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@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@lists.sharedweight.net
To unsubscribe send an email to contracallers-leave@lists.sharedweight.net


_______________________________________________
Contra Callers mailing list -- contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net
To unsubscribe send an email to contracallers-leave@lists.sharedweight.net