Thread Index

The RSCDS dance publication process (was: Tunes for "Hornpipes Suitable for Catch the Wind" on the "More Memories.....)

Anselm Lingnau

Anselm Lingnau

July 30, 2008, 12:35 p.m. (Message 53253)

Katharine Hoskyn wrote:

> I guess this raises the question in a situation like this - who is
> responsible for contacting the deviser - the Branch or Headquarters?  I
> think that in this situation Headquarters could have a reasonable
> expectation that the Branch had cleared the submission with the deviser.

At the end of the day this is probably a question of workflow. In my opinion 
there is a difference between »clearing a submission« (as in, »is it OK for 
us to publish this dance at all?«, which apparently NZ Branch did) and 
sorting out open questions before the publication goes to print (as in »there 
doesn't seem to be a tune suggestion here, what do we use, let's perhaps ask 
the author for some input«, which the music sub-committee ought to have done, 
IMHO).

Also, from my experience in publishing I would consider it a matter of course 
to have an author sign off on a galley proof before the work is actually 
published, just to make sure that everything is all right and no last-minute 
errors have crept in. For example, presumably the dance descriptions in Book 
45 have been »translated« into current standard terminology, and it would 
make sense in my opinion to run that translation by the original deviser to 
see whether everything still aligns with what they had in mind.

And Campbell Tyler replied:

> I could understand it if the RSCDS hierarchy were a paid group
> but they are just people who have volunteered to help keep our favourite
> past time on the road and they no doubt have other priorities and
> pressures. They are also fallible, as Jim was at pains to point out to me
> when I met him in Pitlochry in May.

Right. So where is the problem with saying, »well, we *may* have dropped the 
ball on this one« rather than »what we did was OK because we're free to do 
what we like«?

Anyway, the issue at hand is really not who did or didn't do what when 
concerning Catch The Wind, but how to avoid this type of misunderstanding in 
the future. My suggestion would be to institute a policy of close 
collaboration with dance authors when their dances are prepared for 
publication, such that

  - dance authors are made aware of decisions made on their behalf by
    Membership Services, such as which tune will be published with their
    dances, and their input sought and at least considered;

  - proofs of the relevant bits of a publication are made available to dance
    authors for comment for a set period of time;

  - it should be clarified that, in the case of »calls for dances« to branches
    etc., branches are responsible for making sure that dance authors agree
    that their dances may be published if they are selected (this is
    Katharine's »clearing« above), but that Membership Services is responsible
    for sorting out any open questions that arise during the publication
    process.

Also, the dance submission process should be streamlined to avoid ambiguity. 
For example, there could be a form to be submitted with a dance with an item 
like

      SUGGESTED TUNE (tick and complete as appropriate)

      ( )  __________________________________ (must not occur elsewhere in
                                               RSCDS publications)
      ( )  No preference; please pick one that is nice for this dance

This would relieve Membership Services from having to decide whether the 
absence of a music suggestion is because the author is tone-deaf, because the 
author doesn't care, or because the author's preference has, for some reason, 
become lost in space or time. The form would also ask for a telephone number 
and an e-mail address by which the author could be contacted (even authors 
who do not have their own e-mail are sure to know at least one person who 
could volunteer to act as a proxy).

When planning the time frame for a publication, Membership Services would have 
to take a »comment period« into account. Given e-mail, a week or two should 
be ample, and the schedule could be communicated to dance authors in advance 
so they could arrange for somebody to be available in their place in case 
they are on their big eight-week safari during that time.

Is this unrealistic? It might add a certain amount of paperwork but would, I 
think, send the signal that submitting a dance to the Society is not like 
throwing it into a worm-hole from which it may or may not re-emerge, in the 
shape of a sperm whale and a flower pot, in a completely different quadrant 
of the galaxy. Campbell is correct in pointing out that the folks in 
Membership Services are »just people who have volunteered to help keep our 
favourite past time on the road«, but the same surely applies to the people 
who make up new dances (among others). They're not getting paid, either, and 
so their time and effort should be accorded the same level of respect. The 
National Library of Modern Art isn't entitled to hang its Jackson Pollock 
paintings upside down as a matter of convenience because its curators are too 
overworked to figure out the right way up; anything of the sort would be 
regarded as a mistake.

At the end of the day this is a simple application of the Golden Rule -- if 
Membership Services want their work to be valued and respected by the SCD 
community at large, the first step to achieving this is to treat the SCD 
community at large with respect, and that includes dance authors. Consider 
this a small part of »a strategy to expand the existing global membership, 
develop member services and evolve the brand« :^)

Sorry for droning on about this for so long. But I guess if the Society 
big-wigs are willing to pay some random MBA £35K a year to figure these 
things out for them, they should be happy to get the stuff from me, for free. 
There's more where this came from :^)

Anselm
-- 
Anselm Lingnau, Friedberg, Germany ..................... xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx
The reward of a thing well done is to have done it.     -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
Rod Downey

Rod Downey

July 30, 2008, 1:13 p.m. (Message 53256, in reply to message 53253)

Hi all,


This is a very complex issue in many ways. To suggest that
the RSCDS does its thing and the devisor does their thing is rather 
disingenuous. Here the RSCDS is generic as a term
in reference to this topic. the same occurs with local branch
books, etc. When one 
submits a dance 
to another forum, especially some 
influential group of peers, it is not like
publishing for yourself. For yourself, you can write dances
suggest music and either people like them or they don't but it hardly
matters in the sense that almost all dances die of natural causes.

When you devise a dance and it is sent to some group which is seen
as infuential; first if the dance is accepted then you have a much greater
chance of this dance being danced often. Presumably people 
submitting hope their dances will
be danced and appreciated; they are your babies.
Second, if people don't love them then they are not liking your babies.
Third, you have a much greater 
chance of it being rejected, which is pretty demoralizing. Nobody likes
being said no to. So if you have the dance accepted and the group
choose music different than what you wish, then there is  a significant
dilemma. what should you do? These choices are difficult.
It is not an even power relationship unless you are very
determined.

I find them very hard and especially when sometimes particular music is
in mind when dances are written. Often what happens is that
you go with the flow and whereas locally the music you want is the one
that will be used, but elsewhere other tunes will be used.

Even when it comes down to some negotiation, it is like negotiating
with the bank; they have the money and you don't.


It was once said ``Why are academic arguments so passionate''
Answer ''Because the stakes are so low''

By they way, this does not reflect any activity I have had with the
RSCDS and I have no knowledge of them re this. But to suggest that
being ``annointed'' by the RSCDS has no influence on some dance being 
danced often is silly, and that as a consequence that group
should be very careful with making sure it is completely correct is
a corollary.


best

rod
Anselm Lingnau

Anselm Lingnau

July 30, 2008, 2:49 p.m. (Message 53257, in reply to message 53256)

Rod Downey wrote:

> Even when it comes down to some negotiation, it is like negotiating
> with the bank; they have the money and you don't.

Hm. One thing: You can always try to go to a different bank, but there is only 
one RSCDS.

Another thing: The bank can easily find something else to do with their money. 
However, if the RSCDS makes a habit out of doing things that are unpopular 
with its members, it will, in the long run, cease to exist. This may, for a 
time, make life more difficult for the SCD community in various respects but 
it will not be fatal to SCD as such -- other people or organisations will 
step up (or be established) to fill the gap.

I'm not suggesting at all that the Catch The Wind issue is something that 
enough members would care about enough to make them leave (which would, I 
think, be ridiculous). Even so, it is worth keeping in mind that it is 
symptomatic for the larger issues the Society must face in the coming years, 
one of which is to transcend the »we/they« dichotomy that shines even through 
Rod's comment I quoted above.

We -- the Society -- must make it abundantly clear that there is no »ivory 
tower« where matters are, as a matter of course, decided »without reference 
to anyone«. We must make it abundantly clear that the Society is there *for* 
the SCD community, starting at the Coates Crescent conference table and 
extending all the way to (if the need should arise) a set of penguins on the 
Antarctic shelf ice. We must make this clear to our members (»develop member 
services«) as well to the dancing community at large (»expand the existing 
global membership«). We can only thrive as a Society if we draw on the 
collective talents of our members (be they dance teachers, artists, 
accountants, journalists, or whatever), and we can only do this if these 
members will freely give their talents and time secure in the knowledge that 
these gifts will be appreciated. This does not mean that we must accept 
everything unconditionally, but that we will, in the spirit of doing good for 
SCD as a whole, contrive to find ways of letting those who wish to contribute 
actually contribute, and encourage others to do the same.

I hate to come back to this but I happen to think that getting the members 
(ex-members, future members) behind the Society is the Big Thing, and that 
this must proceed at a grassroots level. The perception problems that the 
Society has are not going to be fixed by hiring a single person to work out 
of Coates Crescent. The Society -- and that most emphatically means 
*everyone*, not just the office bearers and MB -- must be seen to go out and 
do things where the dancing is, not waste another decade in committees 
discussing strategy papers on glossy stock that emanate from an Edinburgh 
office. I happen to think that Bob McArthur has it exactly right -- take 
those 35.000 pounds Sterling per year and use them to fund an increased RSCDS 
presence in places where dancing takes place. Expand the »missionary visit« 
program to fledgling groups all over the world. Hold workshops at regional 
folk dance festivals. Show people what SCD (and the Society) is all about. 
Give a hand to groups who are starting out in remote places. Encourage 
branches to »adopt« a group like Bob's in Poland and further international 
cooperation that way. Do more for new musicians. Get projects together to put 
the RSCDS repertoire of dance descriptions, sheet music, and recordings 
on-line, so Bob's new Polish group and 1.000 more around the world do not 
have to rely on other people's cast-offs, surplus media, or bootleg copies. 
These are just a few ideas off the top of my head. This is not rocket 
science, and not something you need to hire a full-time consultant to tell 
you. Can it really be *that* difficult?

Anyway, I need to get some honest work done for a change. Perhaps I'm the only 
person to get that worked up about this, in which case I apologise for taking 
up your time. But this soap-box must be good for something every so often :^)

Anselm
-- 
Anselm Lingnau, Friedberg, Germany ..................... xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx
[A computer is] like an Old Testament god, with a lot of rules and no mercy.
                                                            -- Joseph Campbell
campbell

campbell

July 30, 2008, 3:01 p.m. (Message 53258, in reply to message 53257)

I do hope you are applying for the job Anselm!!

You have the ideas, energy, passion, vision etc that the position needs.
More so than most other applicants are likely to have.

In addition you have the great bonus that you will want to make the position
redundant as soon as possible so we wont be stuck with someone creating a
pension for themselves.

What's in it for you?  When you return to your current position you wont
have to write these sorts of emails anymore.  Go on, go for it.

Campbell
Pia Walker

Pia Walker

July 30, 2008, 7:17 p.m. (Message 53270, in reply to message 53257)

So you will be standing for Management Board this year?

Pia
Monica Pollard

Monica Pollard

July 31, 2008, 1:32 a.m. (Message 53279, in reply to message 53270)

Anselm Lingnau said:
> We -- the Society -- must make it abundantly clear that there is no
»ivory tower« where matters are, as a matter of course, decided
»without reference to anyone«....
> ....getting the members (ex-members, future members) behind the
Society is the Big Thing, and that this must proceed at a grassroots
level. The perception problems that the Society has are not going to
be fixed by hiring a single person to work out of Coates Crescent...
> ...The Society -- and that most emphatically means *everyone*, not
just the office bearers and MB -- must be seen to go out and do things
where the dancing is, not waste another decade in committees
discussing strategy papers on glossy stock that emanate from an
Edinburgh office.

Pia and Campbell both ask Anselm (essentially) :
> So you will be standing for Management Board this year?

Why ask Anselm?  Aren't most of us the "Members"?  What are each of
*us* going to do about helping the RSCDS become more responsive to our
needs?

My first step will be a renewed effort to talk about the Society in
class more often, and encourage my dancers to join.  We don't usually
talk about the RSCDS much in class or at events, because it's
difficult to show people here exactly what it is they're getting for
their money.

However, with the support of our group, I hope to attend TAC Summer
School in 2010 to take Unit 5.  Hopefully ;) our dancers will be
getting a better teacher out of that effort.  It's an ideal
opportunity to remind them that this training exists because of the
work of the RSCDS.

I've not been a wildly enthusiastic supporter of the RSCDS in the
past, for various reasons.  But if the Society did make more
'missionary effort' to become visible in isolated areas, and more
supportive of small groups like ours, it would gain much goodwill.

Monica Pollard
Nampa, ID




-- 
"If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to be a
horrible warning."
Catherine Aird
Pia Walker

Pia Walker

July 31, 2008, 10:06 a.m. (Message 53282, in reply to message 53279)

thank you - it would help if people knew about the RSCDS and its work.
Without the myths that are plentyful out there.  And you are absolutely
right - the RSCDS is its members - if we don't do anything, nobody does.  It
it up to Us not Them (of which I am one)to make RSCDS an even better entity.

Re missionary efforts - (I personally hate that word) - we are not here to
preach, so outreach would be better I think.  And there are quite af few of
Us who are spending a great deal of our time to get these areas involved -
WHEN we get to know about them.

I am now personally going to speak as one of US who have been one of THEM
for a couple of years :>)  ie it is my personal opinion :>)

It is also a matter of priority - if we have to spend several hours
researching why a dance 10 years or more ago did not or did have a preferred
tune, and why that tune was or wasn't used in order to pacify several RSCDS
members, then there are less time to deal with researching where there are
'isolated' dance groups who could do with a helping hand. Not that it isn't
important to the people who devised the dances etc., of course it is - as
someone said it is their baby, but it was a wee while ago.

It is a fine balance of servicing the members, listening to all the ideas,
suggestions, critique, grievances etc that are now, due to the change in the
communication environment and the change in how the Society is run, coming
to the fore and also 'opening up new markets' when you are only a handful of
people trying to do everything, for everyone.

I would also like to ask how many of the oft heard grievances are
historical? but perpeturated ad infinitum?  And how many are recent?  Not
that there are no mistakes or errors now, of course there is.

Things are changing for the 'better' - Communication still needs worked on,
but it is getting there albeit slowly.  Perhaps someone who is paid to have
an overall view can help making everyone feel a little bit better, and make
the RSCDS a little more exciting for old and new potential members.

Pia
Member of the Anselm for President campaign :>)




Why ask Anselm?  Aren't most of us the "Members"?  What are each of
*us* going to do about helping the RSCDS become more responsive to our
needs?

My first step will be a renewed effort to talk about the Society in
class more often, and encourage my dancers to join.  We don't usually
talk about the RSCDS much in class or at events, because it's
difficult to show people here exactly what it is they're getting for
their money.

However, with the support of our group, I hope to attend TAC Summer
School in 2010 to take Unit 5.  Hopefully ;) our dancers will be
getting a better teacher out of that effort.  It's an ideal
opportunity to remind them that this training exists because of the
work of the RSCDS.

I've not been a wildly enthusiastic supporter of the RSCDS in the
past, for various reasons.  But if the Society did make more
'missionary effort' to become visible in isolated areas, and more
supportive of small groups like ours, it would gain much goodwill.

Monica Pollard
Nampa, ID




--
"If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to be a
horrible warning."
Catherine Aird


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.7/1581 - Release Date: 30/07/2008
06:56
alan mair

alan mair

July 31, 2008, 4:18 p.m. (Message 53283, in reply to message 53282)

> It is also a matter of priority - if we have to spend several hours
> researching why a dance 10 years or more ago did not or did have a 
> preferred
> tune, and why that tune was or wasn't used in order to pacify several 
> RSCDS
> members, then there are less time to deal with researching where there are
> 'isolated' dance groups who could do with a helping hand. Not that it 
> isn't
> important to the people who devised the dances etc., of course it is - as
> someone said it is their baby, but it was a wee while ago.

I can see no conflict whatsoever between doing what needs to be done to 
support branches in the quest to recruit and retain members (surely the main 
priority) and taking time in the publication process to show appropriate 
respect to the devisors of dances. We should be expecting Pia, as a member 
of the Management Board, to be saying "I will find out what did go wrong in 
this case and make sure it is dealt with, lessons learned etc".

> It is a fine balance of servicing the members, listening to all the ideas,
> suggestions, critique, grievances etc that are now, due to the change in 
> the
> communication environment and the change in how the Society is run, coming
> to the fore and also 'opening up new markets' when you are only a handful 
> of
> people trying to do everything, for everyone.
Perhaps some new people are hearing all the ideas, suggestions, critiques, 
grievances etc but it was to deal better with them that the management 
structure was changed in the first place.(Previously only the Chairman and 
Vice Chairman saw the whole picture). If there are only a "handful of people 
trying to do everything", why is the Management Board being reduced in 
number?

> I would also like to ask how many of the oft heard grievances are
> historical? but perpeturated ad infinitum?  And how many are recent?  Not
> that there are no mistakes or errors now, of course there is.
That is easy - the grievance will be as old as the problem. The role of the 
Management Board is to solve the problems - not cause them.

> Things are changing for the 'better' - Communication still needs worked 
> on,
> but it is getting there albeit slowly.  Perhaps someone who is paid to 
> have
> an overall view can help making everyone feel a little bit better, and 
> make
> the RSCDS a little more exciting for old and new potential members.
The Management Board are elected to have an overall view and to make the 
decisions that will influence how everyone feels and how exciting the 
Society is. I'm with  Anselm on this one!! We need better than "perhaps" 
from a member of the Management Board to justify spending 35K+ on an annual 
basis.

Alan
Cupar, Fife
Bob McArthur

Bob McArthur

July 31, 2008, 4:50 p.m. (Message 53285, in reply to message 53283)

May I apologies to all for "kicking off" this debate about the
Executive Post for development of SCD Worldwide, my comments a few
weeks ago about what was the main priority - a) filling another
position or b) funding the travel of volunteer teachers reaching out
to the new small groups needing help wherever they are located.
 
Pia recognised the need to offer help and did so immediately and so
did Fiona Grant who also attended Festival Dybuk in Poland two weeks
ago along with Luke and Adam Brady - I could not have asked for a
better team to promote SCD and the RSCDS in particular.
 
All that would not have happened without Anselm's Strathpey Server
which has been fantastic for getting the word out into the SCD
community.
 
It will take time to change or improve things in our dance world but
the challenge is there to be met and if an executive post is necessary
to bring it all together then so be it, but please get the cost issue
correct as salary alone is not the end of the process of
accountability for the service muted.
 
Regarding Poland we now have 3 established groups participating in the
workshops with the possibility of more joining in at the Bedzin
Festival in 28 days time.  They are all relatively unknown in SCD
circles and that is something we are addressing as a priority by
encouraging them to join or affilliate as soon as possible and also to
publicise their group details wherever possible. It will take time and
goodwill from all the SCD community but I hope that by next year the
Poland scene will have developed into a country wide experience of SCD
for them to enjoy
 
Regards
 
Bob McArthur
Scosha Group
Bournemouth, UK
Pia Walker

Pia Walker

July 31, 2008, 6:09 p.m. (Message 53286, in reply to message 53283)

Miauuwwwwwww!!!!!   And she normally does try and find out what goes wrong -
when asked :>)  I have a sneaking suspicion that checks and balances were
not present at that point in time.  Working methods that was accepted
standard then have changed, and will continue to change to the better.

Which brings me on to the next bit - when you suddenly start operating with
a set of procedures, the first thing that is visible is the black holes that
the lack of same previously caused.  It is not that long ago, that a lot of
things was done manually and in hard copy only, with no e-mail/IT, but with
letters and memos etc. This is changing (slowly) and with that change comes
an ability to see what was lacking - it also makes communication faster and
easier (and more plentyful), so hopefully it will be easier to double check
that things are right in the first place.

For a long time now, I have been hearing: - RSCDS needs to change - we need
to go forward - we need to modernise - get into the 20th Century etc.  :>) A
sniggering in the corners when hearing "In my day..."
So why are we getting het up about something which happened 10 years ago?
Why can't we look forward?  Try and get it right now?  And to do that we
need all to work together.

I like the RSCDS, I like to dance, I have tried to do my little bit to
ensure that I can for a while longer.  I know I have not been able to turn
the world on its end and come up with THE SOLUTION, but I do hope that in
the 2 years I have been in the MB, I have done something to help progress.
And I will continue to support and defend the RSCDS despite its faults,
because there are also many good things going right.

I now want to eat, then go dancing :>)
See you there Alan.

Pia
Anselm Lingnau

Anselm Lingnau

July 31, 2008, 4:42 p.m. (Message 53284, in reply to message 53282)

Pia wrote:

> It is a fine balance of servicing the members, listening to all the ideas,
> suggestions, critique, grievances etc that are now, due to the change in
> the communication environment and the change in how the Society is run,
> coming to the fore and also 'opening up new markets' when you are only a
> handful of people trying to do everything, for everyone.

I meant to reply to this but then suddenly found myself having written 
possibly the longest piece I ever came up with in the history of this list, 
with not enough time to edit it down to something palatable.

Rather than bore the list subscribers with yet another ten-page diatribe on 
Society governance and project sketches I decided to put it up on the Web 
where those people who are *really* interested in this sort of thing can find 
it. Look at

  http://my.strathspey.org/anselm/stories/reply-to-pia

if you have nothing more worthwhile to do with yourselves. If you have 
comments you know where to find me :^)

Anselm
-- 
Anselm Lingnau, Friedberg, Germany ..................... xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx
Technical skill is mastery of complexity, while creativity is mastery of
simplicity.                                           -- E. Christopher Zeeman
Pia Walker

Pia Walker

July 31, 2008, 6:26 p.m. (Message 53288, in reply to message 53284)

Would you like me to send your ideas into RSCDS or would you like to do it
yourself :>)

And I apologize wholeheartedly for my 'perhaps' comment - It was a very
superficial comment I agree.

Pia
campbell

campbell

July 31, 2008, 8:53 p.m. (Message 53290, in reply to message 53288)

Pia, I don't think you have to apologise for your "perhaps" comment - for me
it was obviously your attempt to gently lead the conversation, rather than
come out with a bald statement.  IT certainly did not for me indicate any
lack of commitment or surety.  But when the blood is up communication
suffers.

A somewhat disillusioned....

Campbell
Cape Town
Pia Walker

Pia Walker

July 31, 2008, 11:48 p.m. (Message 53292, in reply to message 53290)

Thank you

Pia
campbell

campbell

July 31, 2008, 8:47 p.m. (Message 53289, in reply to message 53284)

Anselm,

You really must turn off your random quote generator.  The one at the end of
your website piece is priceless.

Campbell
Cape Town
Andrew Smith

Andrew Smith

Aug. 8, 2008, 9:20 a.m. (Message 53343, in reply to message 53253)

It may be of interest, and I apologise for coming to this late, but have 
been at St Andrews for the RSCDS Summer School, with additional holiday 
before and after. [Incidentally the classes were differently organised this 
year and I regard it as a significant improvement.]

I was consulted by the Society about both the tune and content details for 
"Alan J Smith", when it was submitted by Bristol Branch for consideration 
for inclusion in Book 45. The Branch naturally informed me that it was their 
choice.

May I add that the suggestion was made in class at St Andrews, in the year 
of publication, by our teacher , Christine Mair,  that the dancing couple 
give nearer hands briefly as they come round together from turning the third 
couple and before they go in to the double triangles formation.
I am thoroughly in favour of this and, as I said at the time, wish that I 
had thought of it for myself.

Andrew Smith,
Bristol, UK.

Previous Thread Next Thread