Thread
Index
Left shoulder petronella: historical vs traditional dances
Rosemary Coupe
Jan. 9, 2004, 1:38 a.m. (Message 37480)
Yes, Pat, I'm here! I absolutely agree with your distinction between "historical" and "traditional" dances. Two quick comments about these terms as they apply to dancing in Scotland: Many of the "historical" dances may have been quite ephemeral as their publication was tied to passing fashion--they were the "top 20" dances of 1790, 1791, etc. The title of the 1740 MS you mention (McConachie's source) makes this clear: "A Collection of the newest Countrey Dances Perform'd in Scotland, Written at Edinburgh by Da. Young, W.M. 1740." We're far from the timeless world of the traditional ballad! In Scotland the notion of "traditional" dances is complicated by the authority and influence of the dancing masters in the rural as well as urban regions. What they taught would strongly influence the repertoire of dances in a particular area. For example, the 1805/06 MS from Blantyre Farm seems to be at the opposite pole from David Young's MS. The writer makes no claim to represent the "newest" or "most favourite" dances. He does not give his credentials as W.M. for Writing Master or produce an elegant, lovingly embellished MS including music as well as dance instructions. Instead, he uses everyday cursive handwriting, gives no details of the music, and does not worry about standard spelling. However, he does provide an authority: these are dances "according to Mr. William Seymour from Kilbride, which he teached at Blantyre farm, above date." The dances seem to cover a wide range. At the "traditional" end is "The Bounky," a version of "The Bumpkin," a dance which seems to have been stable throughout Scotland. At the "historical" or "fashionable" end is the "French Cotillion" which Burns in "Tam o' Shanter" regards as a novelty. So did the visiting dancing master try to bring a little elegance to Blantyre Farm! This is also, incidentally, the MS in which "The Duke of Perth" first appears, in a style associated with the countryside rather than the assembly room, in those famous opening words "hook your partner." This seems to be the linked-arm turn which has survived as the "traditional" way of dancing the D of P. So (I think) the distinction between "historical" and "traditional" is very useful, but it's often hard to draw a definite line between them. Rosemary Coupe Vancouver Original Message ----- From: "Patricia Ruggiero" <xxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> To: <xxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx> Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 6:40 PM Subject: RE: Left shoulder petronella I'm going to digress and say something about the difference between the terms "historical" and "traditional." This is based on discussions in workshops at Pinewoods English weeks and may not reflect the thinking of professional dance scholars and researchers or even of other amateur country dance historians (among whom I count myself, with emphasis on the word "amateur"); nevertheless, I find it a helpful distinction and offer it here in that spirit. "Historical" refers to those dances known only from the written record. "Traditional" refers to the living expression of the dances; that is, when Sharp and Miss Milligan and other collectors of folk dance and song were going about, these are the dances that people were doing, or they remembered doing, or their parents, grandparents remembered doing -- in other words, dances within the living memory of a group of people, and not necessarily written down. Traditional dances, and traditional ways of dancing, did not stop just because some folklorist wrote them down. People continued doing their dances, and the dances and dancing styles evolved over time, right up to the present. . . . The RSCDS books derive from both traditional and historical sources. Now to return to Ron's observation -- Wilson put forth his "complete system"; to what extent it was actually followed we will probably never know. Even if dancers in the early 19th c. did scrupulously attend to his directions, as the years passed and country dancing became less the dancing of the formal ballrooms taught by dancing masters and more the provenance of villagers and other rural people, later dancers adapted the footwork and modified the dances to suit themselves. Thus was born "regional variation" in dance style and content, and these are the traditional dances of some village, some county, some group of people (the Army). Knowing less about traditional dances and dancing than about historical dances, I'm hoping someone with more solid information will corroborate or refute what I've said in this last paragraph (Rosemary and Marjorie, are you there? I know you are!) Pat
Rosemary wrote: > I absolutely agree with your distinction between "historical" > and "traditional" dances. Thanks! I wasn't certain whether this was a widespread distinction or one developed for our convenience at those Pinewoods workshops. > Two quick comments about these > terms as they apply to dancing in Scotland: > Many of the "historical" dances may have been quite ephemeral > as their publication was tied to passing fashion--they were > the "top 20" dances of 1790, 1791, etc. I believe that would be true for England, and even "the Colonies," as many publications state that they contain "24 new dances for the year ____." I have heard numerous dance historians wince, shriek, or otherwise express outrage at period movies (the Jane Austen ones come most readily to mind) wherein the director has these 1805 folks still dancing (for example) Grimstock, a 1651 dance, or something from Walsh 1720. > In Scotland the notion of "traditional" dances is complicated > by the authority and influence of the dancing masters in the > rural as well as urban regions. What they taught would > strongly influence the repertoire of dances in a particular > area.....So (I think) the distinction between "historical" and "traditional" is very useful, > but it's often hard to draw a definite line between them. I knew the situation couldn't be perfectly black and white. Your explication of the grey area between the two concepts greatly expands my understanding of the dynamics involved in dance evolution. Meanwhile, I am slogging through Wilson at the LoC website, trying to find an explanation of "set to corners and partner." Do you know if Wilson addresses this figure and, if so, on what page -- the 1811 book seems to have neither a table of contents nor an index.... Pat
Since the majority of present "traditional" dances cames from books such as those described. In the majority of cases, we can never know if they were ever danced in any time and place. So a book comes out called "24 Fav C D for the year [n]". when the Society publishes it we are going only on the printed notes as proof of its existance. In the same way, when Miss M used to introduce the new book at St Andrews, some dances were an instant hit, and others were seldom, if ever danced anywhere. We, in our time, have our own preferences which make a dance popular. But because of a different environment many historical figures and styles are considered boring today.