March 20, 2006, 8 a.m. (Message 44751)
My local Branch (Western Australia) is in the process of having a Cd recorded to accompany a book of WA dances. Some of the dances are for four couple sets, with third and fourth couples starting the dance on opposite sides. The issue of recording two chords for these dances has arisen. I would very much appreciate the opinion of Strathspey subscribers as to whether they are in favour of the inclusion of two chords, or not. We had heard from a UK visitor that RSCDS HQ was thinking of dropping the recording of two chords, but the Cd for Book 43 disproved that rumour! My thanks in anticipation... Audrey Emmett Perth, Western Australia
March 20, 2006, 9:50 a.m. (Message 44753, in reply to message 44751)
Dear Audrey This was discussed on Strathspey some time ago without any consensus being reached as far as I know. The RSCDS also changed (I think in a letter by Jean Martin to the list) their decision about only one chord but have provided us with some "encore" tracks without the 2nd chord in resent CD releases (which I invariably prefer). It is quite possibly a question of personal preference with perhaps a traditional majority in favour of the 2 chord. Personally I find the two chords rather silly and think it spoils the start of the dance with a rush across the set for the couples who need to cross and a silly two times acknowledgement of partners for those who stay put. Wouter Joubert Pretoria South Africa
March 20, 2006, 12:24 p.m. (Message 44755, in reply to message 44751)
Dear Audrey, Personally, I would prefer only one chord unless two were required so that one could acknowledge more than one partner - such as in "The Dashing White Sergeant". Iain Boyd Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
March 20, 2006, 4:56 p.m. (Message 44760, in reply to message 44751)
Wouter said >It is quite possibly a question of personal preference with perhaps a >traditional majority in favour of the 2 chord. My preference is for the two chords. For the less experienced dancer (1 year to 18 months), I think it is more helpful as they can clarify their positions in the set. It also shows them another quirky part of SCD! Helen Helen C N Brown York, UK
March 20, 2006, 5:05 p.m. (Message 44764, in reply to message 44760)
I view the chords as a polite invitation from the band that dancing is to begin. To start right off can be disconcerting and a half meassure delay in starting some dances makes them ragged and rushed. I vote always for introductory music...chords are fine. mm
March 20, 2006, 5:57 p.m. (Message 44770, in reply to message 44760)
Helen wrote My preference is for the two chords. For the less experienced dancer (1 year to 18 months), I think it is more helpful as they can clarify their positions in the set. Surely it is better to make thing "simple" rather than to add an unneeded complication. It also shows them another quirky part of SCD! Why do we need something "quirky" that detracts from the elegance of the dance, and for no good reason. Start where the dance stats, as we do in a square set or a 3 or 5 couple set. Simon Vancouver
March 20, 2006, 5:01 p.m. (Message 44762, in reply to message 44751)
Being a less experienced dancer i have a question (if i very humbly may) - what is meant by "two chords"? ;-) Regards from Estonia, Eike
March 20, 2006, 5:12 p.m. (Message 44763, in reply to message 44751)
Hei Eike In some 4 couple dances the 3rd and 4th couple have to start on the opposite sides. Tradition dictates that the set is formed with everyone on their own side and in stead if having just one chord of music during which you acknowledge your partner, you have two chords: on the first every acknowledges their partner and on the 2nd chord the 3rd and 4th couples cross over so that they are in the right place to begin the dance. Hope this helps. Hei hei Wouter
March 20, 2006, 5:17 p.m. (Message 44765, in reply to message 44751)
The question was not Chord or no chord but one or two chords. Wouter Pretoria South Africa
March 20, 2006, 5:20 p.m. (Message 44766, in reply to message 44751)
Thank you! That was helpful.
March 20, 2006, 5:36 p.m. (Message 44768, in reply to message 44751)
ONE CHORD OR TWO One chord or two. Which will it be? May I first say how much I have enjoyed, both dancing and teaching, many of the newer dances in which the third and fourth couples begin on the opposite side of the set. I say "opposite" side rather than "wrong" side. The added variety, the altered progression and the mirror imaging are indeed a delight. Many of them, of course, have been so cleverly written by our very accomplished and renowned John Drewry and I join you in thanking him for them, along with his many others. I do however continue to be most concerned by what, I feel, is an "unnecessary" need for two beginning chords to allow those couples to change sides in order to start the dance. I don't think that either the changing of places, or therefore, the second cord is at all needed. May I explain my reasons why? To use, if in fact we do, as our example and or our reference, the very wonderful and very old strathspey "The Glasgow Highlanders" is, I think, not at all valid. The Glasgow Highlanders is not only a most elegant and classic dance but it contains it's very own, and equally very unique, form of progression. This progression is an ongoing and integral part of the dance. It is not just a change of sides in order to start dancing. It is a special feature of that particular dance which carries on, making its needed adjustment, during each repetition, until the dance ends. I have never considered the two chords at the beginning of "The Glasgow Highlanders" to be for the purpose of changing positions. I rather believe that the first chord is to acknowledge ones own partner, and then, 'having made the change' to acknowledge the person you now face, and with whom you are about to begin dancing the rights and lefts to start this magnificent dance. When these two chords are played, with sufficient time separation to properly make the second bow and curtsey, a most gracious start is experienced. Most often these two chords are played without sufficient space and the enjoyment of this feature is sadly missed or maybe not even realized. However, this feature is not the case in these newer dances to which I refer. There is no need at all to acknowledge the same person twice. Here, it is surely "only" a matter of a different "starting" position. Many of our dances have varied starting positions. A square set for instance or sets with three or five couples or any number of other possible shapes that are not the standard set. Those dances don't have two chords in order for us to adjust to a different shape, size or configuration, away from the conventional four couple longwise set. With the greatest respect for these new dances, and indeed for their composers, I feel that the beginning would be far more elegant and enjoyable with the dancers ready, in their appropriate starting place to begin the dance, and to have "one" chord only. This would allow dancers time to execute and enjoy a gracious bow and curtsey as their acknowledgement to their chosen partner. Our acknowledgement should be something that happens with 'meaningful grace' and with 'equal emphasis' at both the beginning and end of every dance that we take part in. I find it so unfortunately untidy and inelegant to quickly acknowledge ones partner and then to rush across the set, particularly in reels and jigs, in time for the first step of the dance. It has "no" worthwhile reason. The second chord of music seems only to be a spacer and has no dance movement to accompany it whatsoever. At a social dance or at a ball, with live music, the band must be told if any of these dances are on the program. The MC must then announce to the assembled dancers how many chords will be played. THEN, as many of these dances are very popular and are likely to be encored, yet another decision and announcement must be made. Do the dancers stay where they have obviously finished the dance and are suitably ready to repeat or do they return to the other side to restart ? If it is live music I'm very sure the MC will say "Stay where you are" and begin the encore with one chord. If so, then why not the first time through, when the dance first began ? If recorded music is being used they either cross back again for the encore or they ignore one of the chords. I'm not sure which one is best. I only know that all this rather confusing and untidy mess can, and should, be avoided. When using recorded music for teaching, the dancers must be told by their teacher whether the music to be used will or will not have two chords. On other occasions a good piece of recorded music with two chords may be difficult to use for an alternate dance that requires only one. I would like us to avoid this kind of confusion and unnecessary "non dance" movement which, I think, is for no apparent reason or gain at the start of a wonderful dance. "'Let's start the dance where the dance starts' As these and maybe more delightful dances are used, and as new recorded music comes out, now on DCs, I would seriously encourage us to drop the two chords, both with live music and on any future recordings, in favour of a simpler and far more elegant beginning with the dancers taking their places on the floor where they will begin, and play music with one "wonderful" chord. By the use of two chords I feel we are setting an unfortunate precedent for an unnecessary and inappropriate need. My comments, of course, are directed as much, if not more, to musicians and composers, as they are to the teachers and dancer. However, we as dancers are the ones who are affected. Therefore, if you agree with me, we should be asking our musicians and dance composers to consider, that in the best interest of the dance, we start without this unnecessary changing of sides. It will, I believe, add to the enjoyment as well as maintain the appropriate elegance, if we start from the dance's starting place. As has been evident over centuries, The Glasgow Highlanders itself being an example, dance composers have and will continue to explore numerous and innovative variations of both old and new formations, within this ever living dance form. We are therefore always likely to dance in any number of new and different patterns and shapes. Sometimes these may be from new and alternate starting positions. It is very much my hope that, through this evolving process, we will always do everything we can to maintain the character of Scotland's national dance and music, to contribute to the rich social enjoyment, but also to display the wonderful elegance, poise and dignity that this fine dancing deserves. I "love" the full rich sound of the chord. I "love" the thrill that the bow and courtesy can have, as our mutual acknowledgement to one another as partners. They both need and deserve our time and our attention to their execution and duration. Don't let them be hurried because they signify, in such a grand and gracious way ... THE BEGINNING OF THE DANCE AND THE INVITATION TO TAKE PART. I talked with John Drewry some time ago and you will note that he no longer suggest two chords in these type of dances. Simon Scott Vancouver.
March 21, 2006, 12:09 a.m. (Message 44789, in reply to message 44768)
> May I first say how much I have enjoyed, both dancing and teaching, many > of the newer dances in which the third and fourth couples begin on the > opposite side of the set. I say "opposite" side rather than "wrong" > side. The very early Books use 'wrong' side. No great need to get worked up about that. It's quite useful to know that there is a, normally, 'right' side and a 'wrong' one. The added variety, the altered progression and the mirror imaging > are indeed a delight. Many of them, of course, have been so cleverly > written by our very accomplished and renowned John Drewry and I join you > in thanking him for them, along with his many others. Not only John Drewry but Derek Haynes, John Mitchell, Bill Forbes, and many others, not least one who is a regular contributer here.
March 20, 2006, 5:33 p.m. (Message 44769, in reply to message 44751)
On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 15:00:27 +0800 "Audrey Emmett" <xxxxx@xxxxx.xxx.xx> wrote: > My local Branch (Western Australia) is in the process of having a Cd >recorded to accompany a book of WA dances. Some of the dances are for four >couple sets, with third and fourth couples starting the dance on opposite >sides. The issue of recording two chords for these dances has arisen. I would >very much appreciate the opinion of Strathspey subscribers as to whether they >are in favour of the inclusion of two chords, or not. > > We had heard from a UK visitor that RSCDS HQ was thinking of dropping the >recording of two chords, but the Cd for Book 43 disproved that rumour! > > My thanks in anticipation... > I'd vote for including 2 chords; regardless of various objections, it still seems to be standard practice to play them, and most dancers are used to them. If anyone really objects to two chords they can simply copy the track and chop the first chord off; easily done with various computer audio editing programs. -Steve -- Steve Wyrick - Concord, California
March 20, 2006, 6:23 p.m. (Message 44772, in reply to message 44769)
Steve wrote I'd vote for including 2 chords; regardless of various objections, it still seems to be standard practice to play them, and most dancers are used to them. It seems sad that we should either start or continue a "standard practice" that distracts rather than enhances. If anyone really objects to two chords they can simply copy the track and chop the first chord off; easily done with various computer audio editing programs. -Steve Or, for the few dancers and musicians who wish, a duplicate chord can be added. Can we hear from any strathspey musicians regarding their comments on the matter. Simon Vancouver
March 20, 2006, 6:52 p.m. (Message 44774, in reply to message 44772)
On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 09:23:18 -0800 "simon scott" <xxxxx.xxxxx@xxxxx.xxx> wrote: > > Or, for the few dancers and musicians who wish, a duplicate > chord can be added. > > Can we hear from any strathspey musicians regarding their > comments on the matter. > > Simon Vancouver Yes, but it's somewhat easier to subtract than to add (BTW it can be done "non-destructively" in iTunes for those who run their classes from laptops), and in spite of your reasonable arguments for using only one chord, which I agree with, I suspect that your viewpoint is probably a minority one when the whole of the RSCDS (not just the correspondents on Strathspey) is considered! At any rate, as a musician I have no problem with playing double chords when asked to. However I try to play the 2 chords differently so it sounds more interesting and less like a mistake! -- Steve Wyrick - Concord, California
March 20, 2006, 7:10 p.m. (Message 44775, in reply to message 44772)
It's like coffee or tea: "Would you like one chord or two with your dance?" or else: "Two chords or not two chords, that is the question". Etienne Ozorak Meadville, PA USA
March 20, 2006, 6:21 p.m. (Message 44771, in reply to message 44751)
Yes, this was discussed at some length not too long ago, but since I already see a mini-consensus buildling on this go-round, I'll add my vote to it with an analogy which perhaps makes sense. When it is time to form sets for a square-formation dance, we don't form a (more common) longwise set, and then move into a square on a second chord. So why not always form the set according to the needs for the outset of the actual dancing? A number of factors go into the formation of the set...is it longwise or square, perhaps even a triangle, and how many couples per set?...so why not who's on which side as well? Robb Quint Thousand Oaks, CA, USA
March 20, 2006, 6:39 p.m. (Message 44773, in reply to message 44771)
Yes, this was discussed at some length not too long ago, but since I already see a mini-consensus buildling on this go-round, I'll add my vote to it with an analogy which perhaps makes sense. When it is time to form sets for a square-formation dance, we don't form a (more common) longwise set, and then move into a square on a second chord. So why not always form the set according to the needs for the outset of the actual dancing? A number of factors go into the formation of the set...is it longwise or square, perhaps even a triangle, and how many couples per set?...so why not who's on which side as well? Robb Quint Thousand Oaks, CA, USA I agree ONE HUNDRED percent ! Simon Vancouver
March 20, 2006, 8:39 p.m. (Message 44780, in reply to message 44751)
From a musical point of view it does not make the slightest bit of difference when you are playing it. However, when you are forming longwise sets in a crowded dance hall you are always relying on the 'top man' to count the sets for you. How often do we see this counting go wrong? Maybe because the man is still getting his shoes on and the counter misses that couple out, or maybe because the couple are not stood in position and do not get counted because they are chatting with the couple above or below them or even a couple in the set behind them. So, assuming the dancers have waited until they are counted to change to the opposite side they then have to change back before being recounted and then back again after the recount has been confirmed as correct. Or, do you wait until everyone is happy with the counting and change then, but the music is just about to start so that becomes just as rushed as changing on the second chord, which in itself only seems to become rushed by the couples who are not paying attention to where they are in the set or the dance they are about to share with the rest of the set. For my monies worth, leave two chords with the second chord used to change to the opposite side where necessary and ask the dancers to give the dance the attention it deserves! This also means that the whole room will move together, which makes everything so much nicer and neater to watch. Phew, I'll get off my soap box now :-)
March 20, 2006, 10:48 p.m. (Message 44786, in reply to message 44780)
You can just as well conclude the opposite. If each 3C and 4C, as the lines form from the top, at once take their places on the opposite side, the sets will count and form themselves, and the counting can be skipped. It would certainly speed up the Ball ! I understand that in ECD, sets (3C or 4C as may be) are usually formed by linking hands, with no counting. Seems more practical. But this was already discussed a few years ago. Happy dancing, Eric
March 21, 2006, 12:09 a.m. (Message 44788, in reply to message 44780)
On 20 Mar 2006 at 19:39, Phill Jones wrote: > > Phew, I'll get off my soap box now :-) > That ain't no soap box, Phill. That would hardly be big enough for a pair os kippers! Now if you want to see a soap box --- well, better not!! :))
March 21, 2006, 9:29 a.m. (Message 44799, in reply to message 44780)
The counting business is a bit reminiscent of primary school -- and as mentioned, not always well performed. ECdancers and contra dancers manage pefectly well by forming "hands 4 (or 6, or 8) from the top" and crossing over when required withiut further fuss. Have SCDers become so used to quasi military regimentation that they are no longer capable of thinking for themselves? There is a strange contradiction: On one hand, so much insistence on fun, socializing, relaxation ... On the other, "straighten up you lines", "clear the floor between dances", just stand up straight and do as you are told. And is it not more important to find one's place on the dance floor quickly (impossible to do in any military manner, I think), than to appease the gods looking down from above by having every couple cross over simultaneously ("tidily") on an ear-jarring chord? Perhaps one day we shall look back on military precision the way we now look back on the days when the men all had to sweat the evening away in tight black jackets! Down with the second chord !!! Martin, in Grenoble, France.
March 22, 2006, 1:21 a.m. (Message 44828, in reply to message 44799)
> Martin, > in Grenoble, France. wrote > > There is a strange contradiction: > On one hand, so much insistence on fun, socializing, relaxation ... > On the other, "straighten up you lines", "clear the floor between dances", > just stand up straight and do as you are told. > It seems from some postings that we must be tidy while we form up sets and count them. !! ? ^^ Talk of militarisation ... ! > Down with the second chord !! I think I'm firmly in favour of Crossing on the first and Bowing on the second chord as being more sensible and a neater start to the dance. As for causing confusion - well it doesn't when something (even very minor) is changed in the manual. It seems that everyone just snaps to attantion, salutes and it is done without fuss. Perhaps just a few grumbles but then --- :))
March 20, 2006, 8:53 p.m. (Message 44782, in reply to message 44751)
Phill (or Phil L. or I.? ~ 'tis unsigned) makes a valid point, I must admit. Robb In a message dated 03/20/2006 11:44:07 AM Pacific Standard Time, xxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xx.xx writes:
March 20, 2006, 9:15 p.m. (Message 44783, in reply to message 44751)
The very point that occurred to me... Fran Smith (herefordshire) > From:: "simon scott" <xxxxx.xxxxx@xxxxx.xxx> > To: "'SCD news and discussion'" <xxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx> > Subject: RE: Two chords - a question > Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 09:39:32 -0800 > Yes, this was discussed at some length not too long ago, but since I > already > see a mini-consensus buildling on this go-round, I'll add my vote to it > with > an analogy which perhaps makes sense. When it is time to form sets for > a > square-formation dance, we don't form a (more common) longwise set, and > then move > into a square on a second chord. So why not always form the set > according to > the needs for the outset of the actual dancing? A number of factors go > into > the formation of the set...is it longwise or square, perhaps even a > triangle, > and how many couples per set?...so why not who's on which side as well? > > Robb Quint > Thousand Oaks, CA, USA > > > I agree ONE HUNDRED percent ! > > Simon > Vancouver Lycos email has 300 Megabytes of free storage... Get it now at mail.lycos.co.uk
March 21, 2006, 4:46 a.m. (Message 44794, in reply to message 44751)
Yes, as mentioned, many people beside John Drewry have written these opposite side beginning dances. I apologize that I should have mentioned that I wrote the chord article, that I just posted, in the mid 1990s when John had written a number of them. Simon Vancouver
March 21, 2006, 9:43 a.m. (Message 44800, in reply to message 44751)
Audrey wrote: > My local Branch (Western Australia) is in the process of having a CD recorded to accompany > a book of WA dances. Some of the dances are for four couple sets, with third and fourth > couples starting the dance on opposite sides. The issue of recording two chords for these > dances has arisen. I would very much appreciate the opinion of Strathspey subscribers as to > whether they are in favour of the inclusion of two chords, or not. One of the problems with two chords is to know when to start moving to cross over - in theory the start of the chord is the signal to start crossing, but if dancers wait until then, they usually aren't in position for the start of the dance - (assuming the set is of a reasonable width). I think this is because the gap between the chord and the leading note is not any longer than the bands usually play, and is why I wish it had originally been decided to the move on the first chord & acknowledge on the second. I teach my dancers to start crossing as soon as the first chord has finished, but this means they have to overcome a natural reluctance to stand still during silence. I wonder if you could get the band to give a slightly longer gap between the second chord and the leading note? There are a few RSCDS dances where the first couple are the only ones that change sides at the start of the dance Lady Mackintosh's Rant, The Menzies Rant, The Jimp Waist, My Love She's But a Lassie Yet (when danced in a longwise set), and Polka Country Dance. Malcolm Malcolm L Brown York
March 29, 2006, 11:37 p.m. (Message 44900, in reply to message 44751)
If we are playing 2 chords we have to really mark up the music sheets so we can remember. Then there is a discussion of how to musically play each chord. Just the same, change the chord inversion, make the chord structure different? And then we just go ahead an play the same chord twice, very uninteresting. Sylvia Miskoe, Concord, NH USA