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]
Oct. 4, 2001, 3:16 a.m. (Message 27723, in reply to message 27716)
In a message dated 10/3/01 4:24:07 PM, xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxx.xxx writes: << 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] >> Richard, The ladies chain in Contra requires the man to support the woman behind the waist with his right hand, when she is turned back to face the center and I do not think the man dances behind the position but waits for lady to come to him. But I am not a major Contra dancer, so i may be incorrect about the mans' movement or lack of. Bob Mc Murtry
Oct. 4, 2001, 1:38 p.m. (Message 27736, in reply to message 27723)
Hi Bob, Intriguing. What you have descibed, I would call an English Ladies' Chain, or a chain with a closed or power turn. In contra I have always met women who prefer to dance an open chain, as is Scottish, but with the mans arm raise an the lady turning under his arm as in the Gay gordons. The woman will normally lead the chain with her left arm, to show whether she prefers to dance the closed, open or turned variety. Usually, as Pat says, men I have danced with have moved into the ladies place and the turn is more to sway places than with the man acting as a pivot. The most interesting difference for me is that the Contra dances will say Ladies' chain where the Scottish dances would say half Ladies' chain. Adam
Oct. 4, 2001, 1:49 p.m. (Message 27737, in reply to message 27736)
Sorry, I hit send before I noticed that email didn't read right. I was once advised never to write email before lunch. A. Adam Hughes meant: > ...mans arm raised and the lady turning... > ...turn is more to swap places... > ...Contra dancers will... > ...where Scottish dancers would... And should have added: Cambridge, UK. to all his posts.
Oct. 4, 2001, 11:45 p.m. (Message 27751, in reply to message 27736)
Adam wrote: "The most interesting difference for me is that the Contra dances will say Ladies' chain where the Scottish dances would say half Ladies' chain." The terminology may be regional. In the mid-Atlantic region of the U.S., the way I'm used to hearing it phrased during a walk-through is: "ladies chain over"; then, if the figure is to be repeated back to place, the caller says "ladies chain back." It is not uncommon, if the caller says only "ladies chain" during the walk-through, that the women will pause, not automatically assuming that they are to chain back, because very often they don't. Once the track is established, the phrase "ladies chain" is a sufficient call for either possibility. The phrase "half ladies chain" certainly eliminates all doubt in this regard. At least I've never seen that only half the women execute the figure while the other half stand still.... Pat
Oct. 4, 2001, 1:37 p.m. (Message 27734, in reply to message 27716)
Richard Goss wrote: > <stuff> Thanks Richard. I didn't have the nerve to write alot of what you wrote, but I more or less agree with it all. Adam
Oct. 5, 2001, 5:31 a.m. (Message 27754, in reply to message 27716)
Ladies' chain 40 years ago was over and back. If you only went over it was half ladies' chain. Nowadays the half chain is more common and if it is a 'round trip' the caller will say 'chain over and chain back'. As far as twirling during the turn, it is an individual choice. I'm not interested in twirling so I keep my left hand down and the man cannot raise it and twirl me. I put my right hand behind me so the man can hold it for a 'courtesy turn'. One gets much more eye contact with this turn than with the twirls. Cheers, Sylvia Miskoe, Concord, NH USA