a trait
of contra dancing. Does it rub up against strongly-held community values of
democracy/egalitarianism? And if so, does our communal practice justify our belief that we
exemplify those values? Why is the contra community so enthusiastic about the question of
lead-follow (and why is it, generally speaking, so open-minded and progressive re: gender
roles), and yet hardly anyone ever talks about the racial segregation in the community?
Louise.