8 Mar
2012
8 Mar
'12
4:59 p.m.
Jim,
Larry carried a stop watch... many a night I would sit there with
Larry and count not only beat/seconds but also how many revolutions
and steps in different swing positions... and compare one dancer with
another's footwork etc.. He loved to break down the dance/movement to
its smallest piece...
I would not hesitate to have a band change tempo in the middle of a
dance if they were ether dragging on or running a race. The caller
can see what is working on the floor.. and it is about the dance.
On the other hand.. Bob McQuillen will stop a chestnut cold in the
middle of a dance if the fiddler is to fast or two slow.
Don Primrose
Nelson NH
On 3/8/12, James Saxe <jim.saxe(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Mar 8, 2012, at 9:59 AM, Martha Edwards wrote:
...
I also remember reading somewhere in my two Larry Jennings books
that 120
was the ideal tempo, but I can't find the reference, so maybe I made
it up.
The remark to which Martha refers appears on page 37 of _Zesty
Contras_, in the section V.2 ("Time Management). Larry writes:
I know from having recorded many dances that the tempos used
vary between 30 seconds per change of 64 beats and 35 seconds
per change. A lovely average tempo is 32 seconds/64 beats. ...
On page 42, in his sample self-critique, based on a tape of himself
teaching and calling "Country Doctor's Reel," Larry describes the
tempo thus:
Tempo: 33.8 sec. (average time required for one change).
I believe Larry preferred to write tempos in terms of seconds per
change (64 beats) rather than beats per minute because he did his
timing with a watch--probably a stopwatch--rather than a metronome.
Perhaps someone who spent more time with Larry than I did could
confirm or refute this.
In any case, I believe that a stopwatch is a substantially better
tool than a metronome for measuring (as opposed to setting) tempos,
particularly if the stopwatch has a "Split" or "Lap" feature. This
is a button that makes the stopwatch display either the current
cumulative time (since last started) or the time since the last
split/lap or both, while also continuing to run so that you can
capture more split/lap times later. Some watches store split/lap
times in a memory that you can examine later at leisure. Sporting
goods stores typically carry such stopwatches with a variety of
features, memory capacities, and physical durability (or lack
thereof). Nowadays many cell phones have a stopwatch feature
built in.
My technique for taking timings is to get my finger tapping
lightly to the beat on the appropriate button (start or
split/lap) and then actually follow through and press the
button on a particular beat, typically beat 64 of the tune
(or the last beat of the "four potatoes, if I'm timing from
the start of the tune). Then I do the same thing at the
corresponding place in the tune 64 beats (or 128 or 192
...) later. I find that in this way, I can keep my timing
inaccuracy down to a couple tenths of a second or less most
of the time. That amounts to less than one beat per minute
when averaged over one round of a tune, and less when
averaged over multiple rounds. As an example, here are
results that I got just now by timing the same two repeats
of a tune on a particular YouTube video five times:
31.50 + 31.23 = 62.73 (avg. = 31.365 sec/change; 122.4 bpm)
31.44 + 31.22 = 62.66 (avg. = 31.330 sec/change; 122.6 bpm)
31.43 + 31.36 = 62.79 (avg. = 31.395 sec/change; 122.3 bpm)
31.51 + 31.22 = 62.73 (avg. = 31.365 sec/change; 122.4 bpm)
31.47 + 31.22 = 62.69 (avg. = 31.345 sec/change; 122.5 bpm)
By taking multiple split/lap times over the length of a dance,
you can also get get quantitative information about whether the
band maintained a steady tempo or sped up, and if they sped up,
whether it happened gradually or suddenly (e.g., at a tune change),
etc. Unlike with a metronome there's no need to look at a
stopwatch continuously while taking timings. While I've described
taking split/lap times at intervals of 64 beats (or multiples
thereof), there's no need to devote much attention to counting
to 64, since you can let the phrasing of the tune and the pattern
of the dance effectively do the counting for you.
To convert from seconds per change to beats per minute, you can use
the formula
# of beats per minute = 3840 / (# of seconds per round)
The 3840 (= 60 x 64) comes from the fact that there are 60 seconds
in a minute and 64 beats in one round of a standard-length contra
dance/tune. Or you can remember a few equivalences, such as 32
seconds per round being 120 beats per minute, 30 seconds per round
being 128 bpm, etc.
While calling, I find it fairly easy to make a quick assessment of
the tempo by taking a few split/lap times at 16 beat intervals
(16 beats/8 sec = 120 bpm; 16 beats/7.5s = 128 bpm; 16 beats/8.5s
=~ 113 bpm) without distracting much attention from watching the
dancers. Such measurements can help me check a visual impression
that dancers are either plodding or racing and decide whether
the situation warrants signaling the band to adjust their tempo.
--Jim
On Mar 8, 2012, at 9:59 AM, Martha Edwards wrote:
Alan's answer is the "right" one,
in my experience, but I offer this
anecdote:
I used to wonder what the "right" tempo for a contra dance was, so
any time
the following three things happened at the same time, I took note of
the
tempo.
1. I was sitting out the dance
2. I had a metronome handy
3. The dancers looked really happy dancing
In EACH of the several cases in which those three things happened
simultaneously, the answer was, surprisingly, the exact same thing:
120 BPM
Mind you, that's just contra, and a smallish sample just in the
Midwest.
Because of a square dance tradition in Missouri that sometimes used
tempos
up to 144bpm (!) we were occasionally treated (or subjected) to those
faster tempos and developed a style of dancing that made it
difficult for
us to dance any slower than about 112bpm (that's only two metronome
marks
away from 120bpm). Bands from the East coast would come and play at
104-116bpm, and we would find it hard to stay with the music. In
recent
times, the tempos from our old-time bands have slowed a bit, and
more of us
have experienced bands from elsewhere at dance weekends - but we're
still
happiest at 120bpm, for some reason.
I also remember reading somewhere in my two Larry Jennings books
that 120
was the ideal tempo, but I can't find the reference, so maybe I made
it up.
You should also know that, on a slightly different topic, the old-time
musicians who play for contra dances (around here, anyway) look at you
mighty funny if you even mention the word metronome or beats per
minute, so
don't do it. Do what Alan said - tap your foot, deedle, or better
yet, keep
your mouth shut, because some of them have pointedly told us callers
that
it's not our job to tell them how fast to play (strange but true!).
The
best way to keep the peace with those folks if you want a slower
tempo is
to ask them to play a slower tune. That they can, and will, do.
M
E
[earlier quoted messages snipped]
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)sharedweight.net
http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers