Thread Index

Two chords - a question

Audrey & Robin Emmett

Audrey & Robin Emmett

March 20, 2006, 8 a.m. (Message 44751)

My local Branch (Western Australia) is in the process of having a Cd
recorded to accompany a book of WA dances. Some of the dances are for
four couple sets,  with third and fourth couples starting the dance on
opposite sides. The issue of recording two chords for these dances has
arisen. I would very much appreciate the opinion of Strathspey
subscribers as to whether they are in favour of the inclusion of two
chords, or not.

We had heard from a UK visitor that RSCDS HQ was thinking of dropping
the recording of two chords, but the Cd for Book 43 disproved that
rumour!

My thanks in anticipation...

Audrey Emmett
Perth, Western Australia
Martin

Martin

March 20, 2006, 9:34 a.m. (Message 44752, in reply to message 44751)


	    
	  
Wouter Joubert

Wouter Joubert

March 20, 2006, 9:50 a.m. (Message 44753, in reply to message 44751)

Dear Audrey

This was discussed on Strathspey some time ago without any consensus
being reached as far as I know.  The RSCDS also changed (I think in a
letter by Jean Martin to the list) their decision about only one chord
but have provided us with some "encore" tracks without the 2nd chord in
resent CD releases (which I invariably prefer).

It is quite possibly a question of personal preference with perhaps a
traditional majority in favour of the 2 chord.

Personally I find the two chords rather silly and think it spoils the
start of the dance with a rush across the set for the couples who need
to cross and a silly two times acknowledgement of partners for those who
stay put.

Wouter Joubert
Pretoria
South Africa
Iain Boyd

Iain Boyd

March 20, 2006, 12:24 p.m. (Message 44755, in reply to message 44751)

Dear Audrey,
   
  Personally, I would prefer only one chord unless two were required
  so that one could acknowledge more than one partner - such as in
  "The Dashing White Sergeant".
   
  Iain Boyd

Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
Helen Brown

Helen Brown

March 20, 2006, 4:56 p.m. (Message 44760, in reply to message 44751)

Wouter said

>It is quite possibly a question of personal preference with perhaps a
>traditional majority in favour of the 2 chord.

My preference is for the two chords.   For the less experienced dancer (1
year to 18 months), I think it is more helpful as they can clarify their
positions in the set.   It also shows them another quirky part of SCD!

Helen

Helen C N Brown
York, UK
Mike Mudrey

Mike Mudrey

March 20, 2006, 5:05 p.m. (Message 44764, in reply to message 44760)

I view the chords as a polite invitation from the band that dancing 
is to begin.  To start right off can be disconcerting and a half 
meassure delay in starting some dances makes them ragged and rushed.

I vote always for introductory music...chords  are fine.

mm
simon scott

simon scott

March 20, 2006, 5:57 p.m. (Message 44770, in reply to message 44760)

Helen wrote

My preference is for the two chords.   For the less experienced dancer
(1
year to 18 months), I think it is more helpful as they can clarify their
positions in the set.

	Surely it is better to make thing "simple" rather than to add an
unneeded complication.

It also shows them another quirky part of SCD!

	Why do we need something "quirky" that detracts from the
elegance of the dance, and for no good reason.   Start where the dance
stats, as we do in a square set or a 3 or 5 couple set.

Simon Vancouver
Eike Albert-Unt

Eike Albert-Unt

March 20, 2006, 5:01 p.m. (Message 44762, in reply to message 44751)

Being a less experienced dancer i have a question (if i very humbly may) -
what is meant by "two chords"? ;-)

Regards from Estonia,
Eike
Wouter Joubert

Wouter Joubert

March 20, 2006, 5:12 p.m. (Message 44763, in reply to message 44751)

Hei Eike

In some 4 couple dances the 3rd and 4th couple have to start on the
opposite sides.  Tradition dictates that the set is formed with everyone
on their own side and in stead if having just one chord of music during
which you acknowledge your partner, you have two chords: on the first
every acknowledges their partner and on the 2nd chord the 3rd and 4th
couples cross over so that they are in the right place to begin the
dance.

Hope this helps.

Hei hei
Wouter
Wouter Joubert

Wouter Joubert

March 20, 2006, 5:17 p.m. (Message 44765, in reply to message 44751)

The question was not Chord or no chord but one or two chords.

Wouter
Pretoria
South Africa
Eike Albert-Unt

Eike Albert-Unt

March 20, 2006, 5:20 p.m. (Message 44766, in reply to message 44751)

Thank you!
That was helpful.
simon scott

simon scott

March 20, 2006, 5:36 p.m. (Message 44768, in reply to message 44751)

ONE CHORD OR TWO

One chord or two.  Which will it be?

May I first say how much I have enjoyed, both dancing and teaching, many
of the newer dances in which the third and fourth couples begin on the
opposite side of the set. I say "opposite" side rather than "wrong"
side.  The added variety, the altered progression and the mirror imaging
are indeed a delight.  Many of them, of course, have been so cleverly
written by our very accomplished and renowned John Drewry and I join you
in thanking him for them, along with his many others. 

I do however continue to be most concerned by what, I feel, is an
"unnecessary" need for two beginning chords to allow those couples to
change sides in order to start the dance.  I don't think that either the
changing of places, or therefore, the second cord is at all needed.  May
I explain my reasons why?

To use, if in fact we do, as our example and or our reference, the very
wonderful and very old strathspey "The Glasgow Highlanders" is, I think,
not at all valid.  

The Glasgow Highlanders is not only a most elegant and classic dance but
it contains it's very own, and equally very unique, form of progression.
This progression is an ongoing and integral part of the dance.  It is
not just a change of sides in order to start dancing.  It is a special
feature of that particular dance which carries on, making its needed
adjustment, during each repetition, until the dance ends.

I have never considered the two chords at the beginning of "The Glasgow
Highlanders" to be for the purpose of changing positions.  I rather
believe that the first chord is to acknowledge ones own partner, and
then, 'having made the change' to acknowledge the person you now face,
and with whom you are about to begin dancing the rights and lefts to
start this magnificent dance. When these two chords are played, with
sufficient time separation to properly make the second bow and curtsey,
a most gracious start is experienced.  Most often these two chords are
played without sufficient space and the enjoyment of this feature is
sadly missed or maybe not even realized.

However, this feature is not the case in these newer dances to which I
refer.  There is no need at all to acknowledge the same person twice.
Here, it is surely "only" a matter of a different "starting" position.
Many of our dances have varied starting positions.  A square set for
instance or sets with three or five couples or any number of other
possible shapes that are not the standard set.  Those dances don't have
two chords in order for us to adjust to a different shape, size or
configuration, away from the conventional four couple longwise set.

With the greatest respect for these new dances, and indeed for their
composers, I feel that the beginning would be far more elegant and
enjoyable with the dancers ready, in their appropriate starting place to
begin the dance, and to have "one" chord only.  This would allow dancers
time to execute and enjoy a gracious bow and curtsey as their
acknowledgement to their chosen partner.  Our acknowledgement should be
something that happens with 'meaningful grace' and with 'equal emphasis'
at both the beginning and end of every dance that we take part in.

I find it so unfortunately untidy and inelegant to quickly acknowledge
ones partner and then to rush across the set, particularly in reels and
jigs, in time for the first step of the dance. It has "no" worthwhile
reason.  The second chord of music seems only to be a spacer and has no
dance movement to accompany it whatsoever.

At a social dance or at a ball, with live music, the band must be told
if any of these dances are on the program.  The MC must then announce to
the assembled dancers how many chords will be played.  THEN, as many of
these dances are very popular and are likely to be encored, yet another
decision and announcement must be made. Do the dancers stay where they
have obviously finished the dance and are suitably ready to repeat or do
they return to the other side to restart ?  If it is live music I'm very
sure the MC will say "Stay where you are" and begin the encore with one
chord.  If so, then why not the first time through, when the dance first
began ?   

If recorded music is being used they either cross back again for the
encore or they ignore one of the chords.  I'm not sure which one is
best.  I only know that all this rather confusing and untidy mess can,
and should, be avoided.

When using recorded music for teaching, the dancers must be told by
their teacher whether the music to be used will or will not have two
chords.  On other occasions a good piece of recorded music with two
chords may be difficult to use for an alternate dance that requires only
one. 

I would like us to avoid this kind of confusion and unnecessary "non
dance" movement which, I think, is for no apparent reason or gain at the
start of a wonderful dance.  


"'Let's start the dance where the dance starts'

As these and maybe more delightful dances are used, and as new recorded
music comes out, now on DCs,  I would seriously encourage us to drop the
two chords, both with live music and on any future recordings, in favour
of a simpler and far more elegant beginning with the dancers taking
their places on the floor where they will begin, and play music with one
"wonderful" chord.

By the use of two chords I feel we are setting an unfortunate precedent
for an unnecessary and inappropriate need.  My comments, of course, are
directed as much, if not more, to musicians and composers, as they are
to the teachers and dancer.  However, we as dancers are the ones who are
affected. Therefore, if you agree with me, we should be asking our
musicians and dance composers to consider, that in the best interest of
the dance, we start without this unnecessary changing of sides.  It
will, I believe, add to the enjoyment as well as maintain the
appropriate elegance, if we start from the dance's starting place. 

As has been evident over centuries, The Glasgow Highlanders itself being
an example, dance composers have and will continue to explore numerous
and innovative variations of both old and new formations, within this
ever living dance form.  We are therefore always likely to dance in any
number of new and different patterns and shapes. Sometimes these may be
from new and alternate starting positions.  It is very much my hope
that, through this evolving process, we will always do everything we can
to maintain the character of Scotland's national dance and music, to
contribute to the rich social enjoyment, but also to display the
wonderful elegance, poise and dignity that this fine dancing deserves.

I "love" the full rich sound of the chord. I "love" the thrill that the
bow and courtesy can have, as our mutual acknowledgement to one another
as partners.  They both need and deserve our time and our attention to
their execution and duration.  Don't let them be hurried because they
signify, in such a grand and gracious way ...

THE BEGINNING OF THE DANCE AND THE INVITATION TO TAKE PART.    


I talked with John Drewry some time ago and you will note that he no
longer suggest two chords in these type of dances.

Simon Scott
Vancouver.
Ron Mackey

Ron Mackey

March 21, 2006, 12:09 a.m. (Message 44789, in reply to message 44768)

> May I first say how much I have enjoyed, both dancing and teaching, many
> of the newer dances in which the third and fourth couples begin on the
> opposite side of the set. I say "opposite" side rather than "wrong"
> side. 

	The very early Books use 'wrong' side.  No great need to get 
worked up about that.  It's quite useful to know that there is a, 
normally, 'right' side and a 'wrong' one.    

 The added variety, the altered progression and the mirror imaging
> are indeed a delight.  Many of them, of course, have been so cleverly
> written by our very accomplished and renowned John Drewry and I join you
> in thanking him for them, along with his many others. 

	Not only John Drewry but Derek Haynes, John Mitchell, Bill 
Forbes, and many others, not least one who is a regular contributer 
here.
Steve Wyrick

Steve Wyrick

March 20, 2006, 5:33 p.m. (Message 44769, in reply to message 44751)

On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 15:00:27 +0800
  "Audrey Emmett" <xxxxx@xxxxx.xxx.xx> wrote:
> My local Branch (Western Australia) is in the process of having a Cd 
>recorded to accompany a book of WA dances. Some of the dances are for four 
>couple sets,  with third and fourth couples starting the dance on opposite 
>sides. The issue of recording two chords for these dances has arisen. I would 
>very much appreciate the opinion of Strathspey subscribers as to whether they 
>are in favour of the inclusion of two chords, or not.  
> 
> We had heard from a UK visitor that RSCDS HQ was thinking of dropping the 
>recording of two chords, but the Cd for Book 43 disproved that rumour!
> 
> My thanks in anticipation...
> 

I'd vote for including 2 chords; regardless of various objections, it still 
seems to be standard practice to play them, and most dancers are used to them. 
 If anyone really objects to two chords they can simply copy the track and 
chop the first chord off; easily done with various computer audio editing 
programs. -Steve

--
Steve Wyrick - Concord, California
simon scott

simon scott

March 20, 2006, 6:23 p.m. (Message 44772, in reply to message 44769)

Steve wrote

I'd vote for including 2 chords; regardless of various objections, it
still 
seems to be standard practice to play them, and most dancers are used to
them. 

	It seems sad that we should either start or continue a "standard
practice" that distracts rather than enhances.

 If anyone really objects to two chords they can simply copy the track
and 
chop the first chord off; easily done with various computer audio
editing 
programs. -Steve

	Or, for the few dancers and musicians who wish, a duplicate
chord can be added.

	Can we hear from any strathspey musicians regarding their
comments on the matter.

Simon Vancouver
Steve Wyrick

Steve Wyrick

March 20, 2006, 6:52 p.m. (Message 44774, in reply to message 44772)

On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 09:23:18 -0800
  "simon scott" <xxxxx.xxxxx@xxxxx.xxx> wrote:

> 
> 	Or, for the few dancers and musicians who wish, a duplicate
> chord can be added.
> 
> 	Can we hear from any strathspey musicians regarding their
> comments on the matter.
> 
> Simon Vancouver

Yes, but it's somewhat easier to subtract than to add (BTW it can be done 
"non-destructively" in iTunes for those who run their classes from laptops), 
and in spite of your reasonable arguments for using only one chord, which I 
agree with, I suspect that your viewpoint is probably a minority one when the 
whole of the RSCDS (not just the correspondents on Strathspey) is considered! 
 At any rate, as a musician I have no problem with playing double chords when 
asked to.  However I try to play the 2 chords differently so it sounds more 
interesting and less like a mistake!
--
Steve Wyrick - Concord, California
Martin

Martin

March 21, 2006, 9:01 a.m. (Message 44797, in reply to message 44774)


	    
	  
Ozorak

Ozorak

March 20, 2006, 7:10 p.m. (Message 44775, in reply to message 44772)

It's like coffee or tea:
"Would you like one chord or two with your dance?"

or else:
"Two chords or not two chords, that is the question".

Etienne Ozorak
Meadville, PA  USA
Volleyballjerry

Volleyballjerry

March 20, 2006, 6:21 p.m. (Message 44771, in reply to message 44751)

Yes, this was discussed at some length not too long ago, but since I already 
see a mini-consensus buildling on this go-round, I'll add my vote to it with 
an analogy which perhaps makes sense.  When it is time to form sets for a 
square-formation dance, we don't form a (more common) longwise set, and then move 
into a square on a second chord.  So why not always form the set according to 
the needs for the outset of the actual dancing?  A number of factors go into 
the formation of the set...is it longwise or square, perhaps even a triangle, 
and how many couples per set?...so why not who's on which side as well?

Robb Quint
Thousand Oaks, CA, USA
simon scott

simon scott

March 20, 2006, 6:39 p.m. (Message 44773, in reply to message 44771)

Yes, this was discussed at some length not too long ago, but since I
already 
see a mini-consensus buildling on this go-round, I'll add my vote to it
with 
an analogy which perhaps makes sense.  When it is time to form sets for
a 
square-formation dance, we don't form a (more common) longwise set, and
then move 
into a square on a second chord.  So why not always form the set
according to 
the needs for the outset of the actual dancing?  A number of factors go
into 
the formation of the set...is it longwise or square, perhaps even a
triangle, 
and how many couples per set?...so why not who's on which side as well?

Robb Quint
Thousand Oaks, CA, USA


I agree ONE HUNDRED percent !

Simon
Vancouver
Phill Jones

Phill Jones

March 20, 2006, 8:39 p.m. (Message 44780, in reply to message 44751)

From a musical point of view it does not make the slightest bit of
difference when you are playing it.  However, when you are forming
longwise sets in a crowded dance hall you are always relying on the 'top
man' to count the sets for you.  How often do we see this counting go
wrong?  Maybe because the man is still getting his shoes on and the
counter misses that couple out, or maybe because the couple are not
stood in position and do not get counted because they are chatting with
the couple above or below them or even a couple in the set behind them.

So, assuming the dancers have waited until they are counted to change to
the opposite side they then have to change back before being recounted
and then back again after the recount has been confirmed as correct.
Or, do you wait until everyone is happy with the counting and change
then, but the music is just about to start so that becomes just as
rushed as changing on the second chord, which in itself only seems to
become rushed by the couples who are not paying attention to where they
are in the set or the dance they are about to share with the rest of the
set.

For my monies worth, leave two chords with the second chord used to
change to the opposite side where necessary and ask the dancers to give
the dance the attention it deserves!  This also means that the whole
room will move together, which makes everything so much nicer and neater
to watch.

Phew, I'll get off my soap box now :-)
e.ferguson

e.ferguson

March 20, 2006, 10:48 p.m. (Message 44786, in reply to message 44780)

You can just as well conclude the opposite.  If each 3C and 4C, as the 
lines form from the top, at once take their places on the opposite side, 
the sets will count and form themselves, and the counting can be skipped. 
It would certainly speed up the Ball !

I understand that in ECD, sets (3C or 4C as may be) are usually formed by 
linking hands, with no counting.  Seems more practical.  But this was 
already discussed a few years ago.

Happy dancing,

Eric
Ron Mackey

Ron Mackey

March 21, 2006, 12:09 a.m. (Message 44788, in reply to message 44780)

On 20 Mar 2006 at 19:39, Phill Jones wrote:

> 
> Phew, I'll get off my soap box now :-)
> 

	That ain't no soap box, Phill.   That would hardly be big 
enough for a pair os kippers!   Now if you want to see a soap box --- 
well, better not!! :))
Martin

Martin

March 21, 2006, 9:29 a.m. (Message 44799, in reply to message 44780)

The counting business is a bit reminiscent of primary school -- and as 
mentioned, not always well performed.
ECdancers and contra dancers manage pefectly well by forming "hands 4 (or 6, 
or 8) from the top" and crossing over when required withiut further fuss. 
Have SCDers become so used to quasi military regimentation that they are no 
longer capable of thinking for themselves?

There is a strange contradiction:
On one hand, so much insistence on fun, socializing, relaxation ...
On the other, "straighten up you lines", "clear the floor between dances", 
just stand up straight and do as you are told.

And is it not more important to find one's place on the dance floor quickly 
(impossible to do in any military manner, I think), than to appease the gods 
looking down from above by having every couple cross over simultaneously 
("tidily") on an ear-jarring chord?

Perhaps one day we shall look back on military precision the way we now look 
back on the days when the men all had to sweat the evening away in tight 
black jackets!

Down with the second chord !!!

Martin,
in Grenoble, France.
Ron Mackey

Ron Mackey

March 22, 2006, 1:21 a.m. (Message 44828, in reply to message 44799)

> Martin,
> in Grenoble, France. wrote

> > There is a strange contradiction:
> On one hand, so much insistence on fun, socializing, relaxation ...
> On the other, "straighten up you lines", "clear the floor between dances", 
> just stand up straight and do as you are told.
> 
	It seems from some postings that we must be tidy while we 
form up sets and count them.   !! ? ^^  Talk of militarisation ... !
> Down with the second chord !!

I think I'm firmly in favour of Crossing on the first and Bowing on the 
second chord as being more sensible and a neater start to the 
dance.  As for causing confusion - well it doesn't when something 
(even very minor) is changed in the manual.  It seems that everyone 
just snaps to attantion, salutes and it is done without fuss. 

Perhaps just a few grumbles but then ---  :))
Volleyballjerry

Volleyballjerry

March 20, 2006, 8:53 p.m. (Message 44782, in reply to message 44751)

Phill (or Phil L. or I.? ~ 'tis unsigned) makes a valid point, I must admit.

Robb

In a message dated 03/20/2006 11:44:07 AM Pacific Standard Time, 
xxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xx.xx writes:
Fran Smith

Fran Smith

March 20, 2006, 9:15 p.m. (Message 44783, in reply to message 44751)

The very point that occurred to me...
Fran Smith  (herefordshire)
	


> From:: "simon scott" <xxxxx.xxxxx@xxxxx.xxx>
> To: "'SCD news and discussion'" <xxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
> Subject: RE: Two chords - a question
> Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 09:39:32 -0800

> Yes, this was discussed at some length not too long ago, but since I
> already 
> see a mini-consensus buildling on this go-round, I'll add my vote to it
> with 
> an analogy which perhaps makes sense.  When it is time to form sets for
> a 
> square-formation dance, we don't form a (more common) longwise set, and
> then move 
> into a square on a second chord.  So why not always form the set
> according to 
> the needs for the outset of the actual dancing?  A number of factors go
> into 
> the formation of the set...is it longwise or square, perhaps even a
> triangle, 
> and how many couples per set?...so why not who's on which side as well?
> 
> Robb Quint
> Thousand Oaks, CA, USA
> 
> 
> I agree ONE HUNDRED percent !
> 
> Simon
> Vancouver

Lycos email has 300 Megabytes of free storage... Get it now at mail.lycos.co.uk
simon scott

simon scott

March 21, 2006, 4:46 a.m. (Message 44794, in reply to message 44751)

Yes, as mentioned, many people beside John Drewry have written these
opposite side beginning dances. I apologize that I should have mentioned
that I wrote the chord article, that I just posted, in the mid 1990s
when John had written a number of them.
Simon
Vancouver
mlamontbrown

mlamontbrown

March 21, 2006, 9:43 a.m. (Message 44800, in reply to message 44751)

Audrey wrote:

> My local Branch (Western Australia) is in the process of having a CD recorded to
accompany
> a book of WA dances. Some of the dances are for four couple sets, with third and
fourth
> couples starting the dance on opposite sides. The issue of recording two chords for
these
> dances has arisen. I would very much appreciate the opinion of Strathspey
subscribers as to
> whether they are in favour of the inclusion of two chords, or not.

One of the problems with two chords is to know when to start moving to cross over -
in theory the start of the chord is the signal to start crossing, but if dancers wait
until then, they usually aren't in position for the start of the dance - (assuming
the set is of a reasonable width).

I think this is because the gap between the chord and the leading note is not any
longer than the bands usually play, and is why I wish it had originally been decided
to the move on the first chord & acknowledge on the second.

I teach my dancers to start crossing as soon as the first chord has finished, but
this means they have to overcome a natural reluctance to stand still during silence.
I wonder if you could get the band to give a slightly longer gap between the second
chord and the leading note?

There are a few RSCDS dances where the first couple are the only ones that change
sides at the start of the dance Lady Mackintosh's Rant, The Menzies Rant, The Jimp
Waist, My Love She's But a Lassie Yet (when danced in a longwise set), and Polka
Country Dance.

Malcolm


Malcolm L Brown
York
SMiskoe

SMiskoe

March 29, 2006, 11:37 p.m. (Message 44900, in reply to message 44751)

If we are playing 2 chords we have to really mark up the music sheets so we  
can remember.  Then there is a discussion of how to musically play each  
chord.  Just the same, change the chord inversion, make the chord structure  
different?  And then we just go ahead an play the same chord twice, very  
uninteresting.
Sylvia Miskoe, Concord, NH USA

Previous Thread Next Thread