Thread
Index
Pre-Booking (was Cribs)
Lee Fuell
Oct. 8, 2001, 10:33 p.m. (Message 27790)
My limited observations of pre-booking have mostly involved older dancers. Was this once common and considered proper ballroom etiquette? I agree that in today's culture, this appears elitist and exclusive, but are we just dealing with a generation gap? If so, it will die out (no morbid pun intended...) on its own. Patty and I have taken to pre-booking some dances with each other (never more than a very limited number on a program, though!). We were originally taught that the accepted practice was to dance the first and last dance of a program with one's spouse/significant other/date, and all other dances with others. On this list, I have seen this modified to first, last, and one "special" dance. However, we are finding that the first dance of a program is often an "easy opener" that is not as interesting as later dances, so we often don't dance this one together. We prefer instead to pick a more interesting dance later in the program that we wish to share with each other. Finishers are usually good, but sometimes we'll trade this one off for another if there's a second dance somewhere else on the program we wish to do together. One practice that complicates this approach that I wish masters of ceremonies would not do is have a grand march lead right into the first dance of the program. This locks everyone into dancing the first dance with their grand march partner, usually one's significant other. I much prefer a grand march that ends with applause for the musicians, a clearing of the floor, then a call to form sets for the first dance. So, is this form of limited pre-booking also socially frowned upon, or within the accepted envelope of ballroom etiquette? Lee Send reply to: xxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx Date sent: Mon, 08 Oct 2001 13:51:12 -0400 From: Lara Friedman-Shedlov <xxxxxx@xx.xxxxx.xxx> To: <xxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx> Subject: Re: Cribs
Quoting "Donald Lee Fuell, Jr." <xxxxx@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx>: > So, is this form of limited pre-booking also socially frowned upon, > or within the accepted envelope of ballroom etiquette? > > Lee > I think this may be the traditional practice for regular ballroom dancing, but I was taught early on that for SCD it is frowned upon. I only started doing SCD about 12 years ago, so maybe this is a more recent convention. --Lara Friedman-Shedlov Minneapolis, MN USA ******************************* Lara Friedman-Shedlov xxxx@xxxxxxx.xxx *******************************
> One practice that complicates this approach that I wish masters of > ceremonies would not do is have a grand march lead right into the > first dance of the program. This locks everyone into dancing the > first dance with their grand march partner, usually one's significant > other. I much prefer a grand march that ends with applause for the > musicians, a clearing of the floor, then a call to form sets for the > first dance. Hi, When I started, a Grand March could start either the first or/and the second half of the programme. It always led into squares for The Eightsome Reel. That's why we came up for the last time in eights so that although one could choose a partner you couldn't dance as a regular group but had to take pot luck. This meant that, if you were first man one danced a quiet and modest highland step in the middle. If anything too flashy was tried the odds were you would find the next man was a competition winner!! Result, one red face. Happy Dancing Cheers :) Ron Ron Mackey. London Branch
I'm glad this question has paid off. So, it sounds like a consensus that some pre-booking is normal (and I'll freely admit that when my girlfriend is at a dance, we'll usually do the first, the last and one in the middle that looks good, just as Lara said) but that most people prefer not to book up dances, except maybe with students or other people you want to be careful to remember not to snub at their first ball. <the rest of this is just musings, and requests for advice> I often end up booking dances in the sense of "would you like to dance", "sorry I have a partner, but how about the next one?" I went to the Oxford and Cambridge Highland Ball last year, and was surprised to see most of the people there going around with sharpened pencils, in the half hour before the dance started, filling their cards, ignoring all the people they didn't know. This year, since I am supposed to be organising the ball, I have been asked by several people to put something in the programme or say something at the start, asking people not to book up dances like that. There is a suspicion the academics might need occasional updates on the social mores of the outside world. They also asked me to make an announcement along the lines of "Please try and hide your shock when a woman asks you to dance" since a couple of the older men were sufficiently unsure of themselves to reply a little abruptly when a young American asked them to dance. Of course they'd booked all their dances, so they couldn't take advantage of the offer. She was not at all impressed. I've experienced the flipside (at other events), getting on the end of "have you a partner? Are you going to ask me to dance then?" invitations to dance, which I find rather unflattering... On a slightly difference tack, I like grand marches, and was planning to have one at the ball, but it had never occurred to me to march, applaud, and then find another partner. I kind of like the idea that the grand march mixed up the couples so at least at the start cliquey sets don't form. But I might try it, or possibly start with a few times through a couple dance instead of a set dance. The SUSCDF grand march led into a three-facing-three around the room dance last year, which was a nice idea I thought... Is it expect to do the grand march with your "significant other"? I've never noticed any black looks when I've done a grand march with someone else's wife. Maybe we should try a grand march of individuals, so you get a random partner, as well as a random set. But I suppose some people might get confused if the room was full of men dancing with men and women dancing as men with men dancing as women. Another suggestion from someone here was that people might like to chose partners from the set they just danced with - which assuming there were no cliquey sets to start with, might prevent their formation, but if there were cliquey sets, then they'd just perpetuate, so I'm not convinced by that one. Adam
Adam Hughes wrote: > > On a slightly difference tack, I like grand marches, and was planning to > have one at the ball, but it had never occurred to me to march, applaud, > and then find another partner. I kind of like the idea that the grand > march mixed up the couples so at least at the start cliquey sets don't > form. But that isn't the case? The first 4 couples who lead off the march will end up together. AS will the next 4 and the next 4... Not too difficult to arrange your set then before the march starts. Alan (or is there another version of this which I don't know about?)
Quoting Alan Paterson <xxxxx@xxxxxxx.xx>: > The first 4 couples who lead off the march will end up together. AS > will the > next 4 and the next 4... > > Not too difficult to arrange your set then before the march starts. > > Alan > > (or is there another version of this which I don't know about?) Actually, we've done some pretty creative grand marches here in the Twin Cities with arches and long spiral lines weaving between each other, etc. It is definitely possible to come up with something that will yeild a more unpredictable set. --Lara Friedman-Shedlov Minneapolis, MN USA ******************************* Lara Friedman-Shedlov xxxx@xxxxxxx.xxx *******************************
In a message dated 10/8/01 1:34:43 PM, xxxxx@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx writes: << My limited observations of pre-booking have mostly involved older dancers. Was this once common and considered proper ballroom etiquette? I agree that in today's culture, this appears elitist and exclusive, but are we just dealing with a generation gap? If so, it will die out (no morbid pun intended...) on its own. >> Geofry Selling wrote an interesting article for TAC about the various types of country dancing and their rules of engagement. I believe hearing something about organized sets and partners in one of the traditions. I think it might have been the "reelers". According to this, the set dance together all the time and only changed partners within the set. No on was allowed to dance in the set unless one of the original 8 wanted to sit out. I would check it out with TAC. I'm sure they still have the article. Bob Mc Murtry Felton, Calif
I have my parents dance programs going back to university in the 20's, but at least they had a choice. If you read about the dancing about the time of the founding of the Edinburgh Assemble, the hostess or the dancing master often issued tickets to the dancers which indicated both a set and ones place therein. Your partner was your calculated opposite (bribery, matchmaking, etc. were part of the game). It was considered a grave sin to trade your ticket with another just to dance with a particular partner. Goss xxxxxxx.x.xxxx@xxx.xxx
A couple of years ago I was the one male who accompanied 3 or 4 local
dance lady friends to a far out of town tea dance, so it was somewhat
expected that I would at least dance with each of them in the afternoon,
and during intermission we arranged for that. Alas, that ended up booking
the last 4 dances of the day. Imagine my emrbarrassment when a lovely
young lady with the hosting group asked me to dance toward the end of the
program, and I had to decline for all the remaining dances of the day. She
was rightfully miffed.
So now I have a new policy which I share with anyone I book a dance
with (other than the first and last for my favorite lady of course): Yes
let's book a dance, and yes let's look for each other during the prior
dance, and yes let's try to get over to one another for the dance, BUT.. if
anyone stops us in between and asks for a dance before we can hook up, then
we accept, and thus avoid appearing rude or hurting someone's feelings.
Everyone I've used this caveat with has accepted it and thought it made
sense. My significant other and I also use this approach for mid program
dances we have hoped to do together; we feel this especially important as
there are usually more women than men present, and she does not want to say
no to and potentially alienate a male requester who probably has many more
opportunities available to dance with the opposite sex than she.
And yes I admit to having been seen at times scurrying across the
dance floor determinedly with my head down and eyes averted.
Richard Brown
Conklin, NY
Richard wrote << I have a new policy which I share with anyone I book a dance with (other than the first and last for my favorite lady of course): Yes let's book a dance, and yes let's look for each other during the prior dance, and yes let's try to get over to one another for the dance, BUT.. if anyone stops us in between and asks for a dance before we can hook up, then we accept, and thus avoid appearing rude or hurting someone's feelings.>> If I had pre-arranged a dance with someone, I think I would be a bit miffed if, when I went to find them, I found them making up a set with someone else instead! Especially if that then left me unable to find a partner. Richard also wrote << And yes I admit to having been seen at times scurrying across the dance floor determinedly with my head down and eyes averted.>> If one has to hurry to find one's next partner before someone else asks them to dance, this means having to dump one's last partner straight after the bow and curtsey and dash off. I think it's nice to be able to amble off the floor having a chat with the person you've just shared a dance with, without the pressure of having to start looking for a partner for the next one. Having said that, at the dances I go to, there are only a very small number of people who feel they need to book their partners early on for most of the dances on the programme. Most of us use a relaxed approach of "Are you free for this dance? No? Well, let's do XXXXXX instead." This only results in having 4 or 5 dances at the most prebooked during an evening (and those are usually only arranged 2 or 3 dances ahead of time), but once they're booked, they're booked. Jan Rudge Beaconsfield, UK RSCDS London Branch
In a message dated 10/10/01 5:52:16 AM, xxxxxx@xxx.xxx writes:
<< If one has to hurry to find one's next partner before someone else asks
them to dance, this means having to dump one's last partner straight after
the bow and curtsey and dash off. I think it's nice to be able to amble
off the floor having a chat with the person you've just shared a dance
with, without the pressure of having to start looking for a partner for
the next one. >>
Jan,
You have hit upon one of my favorite subjects. Ballroom etiquette
dictates that the gentleman escorts his partner on and off the floor. I teach
this in my classes as the proper thing to do and a nice touch. The lady may
choose to exempt you from that responsibility if her next partner is near by
and wishes to remain on the floor. I fear in my efforts to be a gentleman, I
have lost opportunities to gain a new partner of choice, due to pre-booking
and eagerness of others to secure partners before leaving the floor. But I
believe that respect for my present partner is far more important. It often
gives me an opportunity to dance with ladies who are not always asked. It can
be delighful and surprising.
Bob Mc Murtry
Felton, Calif