9 Jun
2023
9 Jun
'23
9:28 p.m.
Your points are well taken, Julian. While I don't care that much about
specific attribution of my output, I do as diligently as possible cite
authors and titles for the dances I cal, and I cannot honestly say I am
completely unmoved when I hear of someone calling my compositions. ;}
Greg
On Fri, Jun 9, 2023 at 3:21 PM Julian Blechner via Contra Callers <
contracallers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
I wanted to chime in to defend dance attribution from
a practical
perspective.
First, I want to validate the concern Isaac is saying - the "YOU HACK"
part. Yeah, when people share new choreo, and people immediately push-back,
that's not always helpful. We should always strive to be be ... yannow ...
polite to each other. And that isn't always true, and it doesn't feel great.
That said, dance attribution - even setting aside the "giving a nod to
other choreographers" or the copyright aspects - has a variety of practical
purposes for me.
The summary of these is "having names of dances is an essential tool for
discussing dances."
1. If I like a dance, having the dance name and caller means I can collect
it way more easier. I'm constantly updating and expanding my box.
2. If a dance is really similar to an existing one, knowing what that
existing dance is means I can look at it, as a choreographer, and maybe see
advantages / disadvantages of the original choreography.
At least once a night, I generally swap out equivalent moves of a dance
for any number of reasons - fitting music better, vary up moves in an
evening, ensure moves are covered earlier to build a program based on
called moves, etc.
The alternative is not knowing about the other variations. I _want to
know_ them because they help me.
3. Dance names with figures mean we can store them in online database and
then search for them.
4. Having your name on things is a motivator for many people. That
motivator means more people writing dances, and more innovation and
creativity. I think these are positive things.
Then moving on to the less "practical" reasons:
5. There's a bunch of dancers who recognize dance names, and it gives them
joy when they recognize a dance name said on the mic to one they've enjoyed
before.
6. Naming dances that are similar to others is a nice way to acknowledge,
preserve, and be part of the living history of contra choreography. Like, I
really like that there's a bunch of "Trip to ... " dances. I enjoy seeing
dances with similar names and how choreographers riffed off each other. I
think that's really cool. And yeah, we need to have attribution to achieve
that.
7. Or even just --- a lot of us enjoy the silly and creative names of
dances, at face value.
I've heard a few different ways to tell if a dance is "original", and I
don't know that there's a "right way".
But here's mine:
- If it's a trivial change to one move, it's a variation.
- If 25% of the dance is changed (noting that the swing and its preceding
move in a quartile of the dance I consider 2 moves):
--- If it's pretty standard moves, then I like to name my dance with an
homage to the original.
--- If it's some real fresh choreography, then the focus of the dance is
on that freshness, and the homage really doesn't make as much sense, to me.
And ... yeah. When we have about 12 to 20 base moves, it does mean that
almost all of the "simple" combinations are taken. But I don't think
that's a problem - I think it's a feature and it keeps us thinking and
innovating.
In dance,
Julian Blechner
On Fri, Jun 9, 2023 at 1:52 PM Isaac Banner via Contra Callers <
contracallers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
Greg you're very quickly going to come up
against a group of vocal
callers which *insist *a dance has to be XX% unique from any other
sequence ever invented to be a unique sequence and who are convinced that *their
*value of XX is the only correct answer 😅
...
Generally speaking, I'd agree that most dances fall into
A) Connect the swings in a neat way
B) Get the swings out of the way as quickly as possible so we can do
something neat (Hotpoint special, eg)
but I'd tentatively push back against naming and staking originator-ship
on even smaller component phrases of choreography. It's already pretty
nearly impossible for a choreographer to publish simpler dances these days
without a chorus of screeches to the tune of "THIS IS YYYY DANCE BY ZZZZZ
BUT YOU CHANGED 25% OF IT YOU HACK"....
I think a lot of people on this list already know my feelings about
staking claim and authorship of mathematical truths (because, yes, You're
Among Friends exists whether we observe it or not) and my even more severe
feelings about charging for them. I'm probably in a minority on the
opposite extreme, but generally my vote is going to be against finding ways
to put our names on even smaller pieces of choreo when it's already such a
crowded medium, I think.
Upstartedly yours,
Isaac B
PS for more rants about dance originality,
https://contradb.com/dances/2052
https://contradb.com/dances/2054
On Fri, Jun 9, 2023, at 9:35 AM, Gregory Frock via Contra Callers wrote:
Hi All,
Just before COVID I wrote this dance (Composition 148):
A1: N1 All L 1 1/2 to side waves, balance, N2 All R 3/4;
A2: Balance, All walk forward and swing N1;
B1: Circle L 3/4, P swing;
B2: Balance the Ring, N1 Roll away across, Balance the Ring, Petronella
twirl to next.
Using this dance as a base, I created this dance yesterday afternoon:
(Composition 159)
A1: N1 All R 1 1/2 to side waves, balance, N2 All L 3/4;
A2: Balance, All walk forward and swing N1;
B1: Circle L 3/4, P swing;
B2: Right Hand Chain, Star Left.
If got me thinking that given the 'mandatory swing requirements' these
days, more and more choreographic sequences are just coming up with new
ways to interestingly connect the swings, and most of the connective filler
is just that. This is not an original concept; Cary Ravitz mentioned it
years ago. But, it got me thinking that rather than dances, I am more
creating modules these days. So, I am retitling my A parts (which appear
original, as far as checking callers' Box and Contradb)
Module A:
A1: N1 All L 1 1/2 to side waves, balance, N2 All R 3/4;
A2: Balance, All walk forward and swing N1;
Module A (Isomorph):
A1: N1 All R 1 1/2 to side waves, balance, N2 All L 3/4;
A2: Balance, All walk forward and swing N1;
Using the Circle L 3/4, P Swing B1 Module, here are some B2 modules that
quickly came to mind:
For Module A:
-
B2: Left Hand Chain, Star Right
-
B2: Balance the Ring, Neighbors Roll Away across the set, Balance the
Ring, Petronella twirl to next
-
B2: Larks Allemande left, Partners pull by right, Robins Pull by
Left, Neighbors Allemande Right ¾
For Module A Isomorph:
- B2: Left Hand Chain, Partners Balance Right hand across and square
through 2
- B2: Circle Left, slide left to next as a couple, circle left ¾ (rendezvous
finish)
- B2: Circle Right 1 ¼, Zigzag right then left to next
Of course, there are plenty more that can be worked out, and even more
changing B1 to a partner swing on the other side. I look forward to seeing
some of your own variants.
Regards,
Greg
_______________________________________________
Contra Callers mailing list -- contracallers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
To unsubscribe send an email to
contracallers-leave(a)lists.sharedweight.net
_______________________________________________
Contra Callers mailing list -- contracallers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
To unsubscribe send an email to
contracallers-leave(a)lists.sharedweight.net
_______________________________________________
Contra Callers mailing list -- contracallers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
To unsubscribe send an email to contracallers-leave(a)lists.sharedweight.net