Thread Index

Two chords

Previous Thread Next Thread Unindented

  • ...

    Bryan McAlister March 20, 2006, 5:22 p.m. (Message 44767)

    If we must have two chords, it would dramatically improve the aesthetics 
    of the situation if the first chord were given - everyone moved 
    around/over across whatever, settled down, blew their noses etc. and 
    then 10, 15 or 20 seconds later the second chord was given and the dance 
    started.
    
    The normal practice of 2 chords 2-3 seconds apart is dire, awkward, 
    un-musical, sounds like a musical "OOPS!"
    
    Such a space would of course be impractical for recorded music so we 
    could just get rid of one of the chords.
    -- 
    Bryan McAlister
  • ...

    Ron Mackey March 21, 2006, 12:09 a.m. (Message 44787, in reply to message 44767)

    > If we must have two chords, it would dramatically improve the aesthetics 
    > of the situation if the first chord were given - everyone moved 
    > around/over across whatever, settled down,seconds later the second
    chord was given and the dance
    > started.
    >> Such a space would of course be impractical for recorded music so we 
    > could just get rid of one of the chords.
    > -- 
    > Bryan McAlister
    
    	Most sensible suggestion I have heard yet!
  • ...

    Charles Upton March 21, 2006, 12:12 a.m. (Message 44791, in reply to message 44767)

    Please, please 2 chords!, I agree with Phill - we endeavour to achieve
    straight lines and covering during the dances but the thought of
    couples just crossing over as they are being counted or as the sets
    are forming, will at best be untidy and at worst chaotic.
    I consider 2 chords a necessity for these dances and if the chords are
    slightly different - great!.  Please don't alter something that, in my
    opinion, works well.
    Charles Upton
  • ...

    S. Keith Graham March 21, 2006, 12:32 a.m. (Message 44792, in reply to message 44791)

    Would it be possible to have a technical solution for this problem?
    
    Could you put a "track" on the CD that only contains the first chord? 
    (And don't put a gap between the tracks, of course.)
    
    If you want to use the music with two chords, you select "Track 6". 
    If you want one chord, you select "Track 7".  If you play the CD
    straight through, you'd hear the two chord version.
    
    It doesn't work as well if you rip it to your iPod, but if you're
    doing that, I assume you have tools to fix it up to suit yourself..
    
    Keith Graham
    xxx@xxxx.xxx
  • ...

    Steve Wyrick March 21, 2006, 3:31 p.m. (Message 44810, in reply to message 44792)

    Yes, this is an elegant solution.  Not a problem in iTunes/iPod since it's
    simple to join tracks when ripping a disk. -Steve
    
    
    S. K. Graham wrote:
    
    > Would it be possible to have a technical solution for this problem?
    > 
    > Could you put a "track" on the CD that only contains the first chord?
    > (And don't put a gap between the tracks, of course.)
    > 
    > If you want to use the music with two chords, you select "Track 6".
    > If you want one chord, you select "Track 7".  If you play the CD
    > straight through, you'd hear the two chord version.
    > 
    > It doesn't work as well if you rip it to your iPod, but if you're
    > doing that, I assume you have tools to fix it up to suit yourself..
    > 
    > Keith Graham
    > xxx@xxxx.xxx
    
    -- 
    Steve Wyrick -- Concord, California
  • ...

    Sophie Rickebusch March 21, 2006, 8:41 a.m. (Message 44795, in reply to message 44791)

    I agree totally! I like the idea of crossing over on the 2nd chord (although
    doing so on the first and bowing/curtseying on the 2nd would be fine too, but if
    you start trying to change this now, you'll end up with confusion for the next
    few decades). Some argued it made things rushed, but if people know what they
    are doing, they'll change on cue and it will look much neater than changing over
    as the sets are being counted (and if they haven't picked up the fact that they
    had to change over, then it doesn't bode well for the rest of the dance and
    maybe they should have sat that one out...)
    
    Cheers,
    Sophie
    
    Quoting Charles Upton <xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>:
    
    > Please, please 2 chords!, I agree with Phill - we endeavour to achieve
    > straight lines and covering during the dances but the thought of couples just
    > crossing over as they are being counted or as the sets are forming, will at
    > best be untidy and at worst chaotic.
    > I consider 2 chords a necessity for these dances and if the chords are
    > slightly different - great!.  Please don't alter something that, in my
    > opinion, works well.
    > Charles Upton
    > 
    
    
    -- 
    Sophie Rickebusch
    CH - Wettswil a. A.
  • ...

    Ian Brockbank March 21, 2006, 10:51 a.m. (Message 44802, in reply to message 44795)

    Hi All,
    
    If we get rid of the second chord, we lose a chance to all laugh together as
    inevitably some members of the set forget and start dancing straight away.
    It's a bonding opportunity.  :-)
    
    Cheers,
    
    Ian Brockbank
    Edinburgh, Scotland
    xxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx
    http://www.scottishdance.net/
  • ...

    George Meikle March 21, 2006, 11:59 a.m. (Message 44804, in reply to message 44802)

    Ian Brockbank wrote:-
    
    > If we get rid of the second chord, we lose a chance to all laugh together
    > as inevitably some members of the set forget and start dancing straight
    > away.
    > It's a bonding opportunity.
    
    ----------
    Strathspeyers,
    
    I have yet to see it as a 'bonding opportunity' when I as a musician have
    occasionally forgotten the second chord. I am amazed I have survived some of
    the daggers that have been fired in my direction by supposedly 'friendly
    dancers'!!!!
    
    Spare a thought for the poor musician, if and when they forget to play a
    totally unnatural second chord. We are only human after all, and should not
    be condemned when we make the occasional mistake just like most dancers.
    
    George Meikle
    Lothian Scottish Dance Band
  • ...

    Andrew Smith March 21, 2006, 12:26 p.m. (Message 44805, in reply to message 44804)

    Absolutely George - after all "to err is human, to forgive, divine", but it
    often seems to get forgotten.
    Andrew,
    Bristol, UK.
  • ...

    Ron Mackey March 22, 2006, 1:21 a.m. (Message 44827, in reply to message 44805)

    > Absolutely George - after all "to err is human, to forgive, divine", but it
    > often seems to get forgotten.
    > Andrew,
    > Bristol, UK.
    
    
    	A quotation usually used be the errant one! :)
  • ...

    simon scott March 21, 2006, 5:36 p.m. (Message 44818, in reply to message 44804)

    Ian Brockbank wrote:-
    
    > If we get rid of the second chord, we lose a chance to all laugh
    > together as inevitably some members of the set forget and start 
    > dancing straight away. It's a bonding opportunity.
    
    Strathspeyers,
    
    I have yet to see it as a 'bonding opportunity' when I as a musician
    have occasionally forgotten the second chord. I am amazed I have
    survived some of the daggers that have been fired in my direction by
    supposedly 'friendly dancers'!!!!
    
    George Meikle
    Lothian Scottish Dance Band
    
    I'm still convinced that "one chord" eliminates confusion, avoids an
    unnecessary non-dance movement and allows an elegant bow and courtesy to
    begin the dance.
    Simon
    Vancouver
  • ...

    Peter McClure March 21, 2006, 11:32 p.m. (Message 44825, in reply to message 44804)

    From George Meikle:
    
    >... a
    >totally unnatural second chord. ...
    
    
    I haven't been keeping a count, but I have a feeling that most of the 
    musicians who have posted on this topic have been against the second 
    chord.  I think that ought to count for quite a lot.  Re how to get 
    people to the right starting places, why can't the MC, after the sets 
    have been completed but before the music starts, remind the dancers 
    about any such moves that may be needed.  And if, as Ian suggested, 
    only half are listening (and presumably, haven't already been aware 
    of where they need to be), I wonder what chance the dance has, anyhow.
    
    As far as the RSCDS making the change official, I wouldn't hold my 
    breath.  Consider the situation a year or two ago, when the question 
    of dropping the convention that men start the quick time poussette on 
    the left foot was raised.  The report in the Bulletin had about a 
    column and a half of apparently sensible reasons for dropping the 
    convention.  In favour of retaining it:  this is how we've always 
    done it.  The decision:  no change.
    
    Peter McClure
    Winnipeg, MB
  • ...

    Anselm Lingnau March 22, 2006, 1:20 a.m. (Message 44829, in reply to message 44825)

    Peter McClure wrote:
    
    > I haven't been keeping a count, but I have a feeling that most of the
    > musicians who have posted on this topic have been against the second
    > chord.  I think that ought to count for quite a lot.
    
    As a musician, I don't mind the extra chord one way or the other. Like Steve, 
    I do not play the same chord both times, so the »let's record the first chord 
    as an extra track on the CD« doesn't cut it. I also try to space the chords 
    in a fashion that will let the people in question cross to the other side of 
    the set with apropriate dignity. Furthermore, I try to be aware of which 
    dances require two chords, and my sets of music state this with suitable 
    conspicuousness. Having said that, my method is to go with the flow. As a 
    musician I provide a service; whoever pays me is entitled to pick whether 
    they want the chord or not. So far, most people do (but then again, often the 
    issue doesn't arise to begin with).
    
    Anselm
    -- 
    Anselm Lingnau, Frankfurt, Germany ..................... xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx
    The best solution I think would be for Gates and Ballmer to simply buy a small 
    country and declare Microsoft's sovereignty. Belize would be nice. [...] 
    Microsoft could easily buy Belize ($2 billion is $400 per acre and would 
    probably be enough), pay off the $380 million national debt, then throw up 
    luxury condos for 20,000 programmers.                    -- Robert X. Cringely
  • ...

    Martin March 22, 2006, 3:25 p.m. (Message 44834, in reply to message 44825)

    
          
        
  • ...

    Anselm Lingnau March 22, 2006, 4:53 p.m. (Message 44835, in reply to message 44834)

    Martin Sheffield wrote:
    
    > Was there not a move to get rid of the two chords a short while ago?
    > Which of the defenders of the chords managed to prevail, I wonder, so that,
    > once again, we got "no change" ?
    >
    > As mentioned, the Manual is the only thing that is allowed to change, it
    > seems.
    
    Don't forget that the RSCDS is, at the end of the day, a standards body. 
    Standards bodies are conservative by nature. Conservatism in a standards body 
    is commonly considered a Good Thing, as one does not want do chase after 
    every new-fangled idea that might come up. Things should settle down for a 
    bit before they show up on a standards body's radar screen.
    
    Anyway, the SCD scene no longer works like it did in the early 1930s. The 
    Society no longer has any real power to control how SCD is actually being 
    done all over the world; there is too much dancing going on in places that 
    the Society doesn't really reach. It may try to gradually influence things 
    (especially through the teacher training process) but imposing drastic 
    changes (such as the poussette-on-the-right-foot-for-men idea) isn't 
    possible; anything of the sort would merely create lots of confusion and 
    argument, and (if the changes are too severe or too ridiculous) would 
    probably be ignored by large parts of the community. Such an event would 
    basically mean the end of the Society as an important player in SCD (and 
    would likely be detrimental for SCD in the long run), and therefore this is 
    about as likely to happen as an assembly of turkeys voting in favour of the 
    practice of holding Thanksgiving dinners.
    
    Having said that, especially in an area like the two-chords debate, which 
    touches only on a minute part of the RSCDS repertoire, it is unproductive to 
    look to the RSCDS to mandate something which is contrary to current practice 
    (and playing two chords for the type of dance in question *is* current 
    practice, no doubt about that), in particular if current practice isn't 
    really an RSCDS idea to begin with. (Tinkering with the strathspey poussette, 
    for example, is fine for the RSCDS since they invented it in the first place; 
    note the ongoing controversy on exactly when hands should be dropped on set & 
    link to see just how big the RSCDS influence is concerning issues that do not 
    matter one way or another to a large majority of dancers -- however strongly 
    people like the originator of the concept may feel.)
    
    For the just-one-chord proponents, it seems a more promising approach to 
    educate the people out in the field directly -- dance dev^H^H^Hauthors, event 
    organisers/MCs, and musicians. Apparently John Drewry, one of the main 
    originators of »two-chord dances« has already seen the light, so if we give 
    the idea another decade or two things may have settled the way Simon et al. 
    would like, and then the RSCDS will be happy to follow suit in their 
    publications. If not, then it's not as if the world would come to a sudden 
    end, either.
    
    Anselm
    -- 
    Anselm Lingnau, Frankfurt, Germany ..................... xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx
    Rock journalism is people who can't write interviewing people who can't talk
    for people who can't read.                                      -- Frank Zappa
  • ...

    simon scott March 22, 2006, 5:58 p.m. (Message 44837, in reply to message 44835)

    Anselm wrote
    Don't forget that the RSCDS is, at the end of the day, a standards body.
    
    Standards bodies are conservative by nature. Conservatism in a standards
    body 
    is commonly considered a Good Thing, as one does not want do chase after
    
    every new-fangled idea that might come up. Things should settle down for
    a 
    bit before they show up on a standards body's radar screen.
    
    	Anselm, as you mention, two chords for these dances were never
    an adopted standard. They just happened (maybe from Glasgow Highlanders,
    I'm not sure). I'm very sorry they ever became "current practice". 
    
    	Left foot start for men in a poussette only involves that man
    and has little affect on the appearance of the figure. Hands in set and
    link don't make a large visual effect. However, I find that four people
    changing sides in an "un-dances-like" way spoils the elegance of the
    beginning of a dance and is "very" visual.
    
    
    For the just-one-chord proponents, it seems a more promising approach to
    
    educate the people out in the field directly -- dance dev^H^H^Hauthors,
    event 
    organisers/MCs, and musicians. Apparently John Drewry, one of the main 
    originators of >two-chord dances< has already seen the light, so if we
    give 
    the idea another decade or two things may have settled the way Simon et
    al. 
    would like, and then the RSCDS will be happy to follow suit in their 
    publications.
    
    	I completely agree, and I trust this may happen.
    	Simon Vancouver
  • ...

    Ron Mackey March 23, 2006, 1:04 a.m. (Message 44849, in reply to message 44835)

    On 22 Mar 2006 at 16:53, Anselm Lingnau wrote:
    
     but imposing drastic 
    > changes (such as the poussette-on-the-right-foot-for-men idea) isn't 
    > possible; anything of the sort would merely create lots of confusion and 
    > argument, and (if the changes are too severe or too ridiculous) would 
    > probably be ignored by large parts of the community. 
    
    
    	It is my experience that the current ruling _ is_ ignored by 
    many men, anyway.   That is, among those who can do a proper 
    PdeB.!! 
    
     (Tinkering with the strathspey poussette, 
    > for example, is fine for the RSCDS since they invented it in the first place; 
    > note the ongoing controversy on exactly when hands should be dropped on set & 
    > link to see just how big the RSCDS influence is concerning issues that do not 
    > matter one way or another to a large majority of dancers -- however strongly 
    > people like the originator of the concept may feel.)
    
    	Well, the RSCDS influence is quite strong enough on that 
    point as I understand that the original deviser of S & L  designed it 
    without the use of hands?  On the basis of the above argument they 
    should not have done so as it wasn't theirs in the first place.
    ??
  • ...

    L. Friedman-Shedlov March 21, 2006, 7:38 p.m. (Message 44821, in reply to message 44795)

    > I agree totally! I like the idea of crossing over on the 2nd chord (although
    > doing so on the first and bowing/curtseying on the 2nd would be fine too, but if
    > you start trying to change this now, you'll end up with confusion for the next
    > few decades).
    
    A couple of people have raised this point in favor of 2 chords, but I 
    would argue that two chords ALREADY causes confusion, and that hardly 
    anyone is really "used" to it.  In the 16 years I have been dancing in the 
    UK, the US, and Canada, I've never been at a social dance where a large 
    percentage of the room didn't end up scrambling.  Even if you remember to 
    do it, a chord just isn't enough time to cross to the other side of the 
    set, so it ends up being rushed and chaotic every time.
    
    So, obviously, I'm another vote in favor of moving to the correct place to 
    start the dance while forming sets and one chord (unless a 2nd is needed 
    to acknowledge another dancer in the set -- Bobby Brown's Canadian 
    Breakdown is a perfect example).
    
    Lara Friedman-Shedlov
    Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
  • ...

    simon scott March 21, 2006, 10:49 p.m. (Message 44823, in reply to message 44821)

    A couple of people have raised this point in favor of 2 chords, but I 
    would argue that two chords ALREADY causes confusion, and that hardly 
    anyone is really "used" to it.  In the 16 years I have been dancing in
    the 
    UK, the US, and Canada, I've never been at a social dance where a large 
    percentage of the room didn't end up scrambling.  Even if you remember
    to 
    do it, a chord just isn't enough time to cross to the other side of the 
    set, so it ends up being rushed and chaotic every time.
    
    So, obviously, I'm another vote in favor of moving to the correct place
    to 
    start the dance while forming sets and one chord (unless a 2nd is needed
    
    to acknowledge another dancer in the set -- Bobby Brown's Canadian 
    Breakdown is a perfect example).
    
    Lara Friedman-Shedlov
    
    I think Lara is so right in what she say. For me a chord is for the bow
    and curtsey not for an (unnecessary) move across the set.
    
    What do most 1C and 2C do during the second chord. Do you acknowledge
    twice?
    
    As Iain Boyd said earlier two chords would be more useful in the Dashing
    White Sergeant. There they would have a valid purpose.
    
    Simon
    Vancouver
  • ...

    Jan E Rudge March 22, 2006, 5:54 p.m. (Message 44836, in reply to message 44821)

    < I'm another vote in favor of moving to the correct place to
    start the dance while forming sets and one chord (unless a 2nd is needed
    to acknowledge another dancer in the set -- Bobby Brown's Canadian
    Breakdown is a perfect example). >
    
    Yes, me too.   Only one chord please.
    
    Mainly because it looks and feels so scruffy when
    half the dancers on the floor try (and some fail)
    to cross the set in time to begin the dance.
    
    The whole "Ready... and.." feeling, which we should
    get when we prepare to dance, is lost.
    
    Jan
    
    Beaconsfield, UK
    RSCDS London Branch
  • ...

    e.ferguson May 12, 2006, 12:24 p.m. (Message 45258, in reply to message 44821)

    Belated (?) return to this topic.
  • ...

    Ian Brockbank May 12, 2006, 1:18 p.m. (Message 45261, in reply to message 45258)

    > Belated (?) return to this topic.
    
    Oh no, not again!
    
    Please can this dead horse be left in peace - it's been thrashed thoroughly
    enough.
    (And please note - I am not arguing against _or_ for 2 chords here, just not
    to have
    to read the arguments another thousand times).
    
    Cheers,
    
    Ian Brockbank
    Edinburgh, Scotland
    xxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx
    http://www.scottishdance.net/
  • ...

    simon scott March 22, 2006, 6:05 p.m. (Message 44838, in reply to message 44767)

    < I'm another vote in favor of moving to the correct place to start the
    dance while forming sets and one chord (unless a 2nd is needed to
    acknowledge another dancer in the set -- Bobby Brown's Canadian
    Breakdown is a perfect example). >
    
    Yes, me too.   Only one chord please.
    
    Mainly because it looks and feels so scruffy when
    half the dancers on the floor try (and some fail)
    to cross the set in time to begin the dance.
    
    The whole "Ready... and.." feeling, which we should
    get when we prepare to dance, is lost.
    
    
    	Well said, Jan.
    
    	Simon
  • ...

    Ron Mackey March 23, 2006, 1:15 a.m. (Message 44850, in reply to message 44767)

    On 22 Mar 2006 at 16:54, Jan E Rudge wrote:
     
    
    > The whole "Ready... and.." feeling, which we should
    > get when we prepare to dance, is lost.
    > 
    > Jan
    >
    
    	Neat point, Jan
    Ron
  • ...

    Audrey & Robin Emmett March 23, 2006, 9:26 a.m. (Message 44856, in reply to message 44767)

    The response to my question on the value of two chords has been most
    gratifying. My thanks to everyone who has taken the time to pass on
    their opinion.
    
    Much of the discussion on the 2 chord issue has revolved around
    social situations where the music is being played live. Here in
    Western Australia we rarely have that luxury and depend almost
    entirely on recorded music for classes and social functions. So, when
    considering the production of our Cd, we will naturally have a
    tendency to let local conditions influence our decisions. Hence the
    call to Strathspeyers for a global perspective!
    
    With live music, the MC, local custom, band leader etc, can decide to
    include or withhold the second chord. The deviser of the dances in our
    book has commented that he is quite happy for groups to decide for
    themselves whether they use 1 or 2 chords for his four couple dances.
    
    Our concern is how leaving out the second chords will affect the sale
    and use of our Cd. There will be more than one dance where two chords
    could be used. Does anyone have any thoughts specifically on the
    perspective of two chords and recorded music.
    
    Again, my thanks in anticipation...
  • ...

    L. Friedman-Shedlov March 23, 2006, 4:26 p.m. (Message 44859, in reply to message 44856)

    On Thu, 23 Mar 2006, Audrey Emmett wrote:
    > Our concern is how leaving out the second chords will affect the sale 
    > and use of our Cd. There will be more than one dance where two chords 
    > could be used. Does anyone have any thoughts specifically on the 
    > perspective of two chords and recorded music.
    
    I highly doubt that the absence of a 2nd chord would be a major factor in 
    someone's decision to purchase the CD.  If the music is enjoyable to 
    listen and dance to, I think that would render the number of chords 
    pretty insignificant by comparison.
    
    / Lara Friedman-Shedlov
    Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
    
    
    ********************************
    Lara Friedman~Shedlov               "Librarians -- Like Google, but
    xxxx@xxxxxxx.xxx                       warm-blooded"
    ********************************
  • ...

    Bryan McAlister March 24, 2006, 10:54 a.m. (Message 44865, in reply to message 44856)

    Presumably...
    You also hope that people will want to listen to the music for its own 
    sake.
    Your first concern is that the CD tracks are musically of a high 
    standard and each track stands on its own one that basis.
    
    This being the case why would yo even consider the insertion of a lumpen 
    additional chord before a track.
    
    Remember you are the musician and the dancers dance to YOUR tune. If the 
    music is good they'll want to dance.
    
    In message <006b01c64e53$756ede10$xxxxxxxx@xxxxx>, Audrey Emmett 
    <xxxxx@xxxxx.xxx.xx> writes
    >The response to my question on the value of two chords has been most 
    >gratifying. My thanks to everyone who has taken the time to pass on 
    >their opinion.
    >
    >Much of the discussion on the 2 chord issue has revolved around  social 
    >situations where the music is being played live. Here in Western 
    >Australia we rarely have that luxury and depend almost entirely on 
    >recorded music for classes and social functions. So, when considering 
    >the production of our Cd, we will naturally have a tendency to let 
    >local conditions influence our decisions. Hence the call to 
    >Strathspeyers for a global perspective!
    >
    >With live music, the MC, local custom, band leader etc, can decide to 
    >include or withhold the second chord. The deviser of the dances in our 
    >book has commented that he is quite happy for groups to decide for 
    >themselves whether they use 1 or 2 chords for his four couple dances.
    >
    >Our concern is how leaving out the second chords will affect the sale 
    >and use of our Cd. There will be more than one dance where two chords 
    >could be used. Does anyone have any thoughts specifically on the 
    >perspective of two chords and recorded music.
    >
    >Again, my thanks in anticipation...
    
    -- 
    Bryan McAlister
  • ...

    Anselm Lingnau March 24, 2006, 12:41 p.m. (Message 44866, in reply to message 44865)

    Bryan McAlister wrote:
    
    > Your first concern is that the CD tracks are musically of a high
    > standard and each track stands on its own one that basis.
    
    This is precisely the point. If the music sucks but has two chords you can bet 
    that people will be looking for better music even if it has just one chord. 
    (Not that I want to imply that your CD tracks would in fact suck. I'm sure 
    they're going to be great.)
    
    I wouldn't bother about putting extra chords in their own tracks, either, 
    which is to be sure technically feasible but probably not worth the trouble. 
    This is just going to confuse people. If I were you I would record the dances 
    in question with one chord and let it go at that. Put a note in the liner 
    saying that people should arrange themselves so as to be able to start right 
    off after the first chord. The advantages of this are:
    
      - Chances are that the CD will mostly be used in class, anyway. In class,
        you walk through dances before you dance them, so people will be in the
        correct position to start the actual dance already.
    
      - It will be easier to re-use the music for other dances if they do not
        need to be of the couples-cross-over-on-the-second-chord variety. This
        may not be the first thing you have in mind when you are recording
        music for a specific book, but there are much fewer recorded tracks
        around than there are dances, and if the music is great it may inspire
        other people to come up with their own dances, especially if it is
        sort-of generic (rather than Mairi's Wedding). This even makes commercial
        sense since people might then buy your CD even if they are not *that*
        interested in the actual dances from your book, or they might get the
        CD because the music is so nice and also order the book just for
        completeness (I know I would). Then they might also try your dances
        which they otherwise might not have, and might even like them :^)
        Voilà, instant fame.
    
      - At live events, people who insist on having two chords can ask their
        musician/band to play two. Sticklers for two chords with recorded
        music can still get out ye olde WAV editor and duplicate the chord
        for themselves.
    
      - Not recording the second chord will make you popular with Simon Scott
        and his followers who want to nudge the world towards not having second
        chords. This will be another example to point to when convincing even
        more people that a second chord is in fact not needed, an abomination,
        ... etc. etc. On the other hand, at least from what has been said on
        Strathspey, the rest of the world does not really seem passionate enough
        about the issue to forego buying a nice CD just because there's a chord
        missing here and there that nobody *really* needs, anyway, and that even
        tends to get in the way every so often.
    
    Anselm
    -- 
    Anselm Lingnau, Frankfurt, Germany ..................... xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx
    Experience is a hard teacher because she gives the test first, the lesson
    afterwards.                                                      -- Vernon Law
  • ...

    Wouter Joubert March 23, 2006, 1:47 p.m. (Message 44858, in reply to message 44767)

    Hi Audrey
    
    As someone teaching and dancing almost exclusively to recorded music I
    will emphasise again my personal preference for just one chord.
    
    The alternative is off course to have two tracks for the dances that
    might/might not need two chords - one with two chords and one with just
    one chord.  That way you cater for both the "one chorders" and the "two
    chorders".  I am no expert but with modern technology it should not be
    too big a problem.
    
    Wouter Joubert
    Pretoria
    Suid-Afrika
  • ...

    Steve Wyrick March 23, 2006, 4:29 p.m. (Message 44860, in reply to message 44767)

    On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 14:47:15 +0200
      "Wouter Joubert" <xxxxxxx@xxxxxxx.xxx.xx> wrote:
    > Hi Audrey
    > 
    > As someone teaching and dancing almost exclusively to recorded music I
    > will emphasise again my personal preference for just one chord.
    > 
    > The alternative is off course to have two tracks for the dances that
    > might/might not need two chords - one with two chords and one with just
    > one chord.  That way you cater for both the "one chorders" and the "two
    > chorders".  I am no expert but with modern technology it should not be
    > too big a problem.
    
    I still feel that if you feel you have to cater to all, the simplest solution 
    is to put the first chord on its own track, with no break between that track 
    and the rest of the dance, as mentioned earlier.  It shouldn't be difficult to 
    come up with a version that sounds correct with either one chord or both. 
     Providing 2 separate versions seems like overkill, and a waste of disk space 
    that could be used for other dances!
    --
    Steve Wyrick - Concord, California
  • ...

    Jan E Rudge March 24, 2006, 3:22 p.m. (Message 44867, in reply to message 44860)

    << ... the simplest solution is to put the first chord on its own track,
    with no break between that track and the rest of the dance ... >>
    
    Are you sure this would work?  I thought the musicians
    have said that they leave a longer gap than usual
    after the second chord before beginning the tune,
    to allow the dancers to settle into place.
    Following the solution suggested above, if the dancers
    are already in place so you want to go straight to the
    single-chord version, then there would be an over-long
    gap before the music begins.
    
    Possible solution not involving too much computer
    wizardry:  Have only one chord on the recording.
    If two chords are wanted, begin to play the track but
    stop it after the chord, then once the dancers have
    crossed over and settled, play the track again from
    the beginning.  ;o)
    
    Regards,
    
    Jan
    
    Beaconsfield, UK
    RSCDS London Branch
  • ...

    mlamontbrown March 23, 2006, 4:55 p.m. (Message 44861, in reply to message 44767)

    Wouter wrote:
    
    > The alternative is off course to have two tracks for the dances that
    > might/might not need two chords - one with two chords and one with just
    > one chord.  That way you cater for both the "one chorders" and the "two
    > chorders".  I am no expert but with modern technology it should not be
    > too big a problem.
    
    And that (technology) of course is the solution - you record a two chord version, and
    then put a track marker before the first chord (labelling it "dance x - two chords"),
    and a track marker in the space between the two chords (labelling it "dance x - one
    chord").  The teacher then selects whichever track he / she wants.
    
    Malcolm L Brown
    York
  • ...

    Steve Wyrick March 24, 2006, 5:01 p.m. (Message 44869, in reply to message 44767)

    On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 14:22:41 +0000
      Jan E Rudge <xxxxxx@xxx.xxx> wrote:
      
    > 
    > << ... the simplest solution is to put the first chord on its own track,
    > with no break between that track and the rest of the dance ... >>
    > 
    > Are you sure this would work?  I thought the musicians
    > have said that they leave a longer gap than usual
    > after the second chord before beginning the tune,
    > to allow the dancers to settle into place.
    >Following the solution suggested above, if the dancers
    > are already in place so you want to go straight to the
    > single-chord version, then there would be an over-long
    > gap before the music begins.
    
    Absolutely.  You just place the track mark basically at the end of the gap so 
    that the 1-chord version sounds normal.  I own several CDs (non-SCD) where 
    something similar was done.  It's a technique commonly used in live concert 
    recordings, for example.  But I agree with Anselm that this has a good chance 
    of confusing many people unused to the available technologies and the 
    single-chord version--or Goss's suggestion of a 4-bar intro instead?--is 
    probably the way to go to please as many people as possible.  The point about 
    making the CD as listenable as possible also seems to be a good argument for 
    using the single-chord version.
    
    Audrey, good luck with your recording project!  I hope you'll update us on how 
    it goes! -Steve
    --
    Steve Wyrick - Concord, California
  • ...

    simon scott March 24, 2006, 5:49 p.m. (Message 44870, in reply to message 44767)

    Jan wrote
    
    Possible solution not involving too much computer
    wizardry:  Have only one chord on the recording.
    If two chords are wanted, begin to play the track but
    stop it after the chord, then once the dancers have
    crossed over and settled, play the track again from
    the beginning.
    
    Jan, I expect this would work, for those who really want two chords,
    albeit a little extra effort on the part of the teacher or whoever.
    
    With this method any piece of music could be used.  Therefore no
    recorded tunes need two chords on then.
    
    Does anyone know or assume WHY or HOW the two chord issue ever
    (unfortunately) started in the first place?
    
    Simon
    Vancouver
  • ...

    Charles Upton March 24, 2006, 11:39 p.m. (Message 44872, in reply to message 44767)

    Hi, most of the replies that I see against 2 chords, seem to come from
    teachers and maybe they have good reason.  However, I'm not a teacher
    but often am the MC but I don't seem to meet the many problems that
    have been mentioned.
    If we have a live band I check with the band that the dance will be
    preceded by 2 chords and that if a encore is needed, it will be
    preceded by 1 chord.  If this is agreed then I don't have to make any
    statement whatsoever as this is the norm.
    Incidentally, we do not have any briefings or walk throughs unless it
    is a Beginners Ball, crib sheets have been previously issued (Minicrib
    of course!) and most dancers have done their homework, though maybe
    the local clubs have practised the more difficult dances beforehand.
    If the dance is to recorded music (usually I am also the DJ), I don't
    play CDs as I try to keep them in pristine condition, also I find CDs
    inconvenient to use and that they usually contain many tracks that I
    never use.  All the tracks I ever require have been previously
    recorded onto MiniDiscs (no-one ever mentions MiniDiscs but the
    standard box of 20 discs can contain more than 500 dances which are
    all titled!) and having recorded a 2 chord dance it is very easy to
    divide the dance into 2 tracks (the tracks are automatically
    numbered), the first track contains the first chord only and the
    second has the second chord followed by the required music.
    To start the dance I play track 1 and it naturally runs on with track
    2 and there is no break when it changes to track 2.  For the encore I
    simply play track 2.  This ensures that if the 2 chords are different
    the difference is maintained.
    I don't need to give any instructions other than announce the dance
    (and that's surplus as everyone has a programme) and check that the
    sets are complete (if we follow ECD methods even that is not
    necessary).
    I find it hard to appreciate the problem so please keep the 2 chords,
    1 chord will certainly confuse the dancers and will turn me into a
    sergeant major issuing orders -"By the Right 3s and 4s cross Over" (Oh
    No!).  I wonder how many times a tune is played when teaching as
    against playing for a Dance
    Charles Upton
    Minicrib
  • ...

    simon scott March 25, 2006, 1 a.m. (Message 44875, in reply to message 44872)

    Charles wrote
    If we have a live band I check with the band that the dance will be
    preceded by 2 chords and that if a encore is needed, it will be preceded
    by 1 chord.  If this is agreed then I don't have to make any statement
    whatsoever as this is the norm.
    To start the dance I play track 1 and it naturally runs on with track 2
    and there is no break when it changes to track 2. (2 chords)  For the
    encore I simply play track 2. (1 chord)  I don't need to give any
    instructions other than announce the dance and check that the sets are
    complete.
    
    Charles,
     
    You must have a wonderful group of dancers if they don't even need a
    reminder that the dance requires 3C and 4C to start on the opposite
    side.
    
    Why do you not start the encore with two chords and a cross over also?
    AND, if the encore doesn't require it then why did the first time
    through need it.
    I'm curious.
    
    Simon
    Vancouver

Previous Thread Next Thread