What I feel
Is missing from these expressions is twofold. One is memorability. We remember things better to which we attach emotions of some kind. A name people giggle or oo ah about is going to stick and be pleasurable each time they hear it. I love the name Mad Robin, as an example of a distinctive and whimsical name for a dance move, which could as easily be called a sideways do si do. The second is the sense of playful interaction that gypsy has always engendered. I don't want to restart the discussion of why that is, but I do want to keep that in the move, along with eye contact, rather than go to a dry workmanlike term. So nice of to have to invite play, but perhaps only need to mention that you look at your P, N, Sh, as you (new name) around them by the (R/L Sh). I think that was the appeal to me of the word Gimbal, which somehow revoked both rotation and play all in one. I hope I'm not alone in this desire, though I know we are often of very diverse opinions as a group.
Cheers,
Andrea
Sent from my iOnlypretendtomultitask
Hi Rich and All,
My memory of "Frontier Twirl" is pretty strong. But then again, it's the
80s I'm talking about...
~erik
On 1/27/2016 1:20 PM, Rich Sbardella wrote:
> Erik,
> I have heard Frontier Whirl as a California Twirl, but never Frontier
> Twirl? Are you sure? (Maybe I am mistaken.)
> Rich Sbardella
> Stafford, CT
>
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 12:26 PM, Erik Hoffman via Callers
> <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
> <mailto:callers@lists.sharedweight.net>> wrote:
>
> What Michael Fuerst said at a readable size (It's still coming
> through to me in some microscopic font):
>
> > Are you also contemplating to abandon the awkward to say
> "California
> > Twirl"
>
> Aha! A whole new topic. Well, actually old. Larry Edelman, one of
> my favorite dance callers, and someone I feel lucky to have spent
> time with, and from whom I have learned so much, use to complain
> about "California Twirl." I don't recall his reasons, but he
> always called it a "Frontier Twirl," which I think he got from old
> square dance books.
>
> ~erik hoffman
> oakland, ca
>
I've been thinking about this as well. I'd like to propose "Gimbal"
as a substitute for gypsy. You could even spell it "Gymbal" if you
liked. ;-) This also has the same number of syllables and starts with
the same letter as a bonus. A gimbal is a pivoted support that allows
the rotation of an object about a single axis, so it also makes some
sense with respect to the movement being named. It is sometimes used as
a verb, as in the movement of rocket motors used for guidance, as well
as being a noun.
Jonathan
-----
Jonathan Sivier
Caller of Contra, Square, English and Early American Dances
jsivier AT illinois DOT edu
Dance Page: http://www.sivier.me/dance_leader.html
-----
Q: How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
A: It depends on what dance you call!
I hate to say this but it's not a bad idea to have a line dance like
Texas Freeze in your hip pocket just in case. I don't like line
dances but some people enjoy them.
And for heaven's sake don't forget everyone's favorite, the bird
dance!!!!!
T
I've agreed to an extremely last minute "Hoe Down" gig this Saturday for a
local church, where I'm promised 25-75 people of mixed ages. No dance
experience at all.
I've reset their expectation to a family/barn dance - no cowboy outfits on
the performers, no line dances. They asked for some squares - ok. If the
crowd is really that size, I'm all set. Have the material, live music with
a contra and squares, etc. fiddler & piano player. Good to go.
My nightmare is there's only 5 people that show, say: a toddler, a teen, 2
parents and a grandparent. I have a few things I might do with that small
number of inexperienced folks, but not enough to fill 2 (fun) hours.
Any ideas on what you'd do/use in that instance? I'm all ears!
More candidates exist to replace "gypsy" than the Republicans have to succeed the current U.S. president.Although both the current president and "gypsy" are performing quite well, "gypsy" is not constrained by term limits Michael Fuerst 802 N Broadway Urbana IL 61801 217 239 5844
On Monday, January 25, 2016 12:56 PM, Caroline Barnes via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
Dear callers seeking alternatives to "gypsy":
My sister, Laura, suggested "compass" as an alternate term. I haven't used it yet, but I think it could work well:
1. It has the same number of syllables as the word it's replacing, plus distinct consonant sounds. 2. It's recognizable. 3. It makes thematic sense. Besides being an instrument that describes circles, "compass" also used to mean "go around something in a circular course."
Let me know how it goes if you try it!
Caroline
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
Dear callers seeking alternatives to "gypsy":
My sister, Laura, suggested "compass" as an alternate term. I haven't used
it yet, but I think it could work well:
1. It has the same number of syllables as the word it's replacing,
plus distinct consonant sounds.
2. It's recognizable.
3. It makes thematic sense. Besides being an instrument that describes
circles, "compass" also used to mean "go around something in a circular
course."
Let me know how it goes if you try it!
Caroline
Neal, I disagree with what you've said. As Read's reply and Jeff's post
point out, actually, contra dances might not be considered dance
choreography under the statute. And, if I were a judge looking at it, I'd
say it isn't. Contra dances might have one or two unique moves, but that
is much, much less original than choreography of a ballet, etc. My reading
of the statute is that Congress meant the latter, not the former,
particularly given the exclusion of social dance steps.
But, I'm not sure about that reading, and my point in emailing is to say
that you shouldn't be sure either. As Read mentioned, this is the kind of
thing we don't know for sure until somebody decides a case (it would be a
judge, not a jury, but that's beside the point). I'd caution everybody on
the list, particularly non-lawyers, from giving legal conclusions and
saying things like "it is correct based on the law." Neal, your
conclusions probably aren't correct, but maybe they are. I don't practice
copyright law, but even if I did, I highly doubt I'd know a sure answer.
But one thing your post points out is important to keep in mind. You can
only sue for actual damages if the copyright's unregistered. From this, I
take two points. One, since I'm not aware of anybody ever registering a
contra dance, it's very unlikely that anybody would be able to show
sufficient harm from somebody else's use of that dance to actually win a
case. So, it's totally not worth suing over. Two, sometimes people sue
over things that are not worth suing over, so it's probably also worth it
to make a minimum effort to contact dance authors. It doesn't hurt
anything to do so and only takes a few seconds. I'm not aware of any dance
caller who has asked somebody not to call their dance. Publish, sure,
people might not want you to, but call it? That's why people write dances.
On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 4:11 AM, Neal Schlein via Callers <
callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
> Since the original question had two points, about legal and moral
> standing, I'll answer the legal part:
>
> The short answer is NO YOU MAY NOT WITHOUT PERMISSION.
>
> US law is both extremely clear and exceptionally vague. The clear parts:
> 1. Any new creative work that is set down in a fixed form is instantly
> copyrighted. There is a bare minimum of creativity needed to generate
> copyrightable material.
> 2. Dance choreography is a copyrightable form.
> 3. The following acts are SOLELY allowed to the copyright holder or
> specifically licensed user: performance, reproduction, reprinting,
> publishing, public display, broadcast, recording, creation of a derivative
> work. I may have forgotten a few.
> 4. US copyright law has no moral requirements; it is purely financial and
> transactional in nature. You have no legal moral requirement (whatever
> that means...) to acknowledge the author's wishes or even identify them as
> the author. In Europe this is different.
> 5. There is no mechanism established in US copyright law for a person to
> place an item into the public domain, nor for unclaimed and otherwise
> orphan works except if they clearly fall into the public domain due to
> age. See Creative Commons for an attempted fix.
> 6. If an item is not registered with the Copyright Office, you can only
> sue for actual damages and demand cessation. (Usually neither worth it nor
> desired in our world.) If an item has been registered with the Copyright
> Office, you can sue for many thousands of dollars, plus court costs and
> actual damages.
> 7. There are no provisions for traditional or folk material or forms, and
> very little case law.
>
> So, all modern contra dances are copyrighted works, and under the main
> part of the law it is clear that you may not legally publish, reprint, call
> (perform), or video tape them without permission from the copyright holder
> (this is not necessarily the author).
>
> The unclear part:
> The Fair Use provision allows for anyone to use copyrighted material
> without permission in any of the otherwise prohibited ways...under
> unspecified circumstances, according to at least four criteria that must be
> applied to each individual situation and weighted uniquely by a judge, and
> which can only be determined with certainty for a given case by the Supreme
> Court. So, basically useless as a planning guide.
>
>
> *Whether you think the above should be true or not, it is correct based on
> the law*.
>
> Feel free to ask questions. I actually enjoy this stuff.
> 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 Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 2:54 PM, Colin Hume via Callers <
> callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 10:47:04 -0500, Tom Hinds via Callers wrote:
>> > My understanding is that here in the US choreography can't be
>> > protected by law but the written word or the description of it can
>> > be legally copyrighted.
>> >
>> > It would be interesting to know what the law is in the UK.
>>
>> My understanding is that it's the same here. But when we've discussed
>> copyright on lists the usual conclusion is that there just isn't
>> enough money in it for anyone to make a fuss no matter what happens!
>>
>> Colin Hume
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Callers mailing list
>> Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
>> http://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
>
>
--
David Casserly
(cell) 781 258-2761
Well, maybe. But:
"Congress has stated that the subject matter of choreography does not include ‘‘social dance steps and simple routines.’’ H.R. Rep. 94–1476 at 54 (1976). A compilation of simple routines, social dances, or even exercises would not be registrable unless it results in a category of copyrightable authorship. A mere compilation of physical movements does not rise to the level of choreographic authorship unless it contains sufficient attributes of a work of choreography. And although a choreographic work, such as a ballet or abstract modern dance, may incorporate simple routines, social dances, or even exercise routines as elements of the overall work, the mere selection and arrangement of physical movements does not in itself support a claim of choreographic authorship.”
From the Copyright Office, CFR Part 201 (in Federal Register 77(121):37605-08 (6/22/2012))
Case law (which might exist but I’d be surprised) would start to clarify whether a new contra dance would “contain sufficient attributes of a work of choreography,” but the explicit exclusion of “social dance steps” says to me it’s not straightforward. My own guess is that a judge who understands social dance would instruct a jury toward “yes, copyrightable,” and one who didn’t would rely on this language and instruct toward “no, not copyrightable."
But bear in mind http://smbc-comics.com/comics/20070314.gif <http://smbc-comics.com/comics/20070314.gif>
--Read Weaver
> On Jan 25, 2016, at 4:11 AM, Neal Schlein via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
> Since the original question had two points, about legal and moral standing, I'll answer the legal part:
>
> The short answer is NO YOU MAY NOT WITHOUT PERMISSION.
>
> US law is both extremely clear and exceptionally vague. The clear parts:
> 1. Any new creative work that is set down in a fixed form is instantly copyrighted. There is a bare minimum of creativity needed to generate copyrightable material.
> 2. Dance choreography is a copyrightable form.
> 3. The following acts are SOLELY allowed to the copyright holder or specifically licensed user: performance, reproduction, reprinting, publishing, public display, broadcast, recording, creation of a derivative work. I may have forgotten a few.
> 4. US copyright law has no moral requirements; it is purely financial and transactional in nature. You have no legal moral requirement (whatever that means...) to acknowledge the author's wishes or even identify them as the author. In Europe this is different.
> 5. There is no mechanism established in US copyright law for a person to place an item into the public domain, nor for unclaimed and otherwise orphan works except if they clearly fall into the public domain due to age. See Creative Commons for an attempted fix.
> 6. If an item is not registered with the Copyright Office, you can only sue for actual damages and demand cessation. (Usually neither worth it nor desired in our world.) If an item has been registered with the Copyright Office, you can sue for many thousands of dollars, plus court costs and actual damages.
> 7. There are no provisions for traditional or folk material or forms, and very little case law.
>
> So, all modern contra dances are copyrighted works, and under the main part of the law it is clear that you may not legally publish, reprint, call (perform), or video tape them without permission from the copyright holder (this is not necessarily the author).
>
> The unclear part:
> The Fair Use provision allows for anyone to use copyrighted material without permission in any of the otherwise prohibited ways...under unspecified circumstances, according to at least four criteria that must be applied to each individual situation and weighted uniquely by a judge, and which can only be determined with certainty for a given case by the Supreme Court. So, basically useless as a planning guide.
>
>
> Whether you think the above should be true or not, it is correct based on the law.
>
> Feel free to ask questions. I actually enjoy this stuff.
> 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 Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 2:54 PM, Colin Hume via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net <mailto:callers@lists.sharedweight.net>> wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 10:47:04 -0500, Tom Hinds via Callers wrote:
> > My understanding is that here in the US choreography can't be
> > protected by law but the written word or the description of it can
> > be legally copyrighted.
> >
> > It would be interesting to know what the law is in the UK.
>
> My understanding is that it's the same here. But when we've discussed
> copyright on lists the usual conclusion is that there just isn't
> enough money in it for anyone to make a fuss no matter what happens!
>
> Colin Hume
