9 Jun
2023
9 Jun
'23
4:35 p.m.
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
9 Jun
9 Jun
5:51 p.m.
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:
7:20 p.m.
New subject: Naming Dances (was: New Dance Module)
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(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
8:28 p.m.
New subject: Naming Dances (was: New Dance Module)
Your points are well taken, Julian. While I don't care that much about
specific attribution of my output, I do as diligently as possible cite
authors and titles for the dances I cal, and I cannot honestly say I am
completely unmoved when I hear of someone calling my compositions. ;}
Greg
On Fri, Jun 9, 2023 at 3:21 PM Julian Blechner via Contra Callers <
contracallers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
10:06 p.m.
New subject: Naming Dances (was: New Dance Module)
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:
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:
666
days inactive
666
days old
contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net
5 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Gregory Frock -
Isaac Banner -
Julian Blechner