9 Jun
2023
9 Jun
'23
8:03 p.m.
Hi Isaac (and colleagues),
First, for myself, I am really not interested in the particulars of
choreographic credit. Whatever I "create'' in this genre I give freely and
unlimited use. Maybe my more particular issue lies in the way I think about
this and a couple of other 'modules' I have come up with and used.
I came up with these two particular isomorphic A parts, which I thought are
pretty interesting and flow well. What I use for the B part with these
modules will depend on the specific event characteristics such as dancer
skills, variety of choreography for the night, and maybe a couple of other
things. So, I listed 8 common B parts, most of which are identifiable
components from several other dances such as The Rendezvous, A Nice
Combination, and other dances that I might consider using in my own
programming. Is there a definitive B part I would use for this sequence?
Definitely not!
So how many dances did I create? 0? 1? 2? 8? I think one could make the
argument for any of those numbers, depending on their concept of
originality. For me, it does not matter. If callers and choreographers find
the A sequence I listed interesting and wish to attach anything else to it
as a B sequence, that's fine. If they wish to attach a particular B to it,
and claim it as their own, so what? It's not like anyone is getting rich
from contra choreography.
I'm thinking more of programming. There are a lot of unique compositions
out there that serve well as great and memorable anchors. But in between
all these unique dances, we need to fill a program with a variety of
accessible fillers. That's where the modularity paradigm comes in for me.
Probably not making much sense outwardly, but it's because I am reaching to
a way of looking at things in programming that I have not quite fully
grasped yet, and what all the implications of such a paradigm shift might
mean.
Regards,
Greg
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