Thread
Index
Attributing Formations (was: Tandem Reels)
e.ferguson
July 10, 2011, 3:26 p.m. (Message 61088)
Hello Rod, On 9 Jul 2011 at 11:00, Rod Downey wrote: > <big snip> It is unfortunate that because of the penetration of > the RSCDS books compared to privately published ones formations > often become attributed to the first RSCDS source rather than the > original place someone published. Witness inverted double triangles > which many think occurred in The Nurseryman whereas they can be > found much earlier in Garry Morris' Jig by Alec Hay who also gave > us Set and Link. (On the other hand, these are not scientific > papers and we don't need a literature review at the beginning of > each dance description! But henceforth I have decided that, if I > write a dance "borrowing'' a formation, or at least being inspired > by one, I will attribute this fact.) > > Lately we have been doing archaeological digs into many of the > earlier devisors' books, particularly Hay, Foss, Priddy, Cosh, Boyd > and have found many ``recent'' ideas. You will surely be writing your discoveries up some day (hopefully making them accessible on-line), but how will this be brought to peoples' attention? May I suggest that for each "discovery" made in your "archaeological digs", you add a comment to each of the relevant dances in DanceData? For example, for "Inverted Double Triangles" both "The Nurseryman" and "Garry Morris' Jig" should carry a comment stating the facts, and a reference to your publication Looking forward to your results, Eric -- Eric T. Ferguson, van Reenenweg 3, 3702 SB ZEIST Netherlands tel: +31 30-2673638
Hi Eric, you said: > > May I suggest that for each "discovery" made in your "archaeological > digs", you add a comment to each of the relevant dances in DanceData? > For example, for "Inverted Double Triangles" both "The Nurseryman" > and "Garry Morris' Jig" should carry a comment stating the facts, and > a reference to your publication > to which I reply ``whoa''. This would need to be a mission (if desired) of the community, not by any individual. There are just so many dances. Anyway, my point was that it is nice to try to give credit when it is due, as devisors. It is intersting to wonder who did what when, and more importantly, were they influenced by others. This is always fraught with danger anyway, being as who did what when etc. I recently wrote a 855 page book on algorithmic randomness and I can assure you that as soon as someone is given credit for originating an idea, there will be someone in the audience who says, ``oh but what about the Moscow seminar of spring 1973 when it was uttered by ....'' How can you now know about this....? My other point was that when you go back and look at some of the old dances that have, if not gone to the graveyard of dances, gone at least to the rest home, many are are pretty interesting. Having only begun dancing around 1990, only recently have I danced through Barry Priddy's books, many of Hugh Foss's dances, James Cosh's, Alec Hay's, many others. I mean that for each of these devisors we tend to have certain dances we do but many many others we don't. It is hardly surprising also that with a dance form which is relatively limited in its structure there will be ideas that will be rediscovered also. reagrds rod
Rod Downey wrote: > to which I reply ``whoa''. This would need to be a mission (if desired) > of the community, not by any individual. There are just so many dances. > Anyway, my point was that it is nice to try to give credit when it is due, > as devisors. It is intersting to wonder who did what when, and more > importantly, were they influenced by others. I wouldn't really go to all the dances containing an unusual formation and add comments to credit the inventor of that formation. This is a world of pain that nobody really needs. On the contrary, I would suggest that we beef up the database's »formation« pages to (potentially) include not just the history of the formation in question, but also a description of the formation, illustrative diagrams, videos of it being danced, teaching hints, etc. This would leave ample room for little research projects but would arguably put the information where it really belongs (think »Wikipedia-style Manual«). Then dances only need to link back to the pages for their formations and everyone should be happy. Before I do any work on this, however, I'd like to get the formation taxonomy sorted out. Subscribers to the dancedata-friends mailing list will know what I'm talking about, and I would suggest that if anybody wants to take this further they should head over there – the subscription address is dancedata- xxxxxxx+xxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx . > My other point was that when you go back and look at some of the old > dances that have, if not gone to the graveyard of dances, gone at least to > the rest home, many are are pretty interesting. Hear, hear. Anselm -- Anselm Lingnau, Mainz/Mayence, Germany ................. xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx We learn as much from sorrow as from joy, as much from illness as from health, from handicap as from advantage -- and indeed perhaps more. -- Pearl S. Buck
Dear Rod, I am one of the editors on the Strathspey Dance Database. As you know, any SC dancer can volunteer to help maintain and update this database (ask Anselm for a login). The upkeep is a collective effort of the SCD community. If everyone who discovers some interesting information on a dance (such as your "Archaeological Digs" are producing) adds that information in brief in the "comments" box, (adding a link to a more extensive document if needed), then all the problems you mention resolve themselves. New information can expand on or correct earlier postings, and all postings remain visible for comment. Nobody need worry about posting incomplete results; someone will in due time fill the gaps. Greetings, Eric
I have yet to start work on the database, Eric. However I was interested in your statement (which I had not picked up before) - "New information can expand on or correct earlier postings, and all postings remain visible for comment." I am not sure that I want to have to wade through dozens of postings to get the full story. I would prefer to be able to correct and update the existing notes - as happens in Wikipedia. Iain Boyd Postal Address - P O Box 11-404 Wellington 6142 New Zealand
Iain Boyd wrote:
> "New information can expand on or correct earlier
> postings, and all postings remain visible for comment."
>
> I am not sure that I want to have to wade through dozens of postings to get
> the full story. I would prefer to be able to correct and update the
> existing notes - as happens in Wikipedia.
I think what we will eventually end up with is a mixture of the two. Right now
the database doesn't allow user-contributed comments at all; this will change
with the new version which will hopefully be officially out soon. I'm not sure
yet what I shall do about the »Extra Info« tab there – I'm not convinced that
a Wikipedia-style free-for-all approach is viable (which would put a load on
the database editors to look at new comments and transfer any interesting
stuff to the »Extra Info« tab) but it is something we might try at some point.
Anyway, volunteers who offer to go through (a subset of) 60,000+ Strathspey
postings in order to locate interesting things that have been said about stuff
that is in the database (dances, recordings, people, …) will be gladly
accepted.
Anselm
--
Anselm Lingnau, Mainz/Mayence, Germany ................. xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx
I don't believe hate is the best way to motivate people to develop long-term
solutions to problems. It is a tried and tested way to motivate them to
short-term support of dangerous leaders.
-- Douglas Rushkoff, on the 2008 Republican convention