Proposed List from Core Dances

John Chambers

Jan. 27, 2006, 10:16 p.m. (Message 43884)

Rosemary Coupe commented:
| Martin Sheffield writes,
|
| > One reason I would be against having a core program for the whole world is
| > that if it were promulgated by the RSCDS, it would be bound to contain a
| > bunch of RSCDS-published dances that no-one really wants to do, and
| > exclude excellent dances of other origins. . . . Martin,
| > in Grenoble, France
|
| It would be interesting to hear other opinions on this proposal by the
| Membership Services Committee. Of course the list would contain some DMUP
| dances from the 19th century--they were still alive and well when the
| Society was founded and its primary aim was to preserve them. However, the
| Committee's publicity release explicitly says the list would include good
| dances not published by the Society.

Another approach is the occasional lists here of  dances  ordered  by
frequency  in programs over the past N years.  This is useful because
it answers the question "If I  were  to  drop  in  on  an  SCD  group
somewhere  in  the  world,  what  dances should I know to maximize my
chances of knowing  their  dances?"  This  acknowledges  one  of  the
reasons  that many people like SCD, as well as one of the reasons for
wanting standardization.

Of course, the two approaches aren't incompatible.   Having  a  "core
dances"  list  from  the RSCDS would complement the lists from actual
dance programs, and would help to stabilize the set of common dances.

Alexandre Rafalovitch

Jan. 27, 2006, 10:35 p.m. (Message 43886, in reply to message 43884)

Isn't the 'yearly dance list' published by the HQ supposed to achieve
similar purpose? They list the dances they would like teachers to do
during the year, so one hopes they would be done at many branches?

Or am I missing something?

Regards,
   Alex.

0AM7L@SIA

Feb. 7, 2006, 8:53 p.m. (Message 44177, in reply to message 43886)

> Yes, it is.  And this system is great (and long over-due) _if_ branches work
on those dances and include them in their programs.   I've seen groups include 1
or 2, but rarely more than that, and often none. (:(.

I'd like to see much more emphasis on the year's 'featured dances', so those
who dance out of town will know (at least) those 10 dances by heart.
Besides, it's only for a year; they change the next, so not much chance for
'boredom.'

Margaret Sarna
Michigan


Isn't the 'yearly dance list' published by the HQ supposed to achieve

Alexandre Rafalovitch

Feb. 7, 2006, 9:15 p.m. (Message 44178, in reply to message 44177)

On 2/7/06, Don & Margaret Sarna <xxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx> wrote:
> I'd like to see much more emphasis on the year's 'featured dances', so those
> who dance out of town will know (at least) those 10 dances by heart.
> Besides, it's only for a year; they change the next, so not much chance for
> 'boredom.'

Maybe if HQ does something more extensive than just listing them,
there would be more uptake.

I am thinking maybe creating detailed diagrams for them or detailed
analysis for new teachers. Something that makes those dances more
interesting to pick than other generic dances out of the books.

Or is it in the new magazine already and I just missed that issue?

Regards,
   Alex.