Pre-existing dance?

List overview All Threads
Download

newer

older

Wrist Lock Stars - Summary

Re: [Callers] Ralph Page Style

Luke Donforth via Callers

18 Oct 2016 18 Oct '16

2:45 a.m.

Hello all, 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).

Attachments:

attachment.htm (text/html — 1.3 KB)

Show replies by date

Michael Barraclough via Callers

18 Oct 18 Oct

3:03 a.m.

...

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. Michael Barraclough www.michaelbarraclough.com -- On Mon, 2016-10-17 at 22:45 -0400, Luke Donforth via Callers wrote:

...

Hello all,> 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(a)lists.sharedweight.net> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net>

Luke Donforth via Callers

1:31 p.m.

Thanks. I'll attribute it to Mark Goodwin. On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 11:03 PM, Michael Barraclough via Callers < callers(a)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. Michael Barraclough www.michaelbarraclough.com -- On Mon, 2016-10-17 at 22:45 -0400, Luke Donforth via Callers wrote: Hello all, 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 listCallers@lists.sharedweight.nethttp://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net _______________________________________________ Callers mailing list Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net

-- Luke Donforth Luke.Donforth(a)gmail.com <Luke.Donev(a)gmail.com>

Neal Schlein via Callers

6:59 p.m.

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. Just my 2 cents. Neal Neal Schlein 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(a)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(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

-- Luke Donforth Luke.Donforth(a)gmail.com <Luke.Donev(a)gmail.com> _______________________________________________ Callers mailing list Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net

Dave Casserly via Callers

7:25 p.m.

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. -Dave Washington, DC On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 2:59 PM, Neal Schlein via Callers < callers(a)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(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

_______________________________________________ Callers mailing list Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net

-- David Casserly (cell) 781 258-2761

Bill Olson via Callers

7:29 p.m.

Yep, I agree.. bill ________________________________ From: Callers <callers-bounces(a)lists.sharedweight.net> on behalf of Dave Casserly via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 7:25 PM To: Neal Schlein Cc: callers Subject: Re: [Callers] Pre-existing dance? 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. -Dave Washington, DC On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 2:59 PM, Neal Schlein via Callers <callers@lists.sharedweight.net<mailto: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. Just my 2 cents. Neal Neal Schlein 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<mailto: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<mailto: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. Michael Barraclough www.michaelbarraclough.com<http://www.michaelbarraclough.com> -- On Mon, 2016-10-17 at 22:45 -0400, Luke Donforth via Callers wrote: Hello all, 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<mailto:Callers@lists.sharedweight.net> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net _______________________________________________ Callers mailing list Callers@lists.sharedweight.net<mailto:Callers@lists.sharedweight.net> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net -- Luke Donforth Luke.Donforth@gmail.com<mailto:Luke.Donev@gmail.com> _______________________________________________ Callers mailing list Callers@lists.sharedweight.net<mailto:Callers@lists.sharedweight.net> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net _______________________________________________ Callers mailing list Callers@lists.sharedweight.net<mailto:Callers@lists.sharedweight.net> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net -- David Casserly (cell) 781 258-2761

Luke Donforth via Callers

8:37 p.m.

Lots of interesting points, thanks for sharing!

...

From my perspective, while I know that I lay in bed thinking about dance

moves and came up with the sequence; I can not say that in the last decade+ of dancing, I haven't already danced it. Did I write it then, yes. Under the influence of some tentative memory? I can't counter-prove that (the lawsuit over George Harrison's "My Sweet Lord" comes to mind as an extreme example). I write a lot of dances, with varying degrees of compositional meat behind them. I think it's more challenging to write a fun easy dance than a fun hard dance; and so am perhaps more inclined to give credit for glossary dances. I greatly respect David Kaynor's contribution to the community. If he doesn't want to label a dance, that's his prerogative. But when I call something I got from him (directly or indirectly), I try to note that (even if only to myself). Figuring out earlier authors of sequences feels, to me, like a way of honoring the heritage of a tradition I'm grateful to participate in. I think a name (emphasis *singular*) also helps discuss and organize dances. The name is a short-hand for discussions about good first dances (for instance). It can be unpacked if the folks in the discussion don't know it; or not if everyone is familiar with it. Multiple names mean we might not realize we're talking about the same thing. If I keep identical dances with multiple names in my (digital) box, then it complicates my own record keeping of what I called the last time I was at a venue. So I'll try to avoid re-naming something that already exists. I may note on my card that I also wrote it, but only as a tertiary matter. If someone asked me what the dance was, I'd say "To Wedded Bliss" by Mark Goodwin. A side note, I like the title "If you can walk, you can dance". I'll try to find something else it fits. And I do think that little shifts can make a noticeable difference in a dance. You might say this dance is functionally identical if you replace the promenade with a right and left through, or a half hey; or replace the N DSD & Swing with a Balance & Swing. I don't think those would work as well, and wouldn't add them to my box; this one I will. (Although I will freely admit to tweaking dances at the mic, possibly including those changes, to fit programmatic needs.) As a final note, I spend a lot of time in my own head thinking about dances (see the earlier comment about lying in bed writing them...). Knowing that Mark Goodwin wrote a solid accessible dance means that I now know another choreographer to go look up and crib from. Win all around. Nice to hear how other people think about it. Thanks again for sharing. On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Bill Olson via Callers < callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

...

Yep, I agree.. bill ------------------------------ *From:* Callers <callers-bounces(a)lists.sharedweight.net> on behalf of Dave Casserly via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 18, 2016 7:25 PM *To:* Neal Schlein *Cc:* callers *Subject:* Re: [Callers] Pre-existing dance? 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. -Dave Washington, DC On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 2:59 PM, Neal Schlein via Callers < callers(a)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(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

_______________________________________________ Callers mailing list Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net

-- David Casserly (cell) 781 258-2761 _______________________________________________ Callers mailing list Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net

-- Luke Donforth Luke.Donforth(a)gmail.com <Luke.Donev(a)gmail.com>

Erik Hoffman via Callers

19 Oct 19 Oct

4:46 a.m.

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(a)gmail.com>om>; Dave Casserly <david.j.casserly(a)gmail.com>om>; callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net Subject: Re: [Callers] Pre-existing dance? Yep, I agree.. bill ________________________________ From: Callers <callers-bounces@lists.sharedweight.net<mailto:callers-bounces@lists.sharedweight.net>> on behalf of Dave Casserly via Callers <callers@lists.sharedweight.net<mailto:callers@lists.sharedweight.net>> Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 7:25 PM To: Neal Schlein Cc: callers Subject: Re: [Callers] Pre-existing dance? 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. -Dave Washington, DC On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 2:59 PM, Neal Schlein via Callers <callers@lists.sharedweight.net<mailto: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. Just my 2 cents. Neal Neal Schlein 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<mailto: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<mailto: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. Michael Barraclough www.michaelbarraclough.com<http://www.michaelbarraclough.com> -- On Mon, 2016-10-17 at 22:45 -0400, Luke Donforth via Callers wrote: Hello all, 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<mailto:Callers@lists.sharedweight.net> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net _______________________________________________ Callers mailing list Callers@lists.sharedweight.net<mailto:Callers@lists.sharedweight.net> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net -- Luke Donforth Luke.Donforth@gmail.com<mailto:Luke.Donev@gmail.com> _______________________________________________ Callers mailing list Callers@lists.sharedweight.net<mailto:Callers@lists.sharedweight.net> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net _______________________________________________ Callers mailing list Callers@lists.sharedweight.net<mailto:Callers@lists.sharedweight.net> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net -- David Casserly (cell) 781 258-2761

Bill Olson via Callers

18 Oct 18 Oct

7:25 p.m.

Recently it has pretty much been the custom to attribute dance authorship to the first one who came up with the sequence. I agree that Luke came up with this sequence independently but someone else did that before him. It's only fair, since it's not unlikely that the second author (Luke, me, you anyone) actually picked up the dance somewhere and remembered the basic figures.. It would be nice if we could attribute "co-authorship" like was done by Gene Hubert and Steve Schnur with "Summer of '84". In that case it didn't matter who came up with the dance *first*, both authors recognized that the other came up with the sequence independently and agreed to co-authorship. .. It seems to me that there are plenty of dance sequences in the modern (vast) repertoire that have credit taken by separate authors. I have no problem with that either.. That being said, I'd be happy with "If you can walk you can dance" being a unique title.. All that being said, I have memorized this sequence for future use as a "beginning of the dance" dance. It's a good one. bill ________________________________ From: Callers <callers-bounces(a)lists.sharedweight.net> on behalf of Neal Schlein via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 6:59 PM To: Luke Donforth; callers Subject: Re: [Callers] Pre-existing dance? 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. Just my 2 cents. Neal Neal Schlein 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<mailto: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<mailto: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. Michael Barraclough www.michaelbarraclough.com<http://www.michaelbarraclough.com> -- On Mon, 2016-10-17 at 22:45 -0400, Luke Donforth via Callers wrote: Hello all, 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<mailto:Callers@lists.sharedweight.net> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net _______________________________________________ Callers mailing list Callers@lists.sharedweight.net<mailto:Callers@lists.sharedweight.net> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net -- Luke Donforth Luke.Donforth@gmail.com<mailto:Luke.Donev@gmail.com> _______________________________________________ Callers mailing list Callers@lists.sharedweight.net<mailto:Callers@lists.sharedweight.net> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net

Dale Wilson via Callers

7:27 p.m.

On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 1:59 PM, Neal Schlein via Callers < callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

...

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. An interesting take on this issue, and one that I like very much.

Certain "glossary" dances appear over and over an that, in itself, is an interesting bit of knowledge. Dale

2746

days inactive

2747

days old

contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net

Manage subscription

9 comments

7 participants

tags (0)

participants (7)

Bill Olson via Callers
Dale Wilson via Callers
Dave Casserly via Callers
Erik Hoffman via Callers
Luke Donforth via Callers
Michael Barraclough via Callers
Neal Schlein via Callers