strathspey@strathspey.org:45445

Steve Wyrick

Re: Divided by a common language (was Reels and Hornpipes)

June 1, 2006, 5:53 p.m. (Message 45445, in reply to message 45444)

On Thu, 01 Jun 2006 15:15:46 UTC
  John Chambers <xx@xxxxxxxx.xxx.xxx> wrote:

> The same things seems  to  happened  with  "reel",  which  apparently
> started  life as a term for the sort of dance figures where you weave
> or zig-zag among the other dancers. This is still how dancers use the
> term,  but somehow musicians decided to apply it to a particular sort
> of very busy duple rhythm. A reel can be done to music in any rhythm,
> so this was a nonsensical use of the word.
> 
> My general theory is that most of these things happen through various
> sorts of misunderstandings. If you watch interactions between dancers
> who aren't musicians and musicians who aren't dancers, you'll see all
> sorts  of miscommunications.  It sometimes seems amazing that the two
> crowds manage to communicate at all, despite their obvious  symbiotic
> relationship throughout history.

Regarding the various meanings of "reel" this sort of evolution happens all 
the time with laguage. [an aside: according to about.com, the English word 
with the most definitions is "set", with 464 different definitions in the OED! 
 How many definitions for set in SCD? I can think of 3...]  I think the 
confusion we have now is because (what I assume is) the original use of the 
term--a Scottish dance containing a loopy figure--hasn't been totally 
superseded by the more modern definitions (a specific figure for 3 or more 
dancers; a quick-time dance done with steps having beats of equal length; a 
specific tune type).  By the way, musicians in the various Celtic and American 
folk traditions who DON'T play for dancers have no confusion about what's 
meant by a "reel"; it's a type of tune!
--
Steve Wyrick - Concord, California