strathspey@strathspey.org:37483

Patricia Ruggiero

RE: Left shoulder petronella: historical vs traditional dances

Jan. 9, 2004, 4:02 a.m. (Message 37483, in reply to message 37480)

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