> John Drewry alone publishes more dances during two years (most of > which aren't the next Bees of M., either, to be sure about that) > than the RSCDS does in a decade, or so it seems.
To add to a pocket list of interesting trivia to throw into
conversations: I've heard that he's published almost as many dances
as the RSCDS has (at least, that's what the score was about a year
Just wondering, though - do prolific devisers who can make a name on
their own _prefer_ to publish dances under their own name rather than
through the RSCDS? Although John Drewry is on the Publications
Committee, there are relatively few of his dances published by the
RSCDS - or is he just trying not to hog the show?
Thinking about the suggestion that the RSCDS (re)publish under their
own name specific good dances that have already been published
elsewhere, perhaps it's up to (the estates of) those devisers to
submit them to the RSCDS for consideration?
> What I'd like to see is a process of vetting submissions along the > lines of what is being done today, where every submitted dance is > test-driven without telling the dancers who devised it etc. > The only thing I'd change is that I'd try to widen the circle of > `alpha-testers' to include, say, groups from a number of different > RSCDS branches. Once a year these testers could be sent a bunch of > new submissions (without titles, deviser names etc.). They would > try them -- maybe even with dancers of various levels of experience > -- and pick the ones they think should be published by the RSCDS.
I'm not in the know on these things, but I think the bit about trying
out potential dances with dancers of varying abilities is, in fact,
done (under supervision/observation). I don't know to what extent
the _comments_ of those people would affect the selection process,
> The expectations of the dancers also appear to have changed with > the abundance of modern-style, meanwhile-laden, aerodynamically > optimized, follow-your-nose-type dances that we experience -- > it takes a lot more effort to produce a dance that is reasonably > novel, looks nice, is reasonably straightforward to remember *and* > is fun.
Should the RSCDS' view of _how_ novel a dance can be and yet be
acceptable under their standards, be broadened? Maybe? _But_, I
think dances can also be _too_ novel, or have _too_ much to remember,
to become popular. Some dances practically have to be relearnt if
they haven't been danced in the past month or two.
Irene van Maarseveen
Pretoria, South Africa