strathspey@strathspey.org:43971

Andrea Re

Re: Scottish dancing - improvise and freestyle

Jan. 30, 2006, 11:33 p.m. (Message 43971)

Anselm Lingnau ha scritto:

>Fiona Grant wrote:
>  
>
>>The rules and regimentation developed over the second half of the 20th
>>century has, I think, taken away the spontaneity and improvisation which
>>used to characterise Scottish dances earlier in the century, [...]
>>    
>>
>
>Yes, but we've gained a style of dancing which is fairly accessible to people 
>of all ages all over the world. Remember that around the turn of the 19/20th 
>century every dance teacher had their own set of dances that they would teach 
>in their own particular style. There's nothing wrong in principle with 
>»spontaneity and improvisation« but spontaneous things, especially when they 
>take place within the context of something fundamentally repetitive like 
>country dancing, have a tendency to »jell« until they're no longer 
>spontaneous but »what everybody does there«. This is hard on people visiting 
>the group in question for just one night, or attending a ball. (It is clear 
>that people like Fiona, with creative energy to spare, will be able to invent 
>something new every time she does a dance, but in my experience many dancers 
>are not so blessed.)
>
>People do add spontaneous, improvised things to Scottish country dances all 
>the time (at least hereabouts), but it is just as well that there is an 
>established, non-embellished norm, that people agree on, which describes how 
>these dances are done »right«. If anything it makes it more exciting to step 
>outside the bounds every so often; if there are no bounds then there is 
>nothing special about this any longer! If there must be a twirl in the middle 
>of every single diagonal reel of four, because it is more fun, then that is 
>no longer an exciting improvisation but just as boring as if there were none 
>(and more difficult for new dancers to get into, too).
>
>The other problem is that as far as modern dances are concerned, it is 
>difficult to find ones that really lend themselves to improvisation beyond 
>the odd twiddle, at least if one wants to restrict one's improvisations to 
>those which do not overly disturb the other dancers in the set (which I think 
>people should bear in mind when improvising).
>

Hi there,

in reply to Fiona and Anselm,

I think we are revolving around the age old problem of prim and proper 
dancing (see countless posts from the past few weeks) Vs. spontaneity. 
It is indeed true that we are in debt with the society for standardizing 
SCD (whether or not it is a fabrication it matters not since it has 
stuck anyway), however one of the reasons for having rules, and a good 
one at that, is that you can break them.
For example the eightsome reel epitomises free style dancing. I am not 
historian, but I will never believe that at any stage since it was 
devised, the Eightsome has ever been danced RSCDS style. If anything it 
is so tedious that you can't wait it is over and done with. Along with 
this dance, there others (Petronella, Flowers of Edinburgh, 
Montgomeries' rant, Mairi's wedding etc.) that lend themselves to 
improvisation. Usually we are talking about dances where not much 
happens and people kind of feel the need to fill up the music (besides, 
I don't go to a dance to stand for countless bars, if I wanted to do 
that I would go to the pub and stand AT the bar:). The same is true for 
certain figures. The classical example is a reel of 4 which I find quite 
boring to do and deadly to look at (so much so that I dare say it should 
be banned from all dems), but also "tea pots", Rights and lefts, 
promenade, etc. Also quite often the music wants you to do something on 
bar 4 hence the need for and extra something (a twirl, a high five, 
whatever). I think it is quite misguided to think that the extra twirly 
bit means that the figure is being ruined; in fact the opposite might be 
true. The need for freestyle dancing seems to be spread worldwide (I see 
it at SS and talking to fellow dancers from afar), albeit it might be 
limited  to the younger generations. It is possible that the extra bit 
should be in the formation itself because it fulfils a need expressed by 
the music and by the dancer who doesn't like to "loiter" (so to speak).
SS is good for this because it gives you the chance to meet up with 
people from completely different backgrounds.
I'll give you some examples: I was dancing (Martina, are you listening?) 
double triangles and my partner turned 1 1/2 times in the middle. She 
caught me by surprise, but I didn't hesitate to join in the next 
repetition. I am not ashamed to say that I was transfixed, I thought 
that the move, not much in itself, was so clever and worked so well. 
Indeed, double triangles is easier if you add an extra turn in the 
middle and you get the added bonus of making eye contact with your 
partner. A few days later I was dancing with someone else and she didn't 
know that move. Without telling her I added the extra bit and she 
immediately followed suit; she was just as struck as I was.... when you 
see it for the first time it is like black magic; I don't know whether 
that is free-styling, since the manoeuvre benefits from the change; as 
Anselm pointed out, it could become an example of institutionalized 
rule-breaking. Maybe so, but perhaps this modification, that I am sure 
more than one person had come up with, should become part of the 
repertoire, since it responds to the music well and simplifies the 
figure (and I think looks good, but I am not sure).
Another example, again at SS during a late night party. Again the German 
contingent. We were doing the Eightsome and they insisted upon a grand 
chain in 16 bars (whoever devised that must have been in a wheelchair). 
I couldn't believe it.... 2 bars per hand???? Until it all became clear: 
they turn the lady under right hand and cross left and so on. That way 
it looks great and you feel motivated to phrase the dance like that. 
Again.... is it free styling or is it a new dance that is better than 
the "original" one?
These days, dances tend to be more and more complicated so there is less 
chance for a real "jamming session", but if you end up with the right 
partner and in the right set magic can still be created. For sure there 
is no point in sneering at these developments, because this is what they 
are: a natural development of a pre-existing technique. The drawback is 
that it is like a drug, you want more and more. Alas yesterday's treats 
will always become tomorrow's leftovers, but that's life.
Big thumbs up to standardization that allows us to be more creative as 
we go!!

> As far as 
>improvisation »across figures« goes, this can really be very exciting indeed 
>but would somehow defy the notion of having pre-choreographed dances which is 
>central to today's SCD, and would thus probably not sit well with much of the 
>current set of people doing SCD. (I for one like knowing what comes next.)
>
>  
>
This is another problem.... who or what is a deviser? If I devise a 
dance, but the dancers change it, I, the deviser, must be wrong. I don't 
think a deviser is a Balanchine or a Petipa and create masterpieces 
destined to last for centuries to come. After all we are talking about 
SCD and not Snow White or Swan Lake. There again, ballet dancers have 
rebelled against classical ballet, so why should we be all in line? Now 
and again you come across something truly original, but the novelty 
wears off, but still there are dances I would not want to change. They 
are usually Strathspeys, mostly because the music is not that conducive 
to rapid changes (except perhaps during an 8 bar reel of 4 and few 
others) and the likes of the "earl of Mansfield" because I am too busy 
remembering if I have to cross and cast or what.....

Andrea (fae Dundee)

PS

I see plenty of kilts being worn here, not just at rugby matches but any 
time there is do.