June 1, 2006, 5:53 p.m. (Message 45445, in reply to message 45444)
On Thu, 01 Jun 2006 15:15:46 UTC John Chambers <xx@xxxxxxxx.xxx.xxx> wrote: > The same things seems to happened with "reel", which apparently > started life as a term for the sort of dance figures where you weave > or zig-zag among the other dancers. This is still how dancers use the > term, but somehow musicians decided to apply it to a particular sort > of very busy duple rhythm. A reel can be done to music in any rhythm, > so this was a nonsensical use of the word. > > My general theory is that most of these things happen through various > sorts of misunderstandings. If you watch interactions between dancers > who aren't musicians and musicians who aren't dancers, you'll see all > sorts of miscommunications. It sometimes seems amazing that the two > crowds manage to communicate at all, despite their obvious symbiotic > relationship throughout history. Regarding the various meanings of "reel" this sort of evolution happens all the time with laguage. [an aside: according to about.com, the English word with the most definitions is "set", with 464 different definitions in the OED! How many definitions for set in SCD? I can think of 3...] I think the confusion we have now is because (what I assume is) the original use of the term--a Scottish dance containing a loopy figure--hasn't been totally superseded by the more modern definitions (a specific figure for 3 or more dancers; a quick-time dance done with steps having beats of equal length; a specific tune type). By the way, musicians in the various Celtic and American folk traditions who DON'T play for dancers have no confusion about what's meant by a "reel"; it's a type of tune! -- Steve Wyrick - Concord, California