Thread

strathspey@strathspey.org:27716

Previous Message Next Message

res009k3

res009k3

Contr(a/y)/Square, etc.

Oct. 3, 2001, 9:23 p.m. (Message 27716)

I got in on the contra-square-country and
 related threads late, sorry. There was so much
 material to which to respond that I thought I
 would respond in one essay and then let the
 reactions sort themselves into old or new strands.
 So as not to confuse some specific topics, I have
 included the name in brackets of the person to
 whom I feel my response should be directed. While,
 by the nature of this site, I accept that there is
 an RSCDS, or at least a SCD bias, I feel that, as
 we post, we step back and look at the forrest
 instead of the trees of our own immidiate
 experience. We should also remember that there is
 no inherent value placed on difference. So when
 one describes that one thing is not the same as
 another, one has no right to assume that the
 reader will place a higher or lower value on
 either side of the difference other than the
 acknowledgement that such a difference (or lack
 there of) exists.
      First, I feel, is the matter of definition
 and here we need to define and separate the
 general and the specific. I feel it safe to assume
 that we are speaking of some forms of figure
 dancing. Within this definition, there are
 differences both documentable regarding the source
 of the word contr[a/y]. Personally that, depending
 on the time and place both the country (of the
 people) and the contra (opposing dancers), are
 equally applicable, except when one wishes to
 include all dances of the country folk [lines,
 couples, circles) which are not opposing and thus
 should not be included. If one accepts my
 definition of figure dancing of couples opposed to
 each other we are able to proceed. So, I cannot
 accept the simplistic concept that "contra" is
 only a corruption of "country" {Adam} because
 there are examples of the opposite also being
 true.
      Those who speak of an inherent difference
 between English and Scottish dancing are
 distorting history as, with the exception of some
 footwork, there was no unique historical
 difference between the two. The current difference
 was created by the RSCDS having a need to
 differentiate itself from the EFDSS. [NB: The SCD
 started off with "country dances as danced in
 Scotland" and much later, after such existed,
 changed the term to "Scottish Country Dancing"
 {Seonaid}.]
      Those who stress a unique Scottish style are
 confusing the RSCDS style with the style of
 dancing in Scotland outside or with less RSCDS
 influence. This style has a longer tradition and
 acknowledges no border between Scotland and
 England. If one analyzes these styles, one finds a
 graded series of styles with the Borders sharing
 more with each other than that found in the
 Highlands and the English home counties {Bob &
 Seonaid}.
     Within the concept of a contr(a/y) dance there
 are numerous ways in which people can face. My
 interpretation of the set puts the longways for as
 many without any minor sets as the prototype. The
 standing around and length of the dance due to
 repetitions gave rise to minor sets which, if one
 checks out the dates of historic dances would
 indicate that the minor sets grew incrementally
 from two to three in size {Pat}. With whole rounds
 or whole sets being dances of a four couple set
 repeated four times {Bob & Jan & Pat & Seonaid}.
 This was great for outside and in halls, barns,
 etc. that, for architectural reasons, were long
 and narrow. A further variation was added when
 opposite sexes changed sides allowing for the
 eccosaise, or 1s improper formation.
      When venues became wider, the concept of
 round the room allowed for the eccosaise to curve
 into circassian circles (generic not the dance),
 swedish progressions, a la DWS |33| could also be
 bent around the room as could "union" dances |44|
 be bent around the circumfrence of the room. The
 form known as square or quadrille is simply an
 evolved form of two interlocking eccosaises. In
 fact many of the circassian circles performed by
 head then side couples make up a standard first
 formation of various named quadrilles. This
 evolution is not my speculation but can be
 documented by dance dates and formations
      There have always been callers, official or
 otherwise, so it is difficult to locate a
 particular time and place (prior to the American
 experience) when caller became a specific title or
 occupation {Bob}.
      Contrary to what many might think {Adam},
 while the majority of dances are currently 32
 bars, many of the dances that are not current were
 shorter, 16 & 24, some of which have had a coda
 attached to fit the current 32 bar style. Dances
 longer than 32 bars are relatively rare. The
 popularity of 32 bar forms is related to the
 binary nature of a combination of both tunes and
 related poetry, with AABB being the most common
 [check your church hymnals] {Adam}.
      The unity of British people under one court
 in London, provided a separate evolution of the
 British countra dances different from those on the
 continent [German and Spanish contras look to
 France for their inspiration, if not their music].
      As the unity of the British Empire was broken
 in the American revolution at about the same time
 as the popular dancing in London moved from
 contr(a/y) to couple dances, various localized
 variations gave rise to the differences between
 the European and the American forms, and the lack
 of a central focus both in the UK and the USA gave
 rise to local British styles and steps and in the
 USA the various forms of squares, quadrilles,
 contras, and running sets {Bob & Pat}.
      Most of the other differences have more to do
 with the lack of integration of teaching and
 styles during the declining period of contr(a/y)
 dancing, than actual original differences in local
 style. The RSCDS began with a created style that
 separated it from the EFDSS. This is more a
 difference of philosophy than real: EFDSS
 descriptive, RSCDS prescriptive.
      The degrees of seriousness vs boisterous, and
 freedom variation and enthusiasm between one style
 and another is also a function of geography and
 social class more than inherent in the forms
 themselves {Pat}. Just as phrasing, or lack there
 of, is also related to the relative sophistication
 and organization for the groups perpetuating the
 art form {Chris}.
      One of the problem of performing an obsolete
 or archaec form of art is that the social context
 of the original is missing. Lacking this context
 gives rise to all sorts of antisocial attitudes.
 It its native habitat, contr(a/y) dancing never
 had any sense of right or wrong, just more or less
 acceptable. Thus what, at any particular time or
 place, was more acceptable had a better chance of
 surviving [see Darwin] and the less was more
 likely to die out. In this example, traditional
 was not a matter of right or wrong, just
 acceptable for a longer period of time. The social
 factors giving rise to revivals of contr(a/y)
 dance are quite different than those of their
 reliques.
      Our sense of community has changed, and their
 are different competing alternatives. So, in my
 experience, the community that dances has evolved
 into a community of dancers, many of the members
 of which have no other reason for association than
 simply the dance. Occassionally, some of these
 individuals have few other communities of social
 contact. When this is the case, "success" in the
 dance community is not seen in sociability but in
 percieved ability in the dance form. This leads to
 in crowds and outcasts; ranks of beginners,
 intermediates, advanced, and teachers {as a rank,
 because many "teachers" can't, don't, or won't
 teach}. Often, there are special sets that only
 dance togather, in addition to those who
 negatively judge other sects/cults/organizations
 of contr(a/y) dancers based on an outside criteria
 which has nothing to do with the particular form's
 internal dynamics. So "Traditional" square dancers
 react to "Western" Square dancers {Adam}.
      Listen to how people accent the various words
 and syllables in their dance form. Hardly anyone
 emphasizes the word "DANCE", oopse, this would
 imply human contact. Instead one hears of SCOTTISH
 country dancing. Some even call themselves ROYAL
 scottish country dancers, as if some royalty from
 a royal patron rubs off on the dancers [some
 fantasy huh?]. I don't see this a problem with who
 simply say, "COUNTRY dancing" as this is simply a
 way of indicating traditional as opposed to modern
 such as: disco, techno, ballroom, house, country
 western, rock, etc.
      Part of this hierarchical schezophrenia is
 the use of the terms dance and ball. Some
 "beginners" fear balls because of the higher
 technique implied {Alan}. An excessive stress on
 style (and the resultant class structure) has
 resulted in a loss of sociability {Tod}. Ball
 programs instead of being inclusive are so
 complicated that one is too involved in the
 dancing to be social {Alan}. Often a tired dancer
 is pressured into an unwanted partner or dance
 because of the compulsion to complete someone
 else's set. Masters of ceremony make no
 recognition that in a social situation, some
 people, sometimes would rather sit and talk than
 dance, but instead they are forced by guilt into a
 set.
      Regarding cribs, I side with the position
 that a good teacher/dancer can easily reduce good
 notes to cribs that would make the original
 unnecessary for either teaching or calling a dance
 {Laura}. Notes that confuse dances with dancing
 are another matter. If one knows dancing, all
 cribs of whatever type of contr(a/y) dancing could
 be the same, everything else being a default based
 on related figures or the particular dance form.
 As a result the only mystery in cribs are those of
 someone attempting to use a foreign language
 dictionary but lacking the structure of the
 grammar upon which to hang the words and attain
 meaning {Adam}.
      It has been my experience that it is
 ignorance with a hint of prejudice that motivates
 to say all these "x" look (sound, feel) the same.
 When, in all honesty, all the speaker is saying is
 I am not sophisticated or knowledgable enough in
 this subject to understand the differences.
 Driectly coming from this same viewpoint is my
 internal response to a child saying that "x" is
 boring, when in fact all he is doing is admitting
 that he is not mature or sophisticated enought to
 look for something in an alien form with which to
 become interested. Boredom is a function of the
 bored not the subject {Pat}.

 xxxxxxx.x.xxxx@xxx.xxx

 [Bob, you brought up a point regarding different
 ladies changes that I did not understand. Can you
 explain them to me and give me examples of the
 differences? RG]

Previous Message Next Message