res009k3
Contr(a/y)/Square, etc.
Oct. 3, 2001, 9:23 p.m. (Message 27716)
I got in on the contra-square-country and
related threads late, sorry. There was so much
material to which to respond that I thought I
would respond in one essay and then let the
reactions sort themselves into old or new strands.
So as not to confuse some specific topics, I have
included the name in brackets of the person to
whom I feel my response should be directed. While,
by the nature of this site, I accept that there is
an RSCDS, or at least a SCD bias, I feel that, as
we post, we step back and look at the forrest
instead of the trees of our own immidiate
experience. We should also remember that there is
no inherent value placed on difference. So when
one describes that one thing is not the same as
another, one has no right to assume that the
reader will place a higher or lower value on
either side of the difference other than the
acknowledgement that such a difference (or lack
there of) exists.
First, I feel, is the matter of definition
and here we need to define and separate the
general and the specific. I feel it safe to assume
that we are speaking of some forms of figure
dancing. Within this definition, there are
differences both documentable regarding the source
of the word contr[a/y]. Personally that, depending
on the time and place both the country (of the
people) and the contra (opposing dancers), are
equally applicable, except when one wishes to
include all dances of the country folk [lines,
couples, circles) which are not opposing and thus
should not be included. If one accepts my
definition of figure dancing of couples opposed to
each other we are able to proceed. So, I cannot
accept the simplistic concept that "contra" is
only a corruption of "country" {Adam} because
there are examples of the opposite also being
true.
Those who speak of an inherent difference
between English and Scottish dancing are
distorting history as, with the exception of some
footwork, there was no unique historical
difference between the two. The current difference
was created by the RSCDS having a need to
differentiate itself from the EFDSS. [NB: The SCD
started off with "country dances as danced in
Scotland" and much later, after such existed,
changed the term to "Scottish Country Dancing"
{Seonaid}.]
Those who stress a unique Scottish style are
confusing the RSCDS style with the style of
dancing in Scotland outside or with less RSCDS
influence. This style has a longer tradition and
acknowledges no border between Scotland and
England. If one analyzes these styles, one finds a
graded series of styles with the Borders sharing
more with each other than that found in the
Highlands and the English home counties {Bob &
Seonaid}.
Within the concept of a contr(a/y) dance there
are numerous ways in which people can face. My
interpretation of the set puts the longways for as
many without any minor sets as the prototype. The
standing around and length of the dance due to
repetitions gave rise to minor sets which, if one
checks out the dates of historic dances would
indicate that the minor sets grew incrementally
from two to three in size {Pat}. With whole rounds
or whole sets being dances of a four couple set
repeated four times {Bob & Jan & Pat & Seonaid}.
This was great for outside and in halls, barns,
etc. that, for architectural reasons, were long
and narrow. A further variation was added when
opposite sexes changed sides allowing for the
eccosaise, or 1s improper formation.
When venues became wider, the concept of
round the room allowed for the eccosaise to curve
into circassian circles (generic not the dance),
swedish progressions, a la DWS |33| could also be
bent around the room as could "union" dances |44|
be bent around the circumfrence of the room. The
form known as square or quadrille is simply an
evolved form of two interlocking eccosaises. In
fact many of the circassian circles performed by
head then side couples make up a standard first
formation of various named quadrilles. This
evolution is not my speculation but can be
documented by dance dates and formations
There have always been callers, official or
otherwise, so it is difficult to locate a
particular time and place (prior to the American
experience) when caller became a specific title or
occupation {Bob}.
Contrary to what many might think {Adam},
while the majority of dances are currently 32
bars, many of the dances that are not current were
shorter, 16 & 24, some of which have had a coda
attached to fit the current 32 bar style. Dances
longer than 32 bars are relatively rare. The
popularity of 32 bar forms is related to the
binary nature of a combination of both tunes and
related poetry, with AABB being the most common
[check your church hymnals] {Adam}.
The unity of British people under one court
in London, provided a separate evolution of the
British countra dances different from those on the
continent [German and Spanish contras look to
France for their inspiration, if not their music].
As the unity of the British Empire was broken
in the American revolution at about the same time
as the popular dancing in London moved from
contr(a/y) to couple dances, various localized
variations gave rise to the differences between
the European and the American forms, and the lack
of a central focus both in the UK and the USA gave
rise to local British styles and steps and in the
USA the various forms of squares, quadrilles,
contras, and running sets {Bob & Pat}.
Most of the other differences have more to do
with the lack of integration of teaching and
styles during the declining period of contr(a/y)
dancing, than actual original differences in local
style. The RSCDS began with a created style that
separated it from the EFDSS. This is more a
difference of philosophy than real: EFDSS
descriptive, RSCDS prescriptive.
The degrees of seriousness vs boisterous, and
freedom variation and enthusiasm between one style
and another is also a function of geography and
social class more than inherent in the forms
themselves {Pat}. Just as phrasing, or lack there
of, is also related to the relative sophistication
and organization for the groups perpetuating the
art form {Chris}.
One of the problem of performing an obsolete
or archaec form of art is that the social context
of the original is missing. Lacking this context
gives rise to all sorts of antisocial attitudes.
It its native habitat, contr(a/y) dancing never
had any sense of right or wrong, just more or less
acceptable. Thus what, at any particular time or
place, was more acceptable had a better chance of
surviving [see Darwin] and the less was more
likely to die out. In this example, traditional
was not a matter of right or wrong, just
acceptable for a longer period of time. The social
factors giving rise to revivals of contr(a/y)
dance are quite different than those of their
reliques.
Our sense of community has changed, and their
are different competing alternatives. So, in my
experience, the community that dances has evolved
into a community of dancers, many of the members
of which have no other reason for association than
simply the dance. Occassionally, some of these
individuals have few other communities of social
contact. When this is the case, "success" in the
dance community is not seen in sociability but in
percieved ability in the dance form. This leads to
in crowds and outcasts; ranks of beginners,
intermediates, advanced, and teachers {as a rank,
because many "teachers" can't, don't, or won't
teach}. Often, there are special sets that only
dance togather, in addition to those who
negatively judge other sects/cults/organizations
of contr(a/y) dancers based on an outside criteria
which has nothing to do with the particular form's
internal dynamics. So "Traditional" square dancers
react to "Western" Square dancers {Adam}.
Listen to how people accent the various words
and syllables in their dance form. Hardly anyone
emphasizes the word "DANCE", oopse, this would
imply human contact. Instead one hears of SCOTTISH
country dancing. Some even call themselves ROYAL
scottish country dancers, as if some royalty from
a royal patron rubs off on the dancers [some
fantasy huh?]. I don't see this a problem with who
simply say, "COUNTRY dancing" as this is simply a
way of indicating traditional as opposed to modern
such as: disco, techno, ballroom, house, country
western, rock, etc.
Part of this hierarchical schezophrenia is
the use of the terms dance and ball. Some
"beginners" fear balls because of the higher
technique implied {Alan}. An excessive stress on
style (and the resultant class structure) has
resulted in a loss of sociability {Tod}. Ball
programs instead of being inclusive are so
complicated that one is too involved in the
dancing to be social {Alan}. Often a tired dancer
is pressured into an unwanted partner or dance
because of the compulsion to complete someone
else's set. Masters of ceremony make no
recognition that in a social situation, some
people, sometimes would rather sit and talk than
dance, but instead they are forced by guilt into a
set.
Regarding cribs, I side with the position
that a good teacher/dancer can easily reduce good
notes to cribs that would make the original
unnecessary for either teaching or calling a dance
{Laura}. Notes that confuse dances with dancing
are another matter. If one knows dancing, all
cribs of whatever type of contr(a/y) dancing could
be the same, everything else being a default based
on related figures or the particular dance form.
As a result the only mystery in cribs are those of
someone attempting to use a foreign language
dictionary but lacking the structure of the
grammar upon which to hang the words and attain
meaning {Adam}.
It has been my experience that it is
ignorance with a hint of prejudice that motivates
to say all these "x" look (sound, feel) the same.
When, in all honesty, all the speaker is saying is
I am not sophisticated or knowledgable enough in
this subject to understand the differences.
Driectly coming from this same viewpoint is my
internal response to a child saying that "x" is
boring, when in fact all he is doing is admitting
that he is not mature or sophisticated enought to
look for something in an alien form with which to
become interested. Boredom is a function of the
bored not the subject {Pat}.
xxxxxxx.x.xxxx@xxx.xxx
[Bob, you brought up a point regarding different
ladies changes that I did not understand. Can you
explain them to me and give me examples of the
differences? RG]