Thread
Index
Left shoulder petronella
Herbold.Bruce
Jan. 7, 2004, 6:46 p.m. (Message 37469)
Pat, I seem to have been unclear about the issue I was raising, which was not the entry into the setting in lines but rather the movement from setting in lines across into setting in lines on one's own side of the dance. This is usually presented as a left-shoulder-back-petronella on bars 3&4 which necessitates traveling to the left pulling left shoulder back while moving onto one's right foot. If one delays' the petronella until bars 4&5 one's feet and shoulders can move together -- a situation much to be commended in my mind. However, it has it's own phrasing weirdness and so I asked if people outside my small universe had been doing it that way. In regards to the topic you responded to (albeit not the one I raised), I see no reason to assume that the figures were so solidly defined that odd endings to get into the next formation were not used -- we certainly do similar things in Waverley and The Express and nobody stumbles. In particular in the dances under consideration it seems to me that using the first two bars to travel into lines across and then coming back to one's own side on 5&6 would make me feel like a yo-yo. In ECD it seems like no two pousettes are ever the same so it seems likely that variations can be tolerated within the modern SCD idiom and were a part of its history. Happy Dancing (but not necessarily with those dances) Bruce Herbold SF Branch Pat Rugierro wrote: "Quite possibly the way Wilson described. Quoting from my own post of 8/14/03: "Wilson points out that they use the first two bars to move into lines and then set once. Repeat for new lines. The supporting couples set for all 8 bars." This interpretation eliminates the need to distort the ending of the poussette and the allemande in the three dances you mention. Pat Charlottesville, Virginia USA"
Bruce, You raise interesting points which I will try to address, and I'll try to clarify some of my own unclear remarks. > I seem to have been unclear about the issue I was raising, > which was not the entry into the setting in lines but rather > the movement from setting in lines across into setting in > lines on one's own side of the dance. No, you weren't unclear; it happens, though, that if we follow Wilson's instructions for this symmetrical figure, the *entry* into the first setting lines is affected. For a typical example, let's say that the first figure of the dance ends with the 1s in second place on their own side, and that the second figure is going to be those 8 bars of setting twice in lines. You see that the 1s *don't* begin the second figure in lines; rather they dance into the lines on the first two bars, set in lines for two bars, *then dance into the next lines* and set for the remaining two bars. What steps Wilson used for *dancing* into lines is not clear to me right now; I'm searching my memory and I *think* it was a skip-change type of step rather than a PdB. > This is usually > presented as a left-shoulder-back-petronella on bars 3&4 > which necessitates traveling to the left pulling left > shoulder back while moving onto one's right foot. If one > delays' the petronella until bars 4&5 one's feet and > shoulders can move together -- a situation much to be > commended in my mind. However, it has it's own phrasing > weirdness and so I asked if people outside my small universe > had been doing it that way. Yes, and it's the "weirdness" of it that strongly suggests that there was an easier, more natural, and more intuitive way of doing it in those dances of the early 19th c. I realize you're asking what folks do *now* and not what the 19th c. folks did, but I think it's important to understand that a lot of what we do now has evolved from our working within RSCDS *reconstructions* of the historical and traditional dances and that these reconstructions can have, even with the best of intentions, arbitrary and ambiguous elements to them. In other words, when we try to extend the interpretation of a curious figure, we can get ourselves even more tangled up because the original interpretation itself was flawed. > I see no reason to assume that the figures were so > solidly defined that odd endings to get into the next > formation were not used Hmmm, I'm not certain I'd agree with you there. Most of the dances in the Wilson era that I've looked at are strikingly straightforward, but I could easily be corrected by more knowledgeable researchers in this matter. > -- we certainly do similar things in > Waverley and The Express and nobody stumbles. Ah, but these dances also have been reconstructed in accordance with RSCDS conventions. Keep in mind that "allemande" meant various things in the 18th and 19th centuries, but none of them seems to be the version we do today; as well the 8-bar progressive poussette is a modern interpretation of the historical figure. > In particular > in the dances under consideration it seems to me that using > the first two bars to travel into lines across and then > coming back to one's own side on 5&6 would make me feel like > a yo-yo. Agreed. In the historical version of Monymusk this doesn't happen because the instructions call for the 1s to end the 8-bar figure on opposite sides. In the dances under consideration here, you're right that dancing to one's right, setting in lines across, and then dancing to one's left to end back at the setlines on own side in second place, is *probably* a silly sequence. I say *probably* because we should never presume that our tastes are exactly the same as that of the historical dancers. There's more to consider, though. Remember that all we see in the RSCDS books are reconstructions; the original dances could look *much* different from the official instructions. For a speculative example, in Lady Baird's Reel, it's quite possible that the 1s did end the 8-bar figure in second place on opposite sides, given that the figure that follows, the Double Triangle, is not the figure that Wilson describes for the early 19th c. > In ECD it seems like no two pousettes are ever the > same .... Well, now, methinks you exaggerate! Nowadays there are only two: the half-poussette (progressive) and the full poussette (non-progressive); the one-and-a-half poussette was replaced by the "dance around" in modern "ballroom hold." Of course, if you are thinking of the endless uncertainty as to whether the poussette moves clockwise or counter-clockwise, you would more nearly be approaching the truth. Off the top of my head, I can't think of an historical or a traditional English dance that requires modifying the ending of the poussette to leave the dancers in formation for another figure, but I have no doubt someone will supply examples as soon as I post this..... > Happy Dancing (but not necessarily with those dances) I'm intrigued enough to try to track them down in Wilson. Pat
Hi, Once this movement was related to movements in ECD it occurred to me that possibly the difficulty contained in this figure only arose when RSCDS 'invented' the P-de-B? It does only occur in the older dances, doesn't it? I'm no dance scholar, my interest being solely with SCD, but it seems to me that if you were to try the figure on the front foot as is done in the Army - county style dancing the problem is minimised because travelling and setting is virtually the same movement. It means travelling forward and to the left in a curve without having to pivot about on the setting foot. Once you bring the weight back over the setting foot you lose most of your manoeuvreability and increase the awkwardness of the movement. The other solution is to do these dances in Strathspey time where the problem doesn't exist? :)
Ron, you raise a most useful point -- not the part about the ECD connection but about the Army - county dancing style.... > ....but it seems to me that if you were to try the figure on the front foot as is done in the Army - > county style dancing the problem is minimised because travelling and > setting is virtually the same movement. It means travelling > forward and to the left in a curve without having to pivot about on the > setting foot. 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. Compare sources in the RSCDS books, the 18th c. book (Jack McConachie), and the Border Dance Book (Elizabeth Maclachlan). In the Border Book, if a source is given at all, it is given as "collected in --" or "as danced in --" (In this regard, the attribution for Langshaw Lassies is especially poignant: "The original name of this dance was forgotten by the old Shepherd from whom it was collected.) The dances could have an older pedigree, having appeared in some early to mid-19th printed dance book; the point is, though, that the versions we are using now are those done by real people, the way they liked to do them or remember doing them. (How one wishes Ms. Maclachlan had been more forthcoming with background information!) The 18th c. Book, on the other hand, says that the dances were derived from a 1740 manuscript. Had these dances been lost in the dustbin of history until Mr. McConachie revived them, or were they still being done in some version right up to the current day? For that we'd have to ask the folklorists to see if there are more recent versions of any of these dances. The point is, however, that the version we are using of, for example, Arthur's Seat, is known only from the written record. Note, too, that Mr. McConachie offers us his reconstructions, without providing the original instructions, so we have no way of knowing how much he changed them "to conform with modern presentation" (his words, on the title page). 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
Pat, Thanks for a very stimulating conversation (not to suggest it is over yet). You are right to note that my interest is in how folks do these dances now, if at all. And that question rests upon both what might have been done historically a la Wilson, historically a la Milligan, and currently among the profusion of variants that the RSCDS attempts to keep corralled within an 'accepted practice.' If slight alterations could restore these traditional dances into our RSCDS repertoire I would be a happier dancer, teacher and party programming afficionado. Alternatively, or additionally, consideration of these issues might lead to some good new dances -- Tim Wilson in my SF class meditated upon Wilson's description of double triangles and wrote a quite nice dance that is true to the history but not to the RSCDS figure. Having suggested one interpretation, your response prompts me to bounce another off of you (and all the rest of the server, too, I guess). A while ago there was debate in the SF Branch about Arthur's Seat wherein the directions say to turn by the right at the end of Hello&Goodbye setting. All finally agreed that the intent of the words was a right shoulder petronella. However, as you point out, these three dances under discussion all have the setting in lines figure preceded by an Allemande or Pousette and that the RSCDS solution of twisting the end of the figure of progression is not in keeping with what you report from Wilson. When you find the original would you see if Wilson could be read to be a turn by the right HAND on bars 1&2 and a turn by the left HAND on bars 5&6? That would be a much less "weird" solution and is quite a bit like the characteristic figure in Rosnor Abbey. Even if it is not Wilson's meaning I think it might be the most dancable version. Your thoughts? Bruce SF Branch While you are looking up the originals of Dumbarton's Drums etc.
Hello again, Bruce, and all, > If slight alterations could restore these traditional dances > into our RSCDS repertoire I would be a happier dancer, > teacher and party programming afficionado. If I find the original instructions and IF I can create what I consider faithful reconstructions, I'll present them here for comment. Much, but not all, of Wilson's material is available at the LOC website; I don't know about Button and Whitaker. (By the way, in keeping with the distinction I made in a previous post, Lady Baird's Reel, Woo'd and Married And A', and Dumbarton Drums are *historical* dances, their sources being from Wilson. Waverley and The Express also are *historical* dances, from Button and Whitaker, 1812 and 1813.) > Alternatively, or > additionally, consideration of these issues might lead to > some good new dances -- Tim Wilson in my SF class meditated > upon Wilson's description of double triangles and wrote a > quite nice dance that is true to the history but not to the > RSCDS figure. I had the great pleasure of dancing this at Ramblewood this past September. Marjorie McLaughlin, who earlier on this List had told us about Wilson's double triangle figure, taught us Tim's delightful dance. (I wrote it down but lost my notes!) > .... your response prompts me to bounce > another off of you (and all the rest of the server, too, I > guess). A while ago there was debate in the SF Branch about Arthur's > Seat ..... This could be difficult for an amateur like me who doesn't have access to many original sources. Arthur's Seat, in McConachie's 18th c. Book, comes from a 1740 manuscript in the Bodleian Library. There are various things we need to know about the original dance and about figures from that period: 1) is the last figure, bars 25-32, set to corners and partner with final turn? 2) if it is, how was that figure executed in 1740? 3) is the 1740 figure the same as Wilson's early 19th c. figure? Interesting, isn't it, how "turn by the right" can have different interpretations? Well, if I find anything useful, or even merely provocative, I'll let you know. Pat