strathspey Archive: Dances (once-through) in a square set

Martin wrote:

On the other hand, these countless 88-bar dances are not easy to
memorize, as the end of one figure does not often suggest the
beginning of the next (except where side cps repeat whatever top cps
have just done).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Is the point, Martin, merely that it's a longer sequence than 32, 40, or 48
bars then repeated? They do seem to be fairly popular hereabouts, moreso,
I'd say, than square-set dances that repeat (e.g. the rather boring [for
me] Rothsay Rant...one nonetheless admittedly good for beginners...or Terry
Glasspool's much more challenging The Encore). The Dream Catcher (96
actually, not 88) has become extremely popular hereabouts, although,
memory-wise that one has the advantage of being somewhat palendromic. And of course
there's Ian Powrie's Farewell to Auchterarder (ditto on the
palendromic...128 here), which hereabouts has maintained its ne'erending popularity since
the last ice age. Others do come and go though, e.g. The Robertson Rant
(80 for this one), quite popular several years ago for a while but seldom
encountered lately. I think that it's the variety from the much more common
pattern of repeating for each couple that generally makes them fairly
popular here.

Robb Quint
Thousand Oaks, CA, USA

I think that The Robertson Rant was well overdue to go into a period of rest - it has been on almost every programme for the last sixty years! The only dance that has been as popular that I can think of is Montgomeries' Rant, and it too has gone into retirement for a while, at least round here. (Perthshire and Fife)

I dare say they will come back in due course, as they are both well constructed dances, with some splendid recordings available.

> From: Volleyballjerry@aol.com
> Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 12:24:36 -0400
> Subject: Re: Dances (once-through) in a square set
> To: strathspey@strathspey.org
>
>
> Martin wrote:
>
> On the other hand, these countless 88-bar dances are not easy to
> memorize, as the end of one figure does not often suggest the
> beginning of the next (except where side cps repeat whatever top cps
> have just done).
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Is the point, Martin, merely that it's a longer sequence than 32, 40, or 48
> bars then repeated? They do seem to be fairly popular hereabouts, moreso,
> I'd say, than square-set dances that repeat (e.g. the rather boring [for
> me] Rothsay Rant...one nonetheless admittedly good for beginners...or Terry
> Glasspool's much more challenging The Encore). The Dream Catcher (96
> actually, not 88) has become extremely popular hereabouts, although,
> memory-wise that one has the advantage of being somewhat palendromic. And of course
> there's Ian Powrie's Farewell to Auchterarder (ditto on the
> palendromic...128 here), which hereabouts has maintained its ne'erending popularity since
> the last ice age. Others do come and go though, e.g. The Robertson Rant
> (80 for this one), quite popular several years ago for a while but seldom
> encountered lately. I think that it's the variety from the much more common
> pattern of repeating for each couple that generally makes them fairly
> popular here.
>
> Robb Quint
> Thousand Oaks, CA, USA
>
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
Beyond Hotmail — see what else you can do with Windows Live.
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/134665375/direct/01/

Robert Lambie wrote:

I think that The Robertson Rant was well overdue to go into a period of rest
- it has been on almost every programme for the last sixty years! The only
dance that has been as popular that I can think of is Montgomeries' Rant,
and it too has gone into retirement for a while, at least round here.
(Perthshire and Fife)

I dare say they will come back in due course, as they are both well
constructed dances, with some splendid recordings available.

Campbell Tyler, Cape Town, replies:

According to my database, which has just reached 500 programmes and so needs
to be published again, Perthshire and Fife are out of kilter with the rest
of the SCD community. Montgomeries Rant is still the 3rd most popular
(oops, sorry, "frequent") dance of the 1 086 featuring on those programmes
from around the world. Even Robertson Rant is 39th, and the 10th most
frequent strathspey.

Here in the San Francisco Branch we haven't seen The Robertson Rant in
years, so we
are bringing it back next fall at our Asilomar workshop.

Paula Jacobson
Aptos, CA

Campbell Tyler wrote:
> Robert Lambie wrote:
>
> I think that The Robertson Rant was well overdue to go into a period of rest
> - it has been on almost every programme for the last sixty years! The only
> dance that has been as popular that I can think of is Montgomeries' Rant,
> and it too has gone into retirement for a while, at least round here.
> (Perthshire and Fife)
>
> I dare say they will come back in due course, as they are both well
> constructed dances, with some splendid recordings available.
>
>
> Campbell Tyler, Cape Town, replies:
>
> According to my database, which has just reached 500 programmes and so needs
> to be published again, Perthshire and Fife are out of kilter with the rest
> of the SCD community. Montgomeries Rant is still the 3rd most popular
> (oops, sorry, "frequent") dance of the 1 086 featuring on those programmes
> from around the world. Even Robertson Rant is 39th, and the 10th most
> frequent strathspey.
>
>
>

Robb asked :
>
> Is the point, Martin, merely that it's a longer sequence than 32, 40, or 48
>  bars

No, it is not the length (88 bars), more the lack of logic to my way
of thinking, the lack of necessity: fig 1 not leading into fig 2
could just as easily be followed by fig 3 or fig 4...

How can a 16-bar tune (the commonest form for our dances) fit into 88
anyway? Why 88, for goodness' sake?
3x32 bars, on the other hand, appeals to my mathematician brain :
part 1 for everyone, part 2 shared between tops and sides, part 3 for
everyone : nice pattern, as Nottingham Lace, Dreamcatcher ...
or 4x32 similarly as I Powrie's Farewell. In dances such as these,
once you jhave embarked on a sequence, you feel you can't go wrong ,
the figures fitting together in a compelling sequence.

I have to admit, alll this is quite subjective. Robertson Rant has
become compelling through 50 years of enjoyment -- I could not imagine
doing it any other way, though, objectively, one could add or subtract
a figure without actually messing up the dance, I expect most dancers
are quite happy with Round Reel of Eight (et alia) and, since that is
the way it is always done,they don't even feel that the music is not
complete, cut off 8 bars too soon, as it seems to me.

Martin (too late at night to reason very clearly, I'm afraid!)

For why such a wierd number of bars, I have always assumed that Round reel
of Eight was so short it was an easy way to 'beef up' the number of dances
on an LP and so we got a bunch of recordings for a not-very-good dance (15
according to dancedata). Mr. Goldring looked at this situation and decided
that all those recordings deserved better, or at least alternative dances to
do to them. And 'poof' a new 'tradition' was started and others started
doing the same. That's my guess -- anybody know better?

As for why 88 bars in Round Reel -- I suspect some very non-musical person
came up with 5 matching pairs of 8 bar figures and then tagged a circle on
the end. If only it had a circle at the start and the end, we'd have a
symmetric dance and all these useful 3x32 reels recorded that could be used
for demos and stuff. Oh well, if Ben Franklin had just put the plus and
negative signs on anodes differently, electronics would make so much more
sense. And if....

Bruce Herbold
San Francisco

On 4/14/09, Martin Sheffield <francoscot@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Robb asked :
> >
> > Is the point, Martin, merely that it's a longer sequence than 32, 40, or
> 48
> > bars
>
> No, it is not the length (88 bars), more the lack of logic to my way
> of thinking, the lack of necessity: fig 1 not leading into fig 2
> could just as easily be followed by fig 3 or fig 4...
>
> How can a 16-bar tune (the commonest form for our dances) fit into 88
> anyway? Why 88, for goodness' sake?
> 3x32 bars, on the other hand, appeals to my mathematician brain :
> part 1 for everyone, part 2 shared between tops and sides, part 3 for
> everyone : nice pattern, as Nottingham Lace, Dreamcatcher ...
> or 4x32 similarly as I Powrie's Farewell. In dances such as these,
> once you jhave embarked on a sequence, you feel you can't go wrong ,
> the figures fitting together in a compelling sequence.
>
> I have to admit, alll this is quite subjective. Robertson Rant has
> become compelling through 50 years of enjoyment -- I could not imagine
> doing it any other way, though, objectively, one could add or subtract
> a figure without actually messing up the dance, I expect most dancers
> are quite happy with Round Reel of Eight (et alia) and, since that is
> the way it is always done,they don't even feel that the music is not
> complete, cut off 8 bars too soon, as it seems to me.
>
> Martin (too late at night to reason very clearly, I'm afraid!)
>

--
Bruce Herbold