Yeah, I would agree that putting a name on the dance and attributing a choreographer is generally a net benefit to the community. I still name most of the dances I put together, when it feels right, and I agree that we need good systems to enable callers to find and collate choreography. I think also there's a sense of "I like X dance by choreographer Y, so I imagine I would like this other dance they wrote." This can be especially notable when you have folks, like Cary Ravitz, with pretty robust personal guidelines for dance construction - you know what to expect from them most of the time.

In terms of crowding in the more simple sequences, I worry at times that we're going to stop writing easy dances over time, as the only available space to stake out a claim in drifts further into complexity. When 'novel' gets too close to being synonymous with 'complex' it becomes hard to build any reputation as a dance author other than "oh, they only write weird/challenging dances"...

Ultimately, you'll find my name on most stuff I publish and I think I agree with most of your criteria below, Julian, I usually just get worked up when people treat it more like they own the sequence rather than being the one who discovered it. The Straits of Magellan existed before Magellan ever got in a boat, but that doesn't have to minimize his contribution to oceanography. Similarly, I don't want to minimize the effort that goes into looking at a sequence of moves and making a judgement on whether it is good and ought to be danced by others.

In a world where we could all be polite to each other and, in this information age, move away from staking ownership and trying to monetize dance choreography, I don't think I would have anything to be grumpy about. I get the sense that you agree, both from your previous message and in our past in-person conversations.

Marginally more cooperative,
Isaac B

On Fri, Jun 9, 2023, at 12:20 PM, Julian Blechner 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@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,

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