Nov. 1, 2001, 1:23 p.m. (Message 28002)
On 31 Oct 2001, at 10:51, Bob Mc Murtry <xxxxxxxxxx@xxx.xxx> wrote (on Dalkeith's Strathspey): > Also on bars 9-16 the first couple should take care not to rush to > the top of the set into positions for a reel of four. First man > should see to getting his partner facing 2nd man. and <xxxxxxxxxxxx@xxx.xxx> added Right. On bar 16, as first man, I like to lead my partner a fraction above second couple, and turn a little anti-clockwise. In this way, the first couple flow nicely into the reel of four. Which hands should 1C use? The description says "lead", but in these older books the usage "lead = RH joined" and "dance = nearer hand joined (NHJ)" was not yet established. 1C starts NHJ out of the circle; the most natural way would be to keep NHJ dancing down. Up the middle, LHJ would allow 1M to bring his partner across to 2M far more elegantly than NHJ or, still worse, RHJ. The same applies in many other dances where 1C leads up to face 1st corners. Why do we have a strong tradition of RHJ when LHJ is more elegant and gives better contact with your partner? Should not tradition aim to promote the best choreography? Can anyone tell us how the tradition arose, and why it should be applicable in this case? Enjoy your up-the-middles, Eric Eric T. Ferguson, van Dormaalstraat 15, NL-5624 KH EINDHOVEN, Netherlands tel: (+31)(0)40-243 2878 fax:40-246 7036 e-mail: x.xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxx.xx
Nov. 1, 2001, 4:07 p.m. (Message 28005, in reply to message 28002)
Eric asked: "Why do we have a strong tradition of RHJ when LHJ is more elegant and gives better contact with your partner? Should not tradition aim to promote the best choreography? Can anyone tell us how the tradition arose, and why it should be applicable in this case?" My understanding is that the "lead" in Renaissance dance and in 17th c. and 18th c. country dance was always a *nearer hand* configuration, and that the RHJ developed in the 19th c. This understanding is based primarily on my dancing experience and secondarily on random readings for dance of the time, not on exhaustive research. For that, perhaps we will hear from Marjorie McLaughlin or Richard Goss. When country dance was revived in the 20th c., it was left to those who reconstructed the dances to determine style. To what extent they tried to follow what was done in a given historical period, to what extent they blended styles from various periods, and how much owes to their own interpretations of ambiguous material is a subject for endless discussion today. In ECD today the lead is always nearer hands, unless indicated otherwise, no matter from what time period the dance occurs; whereas in SCD today the lead is RHJ unless otherwise indicated, again, no matter from what time period the dance occurs. Pat
Nov. 1, 2001, 5 p.m. (Message 28007, in reply to message 28005)
Eric Ferguson wrote: > Why do we have a strong tradition of RHJ when LHJ is more elegant and > gives better contact with your partner? Should not tradition aim to > promote the best choreography? Can anyone tell us how the tradition > arose, and why it should be applicable in this case? Why is LHJ more elegant? Or are you suggesting it only in the case of the Dalkeith Strathspey? I find RHJ gives the man better "control of the lead" going down the set, while LHJ is better coming up; that is, I prefer to "lead" with the hand further from my partner. I assume whoever at the RSCDS chose to standardise the lead to RH was looking for a simple rule. It makes it easier for us to dance all together if there are fewer exceptions. I've always thought tradition is the way it is done, and since our tradition is kept alive by teachers, and teachers like rules, we have a rule driven tradition. Adam
Nov. 1, 2001, 6:28 p.m. (Message 28008, in reply to message 28007)
Adam Hughes wrote: > > Eric Ferguson wrote: > > Why do we have a strong tradition of RHJ when LHJ is more elegant and > > gives better contact with your partner? Should not tradition aim to > > promote the best choreography? Can anyone tell us how the tradition > > arose, and why it should be applicable in this case? > > Why is LHJ more elegant? Or are you suggesting it only in the case of > the Dalkeith Strathspey? The reason why LHJ is more appropriate in this instance is because it makes the action of the lady crossing in front of her partner so much more comfortable. Another occasion where I will try to give left hands (where right is specified) is in a dance where the last 2 bars have the first couple crossing over from 2nd place on the opposite sides to 2nd place on their own side. After 2nd time through, if the 3rd couple are immediately involved (and it otherwise fits) I will offer left hand to my partner and cross moving down to 4th place. Same applies for "once and to the bottom" where there is even more pressure to get out of the way quickly. > > I find RHJ gives the man better "control of the lead" going down the > set, while LHJ is better coming up; that is, I prefer to "lead" with the > hand further from my partner. I can agree with that. > > I assume whoever at the RSCDS chose to standardise the lead to RH was > looking for a simple rule. It makes it easier for us to dance all > together if there are fewer exceptions. and that. > > I've always thought tradition is the way it is done, and since our > tradition is kept alive by teachers, and teachers like rules, we have a > rule driven tradition. "Teachers like Rules" oh dear. Any of the teachers out there have anything to say to counter this somewhat sweeping generalisation? :-) Alan
Nov. 1, 2001, 8:22 p.m. (Message 28013, in reply to message 28008)
Quoting Alan Paterson <xxxxx@xxxxxxx.xx>: > > I've always thought tradition is the way it is done, and since our > > tradition is kept alive by teachers, and teachers like rules, we > > have a rule driven tradition. > > "Teachers like Rules" oh dear. Any of the teachers out there have > anything to say to counter this somewhat sweeping generalisation? :-) Actually, I've found it is the students who like rules, even more than the teacher. As a teacher, I'm always being asked for rules on things like the exact phrasing of a formation ("so on bar 13.3, I should be here, right?) or handing ("Who gives hands up when you have a line of 4 dancers, and all of them are women?"). It seems to be very difficult for some people to accept that every contingency has not been accounted for, and there are times when you just have to figure it out on your own and do whatever works! --Lara Friedman-Shedlov Minneapolis, MN USA ******************************* Lara Friedman-Shedlov xxxx@xxxxxxx.xxx *******************************
Nov. 1, 2001, 11:04 p.m. (Message 28017, in reply to message 28008)
> The reason why LHJ is more appropriate in this instance is because it makes the > action of the lady crossing in front of her partner so much more comfortable. > > Another occasion where I will try to give left hands (where right is specified) > is in a dance where the last 2 bars have the first couple crossing over from 2nd > place on the opposite sides to 2nd place on their own side. After 2nd time > through, if the 3rd couple are immediately involved (and it otherwise fits) I > will offer left hand to my partner and cross moving down to 4th place. > > Same applies for "once and to the bottom" where there is even more pressure to > get out of the way quickly. Hi, Alan I think this discussion has been going on for ever. One suspects that the origins lie with O.B.L. Miss M and stems from the time when children were rapped over the knuckles with a cane for attempting to write with the LEFT hand !! Horrors !! This enforced use of the right hand was still prevalent when I started school (no chuckles at the back, please!!) and the Head teacher of our infants school was advised by the school Doctor not to insist. I know because I was the subject under discussion. The habit of always leading one's lady on the right side unless on an opposite pavement was just good etiquette and still is in many circles, and there was a fair amount of suspicion of those using the 'sinister' hand. In the occasions raised by Alan I will offer my partner left hand without any qualms especially if dancing in one of the modern 'Jumbo' sized sets - and one of the main reasons is that, on certain occasions, to offer my partner right hand is basically inelegant not to say impractical ! Cheers, Ron :) < 0 Ron Mackey,(Purveyor of Pat's Party Pieces) 'O> Mottingham, /#\ London. UK. l> xxx.xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx
Nov. 1, 2001, 6:31 p.m. (Message 28009, in reply to message 28005)
>Eric asked: > >"Why do we have a strong tradition of RHJ when LHJ is more elegant and gives >better contact with your partner? >Should not tradition aim to promote the >best choreography? Full agreement with you, Eric. Pat: > in SCD today the lead >is RHJ unless otherwise indicated, except when the dancer is using his head, thinking about what he is doing, where he is going and and what he will be doing next. In this case, he will of course give the most appropriate hand for the comfort and elegance of the couple (for example, LH when, after dancing up, he will have to help his partner across to face her 1st corner; nearer hands when they are going to cast symmetrically, etc). Alas, many dancers don't appear to think for themselves: "If miss M said right hand, then it must be right hand!" is the lazy way of finding an answer. Fyreladdie: >I do agree it would be more pleasing to see a left hand lead >but those are not the instructions. There are a good many dances >that require different hand leads that are seemingly awkward and less graceful. >It is, for whatever reason, what the devisor wanted. I very much doubt whether we have any evidence about what the devisers of older dances wanted. And in the early SCDS books, no indication was given about which hand. (Book 1: page 1: 1st cp "lead down the middle and back again." page 2: "All three lead up the middle." page 10: "All four lead down ..." So don't try and tell me that, in the twenties, "lead" meant "with RHJ." To prepare for today's poussette, NHJ would be quite logical (but changing hands is hardly a cause for anxiety). In the more distant past, however, the dances that now call for poussette, could well have been performed with crossed hands (therefore lead up with RHJ) or even waltz hold (lead up with gent's hand round his partner's waist). A little imagination goes a long way. Martin, in Grenoble, France. http://perso.wanadoo.fr/scots.in.france/scd.htm (dance groups, events, some new dances ...)
Nov. 1, 2001, 4:34 p.m. (Message 28006, in reply to message 28002)
In a message dated 11/1/01 4:24:19 AM, x.xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxx.xx writes: << Why do we have a strong tradition of RHJ when LHJ is more elegant and gives better contact with your partner? Should not tradition aim to promote the best choreography? Can anyone tell us how the tradition arose, and why it should be applicable in this case? >> Eric, In Dalkieth's the lead is with the right hand both down and back. I do agree it would be more pleasing to see a left hand lead but those are not the instructions. There are a good many dances that require different hand leads that are seemingly awkward and less graceful. It is, for whatever reason, what the devisor wanted. But the grace of a dance is in the teaching. I pose it to my class as a challenge. I would imagine that the problem with altering any dance is that of consistency throughout the branches in the world. Uniformity was the purpose of the RSCDS. There is nothing more ungraceful than the fumbling of hands in the middle of a lead. As a dance devisor I also have reasons for certain hand usage which may not be apparent to some dancers. But I have been know to change things in a dance for sake of demonstrations. I know several dances I'd love to alter the hand leads but that is unfortunately, not left up to me. I sympathize. Bob Mc Murtry Felton, Calif
Nov. 1, 2001, 6:50 p.m. (Message 28011, in reply to message 28002)
Alan Paterson wrote: >"Teachers like Rules" oh dear. Any of the teachers out there have anything to >say to counter this somewhat sweeping generalisation? :-) What about the pupils? Do "rules" make it easier for them? It may be hard to share this fascination for giving the correct hand, especially when it makes things harder rather than easier. I suspect that sometimes (a) the instructions did not distinguish between "lead" and "dance" - especially for the older dances and (b) the deviser did not always stop to think about which was better(??) I find it perverse to lead down RHJ when you then have to cast up on your own side - it's very easy to cross by mistake! Maybe all this stuff about "correct" hands is to defend the status of those teachers who were themselves taught by the great and good and so are "in the know"! Andrew Buxton Brighton
Nov. 1, 2001, 7:32 p.m. (Message 28012, in reply to message 28011)
Andrew Buxton wrote: > > Alan Paterson wrote: > > >"Teachers like Rules" oh dear. Any of the teachers out there have > anything to > >say to counter this somewhat sweeping generalisation? :-) > > What about the pupils? Do "rules" make it easier for them? It may > be hard to share this fascination for giving the correct hand, especially > when it makes things harder rather than easier. It was this I meant. As a teacher, rules are useful since they gets new dancers up to speed quickly. One particular dance teacher here only has to say "I have a top tip...", and all the experienced dancers cover their ears. Her top tips often help us out though. Actually, her top tips sometimes help us out, but we love her anyway. Adam Cambridge, UK.
Nov. 1, 2001, 8:30 p.m. (Message 28014, in reply to message 28002)
Maybe if we referred to recurring patterns as 'likelihoods', then students wouldn't have such a need to cling to a 'rule'? And, then, not be discombobulated when the 'rule' is broken.....?
Nov. 1, 2001, 10:39 p.m. (Message 28016, in reply to message 28002)
In a message dated 11/1/01 9:47:47 AM, xxxxxx.xxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxx.xx writes: << So don't try and tell me that, in the twenties, "lead" meant "with RHJ." >> Martin, The RSCDS of this century(Miss Milligan and Mrs. Stewart) made an effort to make things standard so we, as teachers, could teach anywhere with equal results. They may not have been accurate in their research or chose to make it a certain way. My understanding of "lead" meant right hand in right unless otherwise stated. I may be incorrect. Although creativity and investigation might prove to show better or more accurate ways; it does not help when co-mingling with fellow dancers of another method of instruction. I support those who wish to do so. I also support a method that makes it clear which hand or hands are to be used. Ballroom hold pousette or 2 hand pousette? I think it's well to know which it is, before taking a partner on the floor. I enjoy a certain amount of flexibility on the dance floor but don't enjoy struggles with people who decide they have a better way than the instruction and method, given. It is nice to know that the correct and corresponding hand will meet mine at the appropriate time. This does not diminish the scholars that find otherwise. I send high praise to those willing to tackle that job. But change happens universally not individually. We, as individual, can make suggestions and effect a change if persistent. Anarchy creates a less desireable result. Bob Mc Murtry
Nov. 1, 2001, 11:25 p.m. (Message 28019, in reply to message 28016)
> I enjoy a certain amount of flexibility on the dance floor but don't > enjoy struggles with people who decide they have a better way than the > instruction and method, given. It is nice to know that the correct and > corresponding hand will meet mine at the appropriate time. This does not > diminish the scholars that find otherwise. I send high praise to those > willing to tackle that job. But change happens universally not individually. > We, as individual, can make suggestions and effect a change if persistent. > Anarchy creates a less desireable result. > > Bob Mc Murtry > > Hi, Bob I can follow this line of argument only so far. The early teachers were really feeling their way to produce something which turned out splendidly but which one should now be able to view dispassionately and, to some extent, pragmatically. This is an art form we are involved in here and not the manufacture of universally adaptable machine tools so the rules need not be rigid and are not chiselled into stone. To Lara I suggest that if certain questions, such as she mentions, are posed by reasonably proficient dancers in a formal class, try asking them what they think would be correct. After only a short time it would be evident that, in many instances there can be no set rule (or at least, that one rule is as valid as another) and one of the important lessons to be learned is that we should learn to think on our feet and make judgements based on the capabilities of those around us and on what has gone before. Rather like Common Law, in fact?? :)) Cheers, Ron :) < 0 Ron Mackey,(Purveyor of Pat's Party Pieces) 'O> Mottingham, /#\ London. UK. l> xxx.xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx
Nov. 2, 2001, 3:19 p.m. (Message 28031, in reply to message 28019)
On Thu, 1 Nov 2001 xxx.xxxxxx@xxxx.xxxxxxxxxx.xxx wrote: > This (dancing) is an art form we are involved in here and not the > manufacture of universally adaptable machine tools so the rules > need not be rigid and are not chiselled into stone. Ah, but isn't art glorious abandon with a rigorous discipline? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Priscilla Burrage Vermont US (xxxxxxxx@xxx.xxx.xxx)
Nov. 2, 2001, 10:40 a.m. (Message 28027, in reply to message 28016)
Bob wrote: > I enjoy a certain amount of flexibility on the dance floor but don't >enjoy struggles with people who decide they have a better way... Quite agree; let's keep our fights on the list and off the dance floor (though I don't think fights are really likely about these finer points of handing etc). I have no qualms about suggesting alternative ways of performing a figure (and usually tell my class about discrepencies between written instructions and unwritten customs), but promise there will be no struggle if we ever meet on the floor, Bob. I am even quite good at adapting to people who want to pass Rsh in Mairi's Wedding and haven't knocked anyone down yet. Martin, in Grenoble, France. http://perso.wanadoo.fr/scots.in.france/scd.htm (dance groups, events, some new dances ...)
Nov. 1, 2001, 11:11 p.m. (Message 28018, in reply to message 28002)
In a message dated 11/1/01 2:07:13 PM, xxx.xxxxxx@xxxx.xxxxxxxxxx.xxx writes: << In the occasions raised by Alan I will offer my partner left hand without any qualms especially if dancing in one of the modern 'Jumbo' sized sets - and one of the main reasons is that, on certain occasions, to offer my partner right hand is basically inelegant not to say impractical ! >> I too, have offered a different hand, occasionally with plenty of warning to my partner. But I can not teach that and confuse those who are rule followers. Bob
Nov. 2, 2001, 5:04 a.m. (Message 28022, in reply to message 28002)
I think it was Richard Goss who reminded us, on more than one occasion, of the dangers of looking to the dance instructions for guidance on *how* to dance. To determine the style of the historical repertoire, we refer to the treatises (for example, Wilson); letters and notes of the time also can shed light on how folks danced back then. I have always understood that the dance manuals served as memory aids, much as our cheat sheets do today. Neither tells us *how* to dance. To us moderns looking for insight on *how* to do a dance, instructions in those old dance manuals can be maddeningly brief and tantalizingly ambiguous. To the folks at the time, however, it was enough to read "lead down the middle and up" or some such; they could take it from there. Perhaps the treatises and the dancing masters provided a rule: "it's always this way." Equally plausible, they might have set out guidelines, much as several Strathspey respondents have done, describing when the nearer hand lead would be suitable, when the R-hand lead would be preferable, and when the L-hand lead would be required. If that were the case, then those dancers would have known which hand to offer and when. Then again, Wilson in 1810 might have changed his mind from what he said in 1805. Or, not improbably, Weaver (date escapes me) said something different from Wilson. My impression of all this is that "rules" were short-lived and local in their effect, to the extent they had any effect at all. (Digression: a friend was telling me that Wilson, in one of his books, railed against the "sloppy" practice of dancers who, after going down the middle, came back straight to second place, instead of dancing up to the top and casting off. Shocking, isn't it....) Let's see, where were we? Oh, yes... It was Eric who asked, with regard to the RHJ, "Can anyone tell us how the tradition arose...?" Not me. My experience in 12 years of Scottish dancing has been akin to the first situation ("it's always this way"); that is, the lead in SCD today is RHJ unless otherwise indicated in the instructions. I don't know the rationale behind this decision. If teachers in different groups wish to offer guidelines, or if dancers take it upon themselves to follow their own guidelines, they are probably following in our predecessors' footsteps. I've observed that less skilled dancers prefer not to have alternatives ("we just want to know how everyone else will be doing it at the dance party"). I myself am perfectly happy to accept an alternative handing, in the right context, when my partner skillfully offers it. Pat
Nov. 6, 2001, 11:07 p.m. (Message 28063, in reply to message 28022)
>My experience in 12 years of Scottish dancing has been akin to the first >situation ("it's always this way"); that is, the lead in SCD today is RHJ >unless otherwise indicated in the instructions. I don't know the rationale >behind this decision. ditto, except >12 years. Some may think this an odd point-of-view for an SCD Teacher, but I treat my dancers as intelligent adults capable of independent thought. I try to provide background, some insight, suggestions, skills practice, etc., but in the final analysis, the subtleties in the "how" of dancing they have to feel for themselves. That also includes real-time decisions on what hand to used in a particular circumstance. I don't baby my dancers. If it is truly a "don't care" situation, we will go over the alternatives and the dancers choose the one they like the best. If a dance or formation stipulates that a particular hand be used then they will be so informed, but they also know that they are responsible for their own choices on the dance floor. If one needs rules, I find the best "rules" have natural consequences. For example, if a particular handing feels awkward or sends one or both dancers in the wrong direction, it was probably the wrong hand! Cheers, Oberdan. 184 Estaban Drive, Camarillo, CA 93010-1611 USA Voice: (805) 389-0063, FAX: (805) 484-2775, email: xxxxx@xxxxx.xxx
Nov. 2, 2001, 5:41 a.m. (Message 28023, in reply to message 28002)
Well said! Pat! Bob Mc Murtry
Nov. 2, 2001, 3:31 p.m. (Message 28032, in reply to message 28002)
On Thu, 1 Nov 2001, Eric Ferguson wrote: > Up the middle, LHJ would allow 1M to bring his partner across to 2M > far more elegantly than NHJ or, still worse, RHJ. The same applies > in many other dances where 1C leads up to face 1st corners. If my partner lead me up the middle with left hands joined and guided me across the set in front of him, I would, naturally, end up facing up the set, not turned to face the second man asright hands across guides me. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Priscilla Burrage Vermont US (xxxxxxxx@xxx.xxx.xxx)
Nov. 4, 2001, 8:47 p.m. (Message 28038, in reply to message 28002)
From my memories of dabbling in historical dance a couple of decades ago, the earlier periods of court dancing tended to have the "man's palm down, woman's palm up" type of hold, which I think evolved gradually by stages into the "shake-hand" hold common today. If this is correct then it would be consistent with a preference for taking nearer hands in earlier periods, since a right hand lead would be awkward unless a "shake-hand" way of taking hands were used. Rosemary M Harrison Colchester UK