I, too, agree.
I think of a dance by Bill Cochran:
Third Friday
Improper
A1: Neighbor Balance & Swing
A2: Down Hall 4 in Line, turn as couples, return
B1: Women Chain over & back
B2: Balance & Square Through 2, twice, starting with Partner
This might have been the first dance with the
Partner: Balance, Pull by, Neighbor Pull By,
Partner: Balance, Pull by, Neighbor Pull By to progress
Being a modern contra dancer, I wanted to add a partner swing, so, for a dance I called the
Second Third Friday, crediting Bill Cochran, my version went:
A2: Men Allemande Left 1-1/2, Partner Swing
B1: Right & Left Through across; Women Chain
Later I found Tony Parkes had the same idea, and came up with
Friday Night Fever, also crediting Bill Cochran. His version is the same as mine, with one (better) idea:
B1: Partner Promenade, Women Chain
And, his adaptation preceded mine. So now I just call
Friday Night Fever…
Sometimes, though:
I’ve come up with a major alteration Gene Hubert’s wonderful dance,
The Nice Combination
A1: Neighbor Balance & Swing
A2: Circle Left ¾; Partner Swing
B1: Hey, Women start Right shoulder
B2: Women Chain, Star Left
And I usually introduce it as a major variation of
The Nice Combination…
I’ve got many “Innominate,” dances, or “unnamed.” Many are just glossary dances as David Kaynor suggests.
~Erik Hoffman
Oakland, CA
From: Callers [mailto:callers-bounces@lists.sharedweight.net]
On Behalf Of Bill Olson via Callers
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 12:29 PM
To: Neal Schlein <nschlein@gmail.com>; Dave Casserly <david.j.casserly@gmail.com>; callers@lists.sharedweight.net
Subject: Re: [Callers] Pre-existing dance?
Yep, I agree..
bill
Regarding attribution, I like the way David Kaynor puts it on this website: "Some of my dances are "compositions" only in the loosest sense of the word; they fall into the category
of "glossary" contras which basically amount to minimally imaginative resequencing of ordinary contra dance elements. Do such dances…especially if conceived spontaneously in a teaching/calling situation… qualify as "compositions?" Maybe. Maybe not."
I'm in the maybe not camp. They're not protected by any copyright here (at least in my view, which has generally been shared by most people on this list when the topic comes up
on occasion). I don't call regularly; most of the time when I call dances, I'm doing so late at night after a singing event or at somebody's house or at a more-or-less spontaneous outdoor gathering, where I don't have dance cards with me. I know several
dances by name and memory, but most of the dances at such events are things I've made up on the spot. I am almost certain that every single one of these dances is a progression I have danced before at some point in the past, and that somebody has written
and put their name on Partner Balance and Swing, Circle Left 3/4, Neighbor Swing, Long Lines, Ladies Chain, Left-Hand Star, New Neighbor Do-Si-Do. Good for whoever that person is, and if it's a catchy title, that can be a useful way for us to refer to that
particular glossary dance. But I wouldn't call it a composition, and I certainly wouldn't feel like I need to research whoever wrote that dance and the title and attribute it to that person.
Where I differ from Neal is that I don't really want a dozen people to be putting their name on that above dance I just made up (after I've danced it many times already, after somebody
else made it up, etc). It's just not interesting enough of a sequence to be worth attributing at all.
It gets a bit tougher when we're talking about dances that, when written, were really compositions, adding something new or fresh to the repertoire, but could now be considered
glossary dances because of how common those figures have become in modern contra dances. But that's not the case for most of the dances.
On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 2:59 PM, Neal Schlein via Callers <callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
As someone with an academic background in the field of Folklore, the way we talk about attribution and authorship bothers me.
(NOTE: what I'm talking about here is distinct from trying to track down the source of a dance you collected somewhere, or according respect to the first person to dream up a sequence. Both of those goals are entirely legitimate.)
The dance Luke described was created by him, not Mark Goodwin. The sequence happens to be the same as one dreamed up by Mark Goodwin at a previous place and time, which is very important to know, but Luke's creation was independent and should be attributed
to Luke. If we attribute everything to the first person ever to dream up a sequence, we are grossly misrepresenting how dances are created and spread.
When we attribute Luke's dance to Mark, we are saying that Luke (and everyone else) got the dance from Mark, or from a source tracked back to Mark. That is factually incorrect
in this case; Luke can point to when and why he came up with the dance. Legally, it would also mean we are claiming that Mark holds the only legitimate copyright claim, which is again both incorrect and total nonsense (as copyright usually becomes when applied
to folk genres).
As both an academic and participant in our tradition, I want to know if many people independently came up with the same dance (making it a FOLK DANCE). Otherwise, I am falsely
giving credit and responsibility to a single creative genius. The difference between those two is a significant matter in the question of how folklore is created and who owns it. Personally, I feel our cultural tendency to accord authorial rights has misled
us.
So please...if you came up with a dance put your name on it along with some of the details---and then tell me who else came up with it, too. Don't just stick their name on it.
Youth Services Librarian, Mahomet Public Library
Currently reading:
The Different Girl by Gordon Dahlquist
Currently learning: How to set up an automated email system.
On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 8:31 AM, Luke Donforth via Callers <callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
Thanks. I'll attribute it to Mark Goodwin.
On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 11:03 PM, Michael Barraclough via Callers <callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
I have that exact dance as To Wedded Bliss by Mark Goodwin (2014). I use that in my Lesson and then, after teaching ladies chain and right & left through, follow that with my dance
The Lesson (2009) which is
A1 -----------
(8) Neighbor Do-si-do
(8) Neighbor swing
A2 -----------
(8) Ladies chain
(8) Long lines, forward and back
B1 -----------
(8) Right & left through
(8) Partner promenade across
B2 -----------
(8) Circle Left 3/4
(4) Balance the Ring
(4) Pass through
and yes, I know it doesn't have a swing - it's in the lesson and I want to minimize the use of partner swings so that new couples don't get bad habits.
On Mon, 2016-10-17 at 22:45 -0400, Luke Donforth via Callers wrote:
I was thinking about what I do at the "welcome to our contra dance" introduction, and what dance would easily move in to that. Noodling around with
moves, I thought of a sequence with glossary moves, but I didn't have it in my box. Anyone recognize it?
Improper
A1 -----------
(8) Neighbor Do-si-do
(8) Neighbor swing
A2 -----------
(8) Men allemande Left 1-1/2
(8) Partner swing
B1 -----------
(8) Promenade across the Set
(8) Long lines, forward and back
B2 -----------
(8) Circle Left 3/4
(4) Balance the Ring
(4) Pass through
During the introduction, I often teach the progression with a "ring balance, walk past this neighbor", and I wanted something that included that. There
are lots of great accessible dances with that (The Big Easy, Easy Peasy, etc), but I'm not seeing one with a partner promenade (something I also use in the introduction; to go from a big circle to lines of couples for a contra set).
If someone already wrote it, I'll happily give them credit. If not, I'll call it "If you can walk, then you can dance" (which I'll note is not an if and only if statement).
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
--
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
--
David Casserly
(cell) 781 258-2761