strathspey Archive: Marigold

Previous thread: Katie's Jig
Next thread: Clapping with the music

Marigold

Message 12031 · David South · 12 May 1998 04:05:59 · Top

Please forgive me if this question has been asked before, but my wife
wanted me to put this to the list ...

The dance: Marigold

The problem:
In the corner movement, where the first couple are changing
places with the corners and the corners are changing places with the
corners, etc., when you end up in a corner position, do you set, or
stand still?

In the edition of James Cosh's book that we have, it says not to set,
but when my wife was first taught the dance, she was taught to set.

Is it a case of that the original instructions were to set and James
Cosh later revised the instructions to stand still, or is it a case
of a dance being inaccurately taught and passed on (for whatever
reason).

Please advise as it will contribute towards creating a more calmer
domestic atmosphere.

David South,
Geelong, Victoria, Australia.

Marigold

Message 12033 · Anselm Lingnau · 12 May 1998 11:03:46 · Top

David South <southd@mustang.agvic.gov.au> writes:

> In the corner movement, where the first couple are changing
> places with the corners and the corners are changing places with the
> corners, etc., when you end up in a corner position, do you set, or
> stand still?
>
> In the edition of James Cosh's book that we have, it says not to set,
> but when my wife was first taught the dance, she was taught to set.

In my edition it says not to set, either.

There is a formation, `Dance to each corner and set', which is
occasionally seen in dances (such as Gothenburg's Welcome (RSCDS
XXXVII), Burnie Boozie (by David Queen), or The Courage Reel (by John
Drewry)) which is very similar to the Marigold figure, and there the
corners do set. I think Cosh's figure predates DteC&S, and the setting
may have been introduced by somebody else as a refinement. If James Cosh
didn't revise the dance, maybe your wife's teacher confused the two.

For many dancers I know, in Marigold, just having to stand there at the
corner for all of two bars without doing anything must be very
frustrating. Setting seems to be the natural thing to do. In any case,
as opposed to other types of extra bits that people tend to introduce if
they, er, consider a dance too little of a challenge, it doesn't seem to
hurt or inconvenience other dancers. In class, of course, one should
strive to do things `by the book', but in a social situation I'd say by
all means set if you like (but don't forget smiling diagonally across
the set to the other corner person). I don't think Jimmy Cosh would mind
too much; it is probably a lesser transgression than That Thing People
Do In Another Very Popular Dance Of His. Anyway, he is, sadly, no longer
in a position to complain.

Anselm
--
Anselm Lingnau ......................... lingnau@tm.informatik.uni-frankfurt.de
Life is ours to be spent, not to be saved. --- D. H. Lawrence

Marigold

Message 12039 · Frans Ligtmans · 12 May 1998 15:59:30 · Top

Dear Anselm, I do not agree with you about the setting at the corners in
Marigold. If I would teach it, it would be without the setting and I would
make a point of standing for two bars and stopping and starting there. After
all the figure takes 24 bars in Marigold and only 12 in Gothenburgh's
Welcome.
In general I always stick to the book. It is the same situation inThe Laird
of Milton's Daughter, where you do not set in the Corner's Chain as in Loch
Torridon you do.
I think it is the task of the deviser of dances to make a remark about the
origin of the origin of a formation and not the task of RSCDS Publication's
Committee. Somehow after a while new formations become public property and
everybody can use them, but I think there is a bit of a grey zone there,
when you may or not. Frans Ligtmans
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: Anselm Lingnau <lingnau@tm.informatik.uni-frankfurt.de>
Aan: strathspey@tm.informatik.uni-frankfurt.de
<strathspey@tm.informatik.uni-frankfurt.de>
Datum: Tuesday, May 12, 1998 9:10 AM
Onderwerp: Re: Marigold

>David South <southd@mustang.agvic.gov.au> writes:
>
>> In the corner movement, where the first couple are changing
>> places with the corners and the corners are changing places with the
>> corners, etc., when you end up in a corner position, do you set, or
>> stand still?
>>
>> In the edition of James Cosh's book that we have, it says not to set,
>> but when my wife was first taught the dance, she was taught to set.
>
>In my edition it says not to set, either.
>
>There is a formation, `Dance to each corner and set', which is
>occasionally seen in dances (such as Gothenburg's Welcome (RSCDS
>XXXVII), Burnie Boozie (by David Queen), or The Courage Reel (by John
>Drewry)) which is very similar to the Marigold figure, and there the
>corners do set. I think Cosh's figure predates DteC&S, and the setting
>may have been introduced by somebody else as a refinement. If James Cosh
>didn't revise the dance, maybe your wife's teacher confused the two.
>
>For many dancers I know, in Marigold, just having to stand there at the
>corner for all of two bars without doing anything must be very
>frustrating. Setting seems to be the natural thing to do. In any case,
>as opposed to other types of extra bits that people tend to introduce if
>they, er, consider a dance too little of a challenge, it doesn't seem to
>hurt or inconvenience other dancers. In class, of course, one should
>strive to do things `by the book', but in a social situation I'd say by
>all means set if you like (but don't forget smiling diagonally across
>the set to the other corner person). I don't think Jimmy Cosh would mind
>too much; it is probably a lesser transgression than That Thing People
>Do In Another Very Popular Dance Of His. Anyway, he is, sadly, no longer
>in a position to complain.
>
>Anselm
>--
>Anselm Lingnau .........................
lingnau@tm.informatik.uni-frankfurt.de
>Life is ours to be spent, not to be saved. --- D. H.
Lawrence
>
>

Marigold

Message 12040 · Frans Ligtmans · 12 May 1998 17:13:38 · Top

Dear Anselm, You know, that I am not criticizing you. I am quite sure if
anybody would be careful not to spoil Scottish Dancing, it would be you. It
was more a general answer, bur your message was just the one that started me
off. If you want I will declare publicly, that I think you are one of the
best people we have.
I was a bit annoyed about the booing to RSCDS.
What comes next is for your information only. In the first place I sometimes
find things in Hugh Foss dances as well, that pop up in newly devised
dances. Don't ask me what, but I remember. John Drewry did not himself
invent everything, he used old dances and maybe transformed some formations.
That is quite acceptable, I think. Bobby Munro, who made Gothenburgh's
Welcome probably got the formation from John. ( I once taught at a weekend
school together with Bobby, who lived then in G. As far as I know, he is no
longer with us).
I was surprised that in Marigold the quarter turn in the middle was clearly
stated. Somebody told me , that Bobby Munro wanted the sharp quarter turn in
the middle as a contrast to the curves in the half reel of four.
Now RSCDS dances the DteCandS formation in Gothenburgh's Welcome in curves.
That is not so nice and more difficult to do.So there is another variation.
Apart from that I think standing still can be an art as well, especially for
2 bars everytime. See what you get when you try to make your dancers do
that.
Are we still good friends? Frans
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: Anselm Lingnau <lingnau@tm.informatik.uni-frankfurt.de>
Aan: strathspey@tm.informatik.uni-frankfurt.de
<strathspey@tm.informatik.uni-frankfurt.de>
Datum: Tuesday, May 12, 1998 9:10 AM
Onderwerp: Re: Marigold

>David South <southd@mustang.agvic.gov.au> writes:
>
>> In the corner movement, where the first couple are changing
>> places with the corners and the corners are changing places with the
>> corners, etc., when you end up in a corner position, do you set, or
>> stand still?
>>
>> In the edition of James Cosh's book that we have, it says not to set,
>> but when my wife was first taught the dance, she was taught to set.
>
>In my edition it says not to set, either.
>
>There is a formation, `Dance to each corner and set', which is
>occasionally seen in dances (such as Gothenburg's Welcome (RSCDS
>XXXVII), Burnie Boozie (by David Queen), or The Courage Reel (by John
>Drewry)) which is very similar to the Marigold figure, and there the
>corners do set. I think Cosh's figure predates DteC&S, and the setting
>may have been introduced by somebody else as a refinement. If James Cosh
>didn't revise the dance, maybe your wife's teacher confused the two.
>
>For many dancers I know, in Marigold, just having to stand there at the
>corner for all of two bars without doing anything must be very
>frustrating. Setting seems to be the natural thing to do. In any case,
>as opposed to other types of extra bits that people tend to introduce if
>they, er, consider a dance too little of a challenge, it doesn't seem to
>hurt or inconvenience other dancers. In class, of course, one should
>strive to do things `by the book', but in a social situation I'd say by
>all means set if you like (but don't forget smiling diagonally across
>the set to the other corner person). I don't think Jimmy Cosh would mind
>too much; it is probably a lesser transgression than That Thing People
>Do In Another Very Popular Dance Of His. Anyway, he is, sadly, no longer
>in a position to complain.
>
>Anselm
>--
>Anselm Lingnau .........................
lingnau@tm.informatik.uni-frankfurt.de
>Life is ours to be spent, not to be saved. --- D. H.
Lawrence
>
>

Marigold

Message 12043 · Malcolm and Helen Brown · 12 May 1998 22:18:18 · Top

I must agree with Frans on this one (not setting in the corners),
not because it was written that way, but because the stopping
and starting is one of the things which distinguishes SCD from
other dancing. To get 6 people to dance for 4 bars and stand for 2
is hard enough, but to get them in pairs so that only 4 are dancing
at any one time, and the standing couple changes every 2 bars
is really amazing. To me the standing is an integral part of the
dance, and much harder for most dancers, after all moving to music
is usually what dancing is all about!

Malcolm

--
_ _
|_|_ |_| Malcolm & Helen Brown (York UK) - m.brown@netcomuk.co.uk (Tir-Nan-Og)
_ |_|_
|_| _|_| Connecting via NETCOM Internet Ltd
|_|

Marigold

Message 12053 · Trans Vector Technologies, Inc · 14 May 1998 00:15:23 · Top

Malcolm Brown writes...

>To me the standing is an integral part of the
>dance, and much harder for most dancers, after all moving to music
>is usually what dancing is all about!

I read this the other day. Today I half-remembered what Malcolm said and my
mind did a funny little twist that came out:

"Not dancing is dancing too!"

Cheers, Oberdan.

Trans Vector Technologies, Inc, 184 Estaban Drive, Camarillo, CA 93010-1611
Phone: (805)484-2775, FAX: (805)484-2718, EMail: ootto@tvt.com

Marigold

Message 12059 · Martin.Sheffield · 14 May 1998 19:19:37 · Top

>It is a much harder test of technique to stop and restart after 2
>bars as in Marigold.

So is social dancing turning into a competitive sport?
With judges on the sidelines ready to hold up their little cards (5.7 or
5.8 for Ms Smith representing Clydeside?)
What a pity.

> Or is it better put - it is easier and less
>effort to keep going?

More satisfying, IMHO.

If I had felt that the stopping and starting were what distinguished SCD, I
would have looked for other occupations long ago!

Martin,
Grenoble, France.
------------------ http://perso.wanadoo.fr/scots.in.france

Marigold

Message 12063 · Ron.Mackey · 16 May 1998 02:57:27 · Top

- it is easier and less
> >effort to keep going?
>
> More satisfying, IMHO.
>
> If I had felt that the stopping and starting were what distinguished SCD, I
> would have looked for other occupations long ago!
>
> Martin,

Hi Martin
In this instance it distinguishes the dances!
What expression comes to your mind when some teacher in the old mould
addresses the class with the ominous words ' now this is an old one
which is not often done these days. It is not difficult but we
are going to need to practise some technique..?

Cheers, Ron :)

< 0 Ron Mackey,
'O> Mottingham,
/#\ London. UK.
l>

Marigold

Message 12052 · Trans Vector Technologies, Inc · 14 May 1998 00:15:14 · Top

An intersting exchange...

[Anselm:]
>In class, of course, one should
>strive to do things `by the book', but in a social situation I'd say by
>all means set if you like (but don't forget smiling diagonally across
>the set to the other corner person). I don't think Jimmy Cosh would mind
>too much...

[Anselm, How about setting while turning about as some folks do in J.B.Milne?]

[Frans:]
>Dear Anselm, I do not agree with you about the setting at the corners in
>Marigold. If I would teach it, it would be without the setting and I would
>make a point of standing for two bars and stopping and starting there.

[Anselm has said he would teach it that way too.]

[Malcolm:]
>I must agree with Frans on this one (not setting in the corners),
>not because it was written that way, but because the stopping
>and starting is one of the things which distinguishes SCD from
>other dancing.

[Is somebody disagreeing with Frans?]

[Carol:]
>IMHO, the figure dance to corners and set is not "nearly identical" to the
>figure dance to corners and stand.

I believe that the essential part of the formation is what happens in the
middle of the set. When teaching, that is the part of the figure that
receives the most attention. That is the place where the potential for a
mess-up and the consequences of such a mess-up are the greatest. What the
stationary corners do or don't do for two bars is pure embellishment and
does not require the cooperation or consent of the other dancers. They
could do jumping-jacks and the figure would still work. That is why the two
figures are so closely associated in my mind and why I consider them nearly
identical.

As for whether to set or not to set, I agree with Anselm, Frans and Malcolm
that in a teaching situation one should go by the book (and be sure one
knows what is in the book). So if we taught Marigold, Courage Reel, Bernie
Boozle and Gothenberg's Welcome, we would be teaching a formation with
variations. Variations like that are very much the spice of SCD (I think
Malcolm said this in a different way). When we do not teach a dance as
written [with Bruce Hamilton's caveats in mind!], we are short-changing the
dancers because they then do not know how to do the dance correctly.

A social situation, however, is the time for the teachers in us to be
silent and allow the dancers to enjoy themselves. One cannot fault dancers
for doing the wrong thing from forgetfulness. Also, if dancers deliberately
embellish a dance (i.e. do the wrong thing) in a way that does not disrupt
the dance or confuse the other dancers, that is their choice to make and it
is not for us to stand in judgement or to abridge their right to choose.
[Loud Whisper:] YOU AREN'T TEACHING NOW AND YOU AREN'T THE DANCE POLICE, SO
KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT AND DO YOUR BEST TO BE A SUPPORTIVE DANCER. If it is
important to you that a dance be danced by the book, then show it by your
own example--you can choose to dance it correctly.

Cheers, Oberdan.

Trans Vector Technologies, Inc, 184 Estaban Drive, Camarillo, CA 93010-1611
Phone: (805)484-2775, FAX: (805)484-2718, EMail: ootto@tvt.com

Marigold

Message 12051 · Ron.Mackey · 13 May 1998 22:02:42 · Top

> Anselm
> --
> Anselm Lingnau ......................... lingnau@tm.informatik.uni-frankfurt.de
> Life is ours to be spent, not to be saved. --- D. H. Lawrence
>
>
I like these little saws that people add to their notes.
Someone has just given me
"I think - therefore, I'm stuck"
Cheers, Ron :)

< 0 Ron Mackey,
'O> Mottingham,
/#\ London. UK.
l>

Marigold

Message 12034 · Trans Vector Technologies, Inc · 12 May 1998 11:16:54 · Top

David South asks...
>The dance: Marigold
>
>The problem:
> In the corner movement, where the first couple are changing
>places with the corners and the corners are changing places with the
>corners, etc., when you end up in a corner position, do you set, or
>stand still?
>
>In the edition of James Cosh's book that we have, it says not to set,
>but when my wife was first taught the dance, she was taught to set.

In the original Marigold figure, the stationary corners DO NOT set. While
your wife may have been taught it with setting, that does not mean she was
taught correctly. I am not aware of any prior or later instructions by Cosh
that specify otherwise.

HOWEVER, the recent dance, Gothenberg's Welcome, has the nearly identical
figure which is different only in that the corners DO set. So if your
repertoire includes both Marigold and Gothenberg's Welcome, there is ample
cause for confusion. Perhaps the teacher was first familiar with GW and on
a quick reading of Marigold, thought it was the identical figure. OR
perhaps the teacher knew about the difference but elected to use the GW
figure if the class already knew it--it is, after all, pretty tricky for
everybody to get it right. Having variants of tricky figures can be
confusing and can make it more difficult for the dancers to do any variant
successfully. It is probably what I would do, although I would tell the
class that we were doing a slight figure substitution for the purpose of
simplicity in our repertoire of figures.

So in this case, it appears that you are both right and that use of "I told
you so!" by either party is inappropriate and incorrect!

When I first saw Gothenberg's Welcome I was immediately struck by the fact
that Cosh received no attribution for having created the original figure. I
judge that omission to be a BIG BOO BOO by the RSCDS Publications committee
who should have been familiar with Marigold. Attribution would have been
and is still appropriate. It does not matter whether the choreographer of
Gothenberg's Welcome knew about Marigold or not. Marigold is the "prior
art".

I personally believe that adding the setting for the stationary corners is
an improvement. There is better continuity since the dancers don't stop
dancing for 2 bars out of every 6. However, since those corners are
stationary, it really doesn't matter what they do for the 2 bars as long as
they stay put!

Cheers, Oberdan.

Trans Vector Technologies, Inc, 184 Estaban Drive, Camarillo, CA 93010-1611
Phone: (805)484-2775, FAX: (805)484-2718, EMail: ootto@tvt.com

Marigold

Message 12045 · cnordj · 13 May 1998 03:59:28 · Top

Oberdan wrote:
>HOWEVER, the recent dance, Gothenberg's Welcome, has the nearly identical
>figure which is different only in that the corners DO set. So if your
>repertoire includes both Marigold and Gothenberg's Welcome, there is ample
>cause for confusion.
IMHO, the figure dance to corners and set is not "nearly identical" to the figure dance to corners and stand. I do not see that the use of one needs to acknowledge the pre-existence of the other. Nor do I see that doing both dances should be confusing, if folks can agree what each figure is. Oberdan, you must love Marigold as much as I love Gothenberg's Welcome, so I sorta understand.

>I personally believe that adding the setting for the stationary corners is
>an improvement.
On that much we can agree :-)
Cheers, Carol
======================================
Carol N. Johnson, Los Angeles area
(We's all angels here)
cnordj@sprynet.com
======================================

Marigold

Message 12049 · Ron.Mackey · 13 May 1998 22:02:23 · Top

Oberdan wrote,
> In the original Marigold figure, the stationary corners DO NOT set. While
> your wife may have been taught it with setting, that does not mean she was
> taught correctly. I am not aware of any prior or later instructions by Cosh
> that specify otherwise.
>
> HOWEVER, the recent dance, Gothenberg's Welcome, has the nearly identical
> figure which is different only in that the corners DO set. So if your
> repertoire includes both Marigold and Gothenberg's Welcome, there is ample
> cause for confusion. Perhaps the teacher was first familiar with GW and on
>
> When I first saw Gothenberg's Welcome I was immediately struck by the fact
> that Cosh received no attribution for having created the original figure. I
> judge that omission to be a BIG BOO BOO by the RSCDS Publications committee
> who should have been familiar with Marigold. Attribution would have been
> and is still appropriate. It does not matter whether the choreographer of
> Gothenberg's Welcome knew about Marigold or not. Marigold is the "prior
----------------------------
Why should RSCDS acknowledge Marigold when Drewry's Courage Reel has
been around since, at least, 1978? With no acknowledgement !
-----------------------------
> I personally believe that adding the setting for the stationary corners is
> an improvement. There is better continuity since the dancers don't stop
> dancing for 2 bars out of every 6. However, since those corners are
> stationary, it really doesn't matter what they do for the 2 bars as long as
> they stay put!
-----------------------------
It is a much harder test of technique to stop and restart after 2
bars as in Marigold. Or is it better put - it is easier and less
effort to keep going?

>
Cheers, Ron :)

< 0 Ron Mackey,
'O> Mottingham,
/#\ London. UK.
l>

Marigold

Message 12047 · Nicola Howarth · 13 May 1998 12:56:59 · Top

Hi David,

As I understand it, in The Marigold you should NOT set at the corners.

The confusion arose when John Drewry adapted the figure in dances like the
Courage Reel, where he specifically requires a "dance to each corner and
set". People are more used to this figure, and so tend also to set in the
Marigold.

Hope this helps.

regards

Nicola Howarth
Cambridge, UK

At 10:04 12/05/98 +11:00, you wrote:
>Please forgive me if this question has been asked before, but my wife
>wanted me to put this to the list ...
>
>The dance: Marigold
>
>The problem:
> In the corner movement, where the first couple are changing
>places with the corners and the corners are changing places with the
>corners, etc., when you end up in a corner position, do you set, or
>stand still?
>
>In the edition of James Cosh's book that we have, it says not to set,
>but when my wife was first taught the dance, she was taught to set.
>
>Is it a case of that the original instructions were to set and James
>Cosh later revised the instructions to stand still, or is it a case
>of a dance being inaccurately taught and passed on (for whatever
>reason).
>
>Please advise as it will contribute towards creating a more calmer
>domestic atmosphere.
>
>David South,
>Geelong, Victoria, Australia.
>
>--
>"David South" <southd@mustang.agvic.gov.au>
>
>

Marigold

Message 12050 · Ron.Mackey · 13 May 1998 22:02:32 · Top

David South wrote,
>
> The dance: Marigold
>
> The problem:
> In the corner movement, where the first couple are changing
> places with the corners and the corners are changing places with the
> corners, etc., when you end up in a corner position, do you set, or
> stand still?
>
> In the edition of James Cosh's book that we have, it says not to set,
I've never seen any other version. As Malcolm Brown said a short
time ago, did he devise this dance in revenge for what was being done
to Mairi's Wedding?
Hi David.
Cheers, Ron :)

< 0 Ron Mackey,
'O> Mottingham,
/#\ London. UK.
l>

Previous thread: Katie's Jig
Next thread: Clapping with the music
A Django site.