Thread
Index
Mairi's Wedding
colin garrett
July 29, 1997, 10:11 a.m. (Message 8323)
I think that it was first published by Mozart Allen in 1959 along with Betty's Wedding, Bonnie Glenshee, Lad o' Kyle, The Road to the Isles and the Winding Road. All devised by James Cosh - price 3/-d. Note that the original instructions specifically said "pass left shoulders in the centre of the reels". Most people now dance right shoulders. I once asked James about this and he said "Do what is comfortable!" Colin Garrett Berkhamsted
Colin Garrett said about Mairi's Wedding [29 July]: > ... devised by James Cosh ... > > Note that the original instructions specifically said > "pass left shoulders in the centre of the reels". > Most people now dance right shoulders. > I once asked James about this and he said > "Do what is comfortable!" <Hmmm> So maybe the Mairi's Wedding debate still lives on. Can we take that as factual first-hand reporting? Compare the letter published in The Reel (London Branch), as posted to Strathspey by Ron Mackey on 17 Nov 1996. >> Date sent: 24 Aug 96 11:50:52 EDT >> From: The_Healys <xxxxxx.xxxx@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx> >> >> Ron's assertion, however, is that there is documentary proof of >> what the deviser actually wanted as opposed to what he was >> 'forced' to publish. Does anyone out there know which issue of >> 'The Reel' the reply was published in or, better, can anyone post >> the actual text. I would love to kill this once and for all >> but suspect that, no matter what, it won't be long before it >> returns :) >> >> Jim Healy > > Hi : ) > > Andrew Kellett has managed to find the relevant copy of The > Reel from the London Branch archives, I think he must have been > going back through them one by one. This is taken from "page > four" of Issue No 59 for the period February - March 1961. <snip> > Plus ca change ...... > > Quote > >> MAIRI'S WEDDING >> >> <snip> >> ... we recommend to our readers' attention the two letters printed >> below. The first is from the author of the dance. >> >> To the Editor of "The Reel" >> >> Dear Sir, >> >> There appears to be some difference of opinion concerning the >> shoulder in "Mairi's Wedding". I can only say that there can be >> only one shoulder and that most definitely is the LEFT in any reel >> of four. >> >> I cannot agree that there is any more pleasure in passing >> right shoulder in the centre and I have had many letters >> supporting this view and deprecating any alteration from the >> original intention of the dance. >> >> I am >> Yours Faithfully >> JAMES B. COSH >> Giffnock, >> Renfrewshire. > > <snip> > > Does that convince you Jim or would you like a copy of the copy? > This doesn't come from anybody's Auntie but good old London Branch! > > Happy Dancing > Ron Mackey :) Jim, you were right to >> ... suspect that, no matter what, it won't be long before it >> returns :) Irene van Maarseveen Pretoria, South Africa xxxxxxxx@xxxx.xx.xx
Irene replies to a comment by Colin Garret: >> I once asked James about this and he said >> "Do what is comfortable!" ><Hmmm> So maybe the Mairi's Wedding debate still lives on. Can we >take that as factual first-hand reporting? Then Irene goes on to recall our earlier discussion of this topic including a quote of a letter written by James B.Cosh showing his explicit preference for the left shoulder pass as it was written. Irene remarks further... >Jim [Healy], you were right to >>> ... suspect that, no matter what, it won't be long before it >>> returns :) First, about THE PROCESS: I suspect a number of old-timers on the list may have thought, "Oh, here we go again...". However, I suggest that although we do have an archive of this list (thanks to Anselm), it is NOT reasonable to expect new subscribers to exhastively review that archive before making contributions to the list. I think the process that occurred in this case is very reasonable. Now that Irene has provided the teaser for the prior discussions, I expect that the new subscribers who are really interested in the topic might take the opportunity to see what is in the archive. However, even if the existence of the earlier discussion is known, that does not mean that the topic should not be revisited, especially by those who were not here at the time. Second, about THE TOPIC: Sometimes, dance instructions are a bit vague (or overly constrained, i.e., they just don't work). If it is possible, it is helpful to ask the choreographer what s/he had in mind. In the case of Mairi's Wedding, there is no ambiguity or conflict in the printed instructions. It is certainly of historical and human interest to get the author's comments, but for teaching/dancing the dance, that is not necessary. In no case should an author's comments be given more weight than the printed instructions. I think the bottom line is whether or not you are going to do the dance as written. For the social ballroom, I have a strong preference to teach and do dances as written, even when I believe there has been a choreographic error (usually evidenced by awkward transitions). Assuming other teachers would do the same, that maximizes the dancers' ability to dance successfully with other groups. However, in a dance like Mairi's Wedding where so many teachers/dancers have taken license with the diagonal reels, I make a point of alerting my dancers to the variations they will see, and to the importance of agreeing with your partner how you will be doing the reels. More than a few times I have seen the unfortunate collision in the middle. [Perhaps another list member with the time and inclination can remind us of the main points of earlier discussions on doing dances as written.] Cheers, Oberdan. Trans Vector Technologies, Inc, 184 Estaban Drive, Camarillo, CA 93010-1611 Phone: (805)484-2775, FAX: (805)484-2718, EMail: xxxxx@xxx.xxx
The very first Social I attended had Mairi's Wedding on the programme. I was apprehensive about venturing out and had, I hoped, learnt most of the dances on the programme. My friend (also a new dancer) and I decided that we knew Mairi's Wedding well enough to take our place on the floor. Imagine our horror when we found the first couple dancing reels which were certainly NOT the reels we had learnt - it very nearly put me off SCD forever. It is also worth noting that of the 8 people in that particular set FOUR of them were certificated teachers! And all of them knew that we were very new dancers! Again I guess it gets back to one of my favourite "hobbyhorses" and that is that teachers really do need to set a reasonably good example. Now that I am teaching I do tell dancers what they are likely to experience BUT I much prefer my own class to dance dances as they are written (I must admit that I do have some renegades!) Jan Wilson Sydney, Australia
>The very first Social I attended had Mairi's Wedding on the programme. I >was apprehensive about venturing out and had, I hoped, learnt most of the >dances on the programme. My friend (also a new dancer) and I decided that >we knew Mairi's Wedding well enough to take our place on the floor. >Imagine our horror when we found the first couple dancing reels which were >certainly NOT the reels we had learnt - it very nearly put me off SCD >forever. It is also worth noting that of the 8 people in that particular >set FOUR of them were certificated teachers! And all of them knew that we >were very new dancers! > >Again I guess it gets back to one of my favourite "hobbyhorses" and that is >that teachers really do need to set a reasonably good example. > >Now that I am teaching I do tell dancers what they are likely to experience >BUT I much prefer my own class to dance dances as they are written (I must >admit that I do have some renegades!) > >Jan Wilson >Sydney, Australia Hear Hear! If you want to dance SCD, why not dance Mairi's Wedding? It IS a dance written by Jimmy Cosh. If you want to turn somersaults, swing on a trapeze, spin like a top or do the splits etc, why not join a circus or take up gymnastics? (:-^). Vive la difference! (I once danced Mairi's Wedding with a (big!) partner who knew the correct way, but chose without warning to charge into a right shoulder pass in the half reels. She thought it was funny - I said nothing, but behaved politely. A few days later I partnered her in General Stuart's Reel; after turning 2nd corners left hand, I danced a right shoulder pass (following the same principle). She did not think it was funny - I said nothing but behaved politely.) Angus * * * * * * * * * * * * * Angus & Puka Henry:- 4 Eagle Court, WULAGI, NT 0812, AUSTRALIA PHONE: (International) + 61 8 8927 9203 (Australia) (08) 8927 9203 FAX: as phone; (but phone first for contact) E-mail: xxxxxx@xxxxxx.xxx.xx
>Again I guess it gets back to one of my favourite "hobbyhorses" and that is >that teachers really do need to set a reasonably good example. Right. You have to show it's fun to dance! And sometimes it's much fun to dance Mairi's Wedding passing right shoulder or even do extra loops in passing, clap hands ore something else. But you should tell your beginners - before taking them to a social - not to worry about unusual things. But those things should not be copied by the beginners, as long as they are not sure about it. Sometimes it's a question of your style of teaching. What is a good example? To be always right, or to be flexible to react suitable to unexpected situations? Normally I agree to dance as it has been intended by the author. Most often there is no sense in changing it, because it can't be done better. But some old traditional dances do not have the one author, and more than one possible way to be danced (apart from the RSCDS one). And some dances like Petronella, Mairi's W. and some more came to their own life, apart from their authors. Who knows how they will be danced when we are dead? I guess they still will be fun! It's a living tradition. Last Thursday we tried out different ways for extra loops in Mairi's Wedding. Why? We know what is 'correct', but we wanted to be prepared to do it the other way as well. And there are ceilidh's with noone dancing the 'correct' way. But if we do it differently, we want to do it nice as well.
In a message dated 97-07-30 08:07:51 EDT, Jan Wilson wrote: << It is also worth noting that of the 8 people in that particular set FOUR of them were certificated teachers! And all of them knew that we were very new dancers! >> As a teacher, I couldn't agree more. Those who know me....know this is one of my pet peeves.......this and adding extra twirls!! dangerous! confusing and frequently spoils the dance for others in the set. Jan, I'm glad you kept dancing! Elaine, Virginia (USA)
If your dance group does Mairi's Wedding in demonstration, I suggest you videotape your group doing reels both passing by right and left shoulders. We did and were surprised to see that the less flamboyant-feeling, original way looked remarkably better. And we shortened the dance by half. Regards, John John McCain, RCDD Dallas, Texas, USA
>>> <Stefan Barthel> 30/07/97 05:55 am >>> >Again I guess it gets back to one of my favourite "hobbyhorses" and that is >that teachers really do need to set a reasonably good example. Right. You have to show it's fun to dance! And sometimes it's much fun to dance Mairi's Wedding passing right shoulder or even do extra loops in passing, clap hands ore something else. But you should tell your beginners - before taking them to a social - not to worry about unusual things. But those things should not be copied by the beginners, as long as they are not sure about it. <<< OK, but what about the example of showing consideration for others in the set? It's one thing to watch from the sidelines and see a set of experienced dancers putting in extra twirls. It's another to be in the middle of it. And if, as Elaine has pointed out, the dancers aren't really capable but are putting them in anyway, or are catching other dancers by surprise and putting them off balance, was it really worth it? Norah Link Montreal, Quebec
Yes it is fun to do the different from time to time, but when it is taught to beginners as a demo for a local performance as right shoulder! Just because its easier for the new people to remember? These same teachers then jump all over others when little embelishments are injected by us into other dances with their comment being "dance as it is written". If its good for one RSCDS dance it should be for all. Robert Messner xxxxxxxxxx@xxx.xxx Atlanta GA USA
Going back to the "dating" bit that started this topic off, and using that as an excuse to continue the discussion ... If you're tired of it, delete this. Colin Garrett said he thinks Mairi's Wedding was first published in 1959, and that it then clearly specified that the dancing couple should pass left shoulders in the half reels of four. James Cosh's letter to The Reel was printed in 1961, and dispels any myths that his original intention or preference was other than what was actually published. The edition I have of the booklet was printed in or after 1973, and still says to pass left shoulders. Colin also said: > I once asked James about this and he said > "Do what is comfortable!" That, AFAIK, is _new_ information to this list. I'm assuming we can take that as factual (sorry, Colin, I don't know you). _When_ was that? Did James/Jimmy Cosh eventually resign himself to the fact that very many people evidently think that the reels are more fun or flow better passing right shoulders? Was he later _comfortable_ with that variation on his dance? A number of people (now too many to name) have pointed out that: - a dance should be taught (and danced) as written; - consistency makes it easier to dance in any group anywhere; - teachers should point out any variations that might be encountered; - unexpected variations in a dance can be distressing and confusing for inexperienced dancers; - such variations can lead to mishaps; - dancers should consider the rest of the set; - if little embellishments are accepted in one dance, then why not others too; - some think variations can be more fun or "better", some disagree. Ok. Good points. Personally, I always preferred the right-shoulders version of the Mairi's Wedding reels - and we used to believe that that was, in fact, the _original_ (though unpublished) way. Then I heard, via Ron Mackey's quote of the letter in The Reel, that James Cosh specifically wanted people to pass left shoulders. Frankly, for me that has put a damper on a dance which I used to think of as a "last-on-the-programme-and-just-let-your-hair-down-and-have-fun" one. Passing left shoulders is a bit restrained (and can be awkward if either person dances the loops a bit wide), and passing right shoulders is going against the clear wish of the deviser. Do we really need to make such an issue of this particular variation in this particular dance? After all - - it directly affects only you and your partner; - beginners could in any case potentially be confused by the reels, as there are some dances in which the dancing couple _should_ pass right shoulders; - we do make minor adaptations to other dances, such as all joining in for a final circle when it should only be three couples; - some dances have been revised since their initial publication, and a modified version later republished; and - there are other dances in which regional variations are recognised (eg The Robertson Rant). To add one more date: James Cosh died in October 1995. Irene van Maarseveen Pretoria, South Africa xxxxxxxx@xxxx.xx.xx
Irene wrote: >- it directly affects only you and your partner; That's the best thing anyone has said so far , IM(H)O, of course. Do what you like, as long as you know what your partner feels about it. And let's not get too stuffy about these things, please. Yours, Martin, Grenoble, France. ------------ http://perso.wanadoo.fr/scots.in.france/ --------
Norah wrote: >>... what about ... showing consideration for others in
the set?... if, as Elaine has pointed out, the dancers aren't really
capable but are putting them in anyway, or are catching other dancers
by surprise and putting them off balance, was it really worth it?<<
Goes back to earlier threads on this topic. Miss Manners says: "Be
gracious and supportive of your beginners, if you want them to stay
long enough to become experienced!!" (really more like enlightened
self-interest, when you think about it.)
I think I may have mentioned this before, so apologies in advance for
redundancy, but contra dancers have a similar problem: What new
dancers SEE are all the flourishes and extra twiddles that the
experienced folks throw in. What they really CAN'T see are body
weight changes, balance, posture, giving weight with arms (partly
because these things are really hard to see if you aren't a dancer,
and partly because all the twiddles are distracting), etc. So they
end up thinking (incorrectly) that the twiddles ARE the dancing.
There aren't classes for contra dancers, so there's nothing to
counteract the misconceptions. End result - folks who are flinging
their partners and themselves (dangerously) around the floor with
little control. No wonder many folks (Peter Price - you listening?)
have given up contras as too risky! Hate to see that happen to SCD!
Jenn ("let's remember, be careful out there") Sawin
On Wed, 30 Jul 1997 xxxxxxxx_xxxxx@xxxxxxxx.xx.xxx wrote: > Norah wrote: >>... what about ... showing consideration for others in > the set?... if, as Elaine has pointed out, the dancers aren't really > capable but are putting them in anyway, or are catching other dancers > by surprise and putting them off balance, was it really worth it?<< >snip > I think I may have mentioned this before, so apologies in advance for > redundancy, but contra dancers have a similar problem: What new > dancers SEE are all the flourishes and extra twiddles that the > experienced folks throw in. What they really CAN'T see are body > weight changes, balance, posture, giving weight with arms (partly > because these things are really hard to see if you aren't a dancer, > and partly because all the twiddles are distracting), etc. So they > end up thinking (incorrectly) that the twiddles ARE the dancing. > There aren't classes for contra dancers, so there's nothing to > counteract the misconceptions. End result - folks who are flinging > their partners and themselves (dangerously) around the floor with > little control. No wonder many folks (Peter Price - you listening?) > have given up contras as too risky! Hate to see that happen to SCD! It's possible to find good contra dances around. Don't give up! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Priscilla Burrage Vermont US (xxxxxxxx@xxx.xxx.xxx)
In a message dated 97-07-30 18:57:50 EDT, you write: << Irene wrote: >- it directly affects only you and your partner; That's the best thing anyone has said so far , IM(H)O, of course. Do what you like, as long as you know what your partner feels about it. And let's not get too stuffy about these things, please. >> I beg to differ... It affects the whole set.....eye contact, covering and the feeling of dancing together is often affected. by twirls etc. the shoulder passed in the middle of MW affects the entrance into the next 1/2 reel. This is a 'team sport' Not an individual one... I always remember the 'divine Miss M' saying "if any one dancer is 'noticed' as standing out.....thay are not exhibiting good teamwork, and that is NOT good dancing! " HHHMMMM!!!! we could all learn from that ...don't you think!? Elaine....again!
Irene van Maarseveen wrote: > >(...) > To add one more date: James Cosh died in October 1995. > I am unsure what to make of this. Is it just a comment ? Or does it mean that his intention in writing the dance as published can now be disregarded ? I have always danced Mairi's Wedding passing left shoulders. Phrasing the loops to just pass in the middle between the two half reels, not forgetting eye contact !, is what I think S.C.D. is about ... Susi Vienna (Austria) xxxx@xxxxxxx.xx.xx (home) xxxx.xxxx@xxxxxx.xx (work)
Suzanna Mayr queries: >Irene van Maarseveen wrote: >> To add one more date: James Cosh died in October 1995. >> >I am unsure what to make of this. Is it just a comment ? Or does it mean >that his intention in writing the dance as published can now be >disregarded ? Interesting... I took it to mean that we can no longer ask James B. Cosh what he thinks about Mairi's Wedding. But this is yet another example that the artist does not have to be present for his artwork to inspire. Cheers, Oberdan. Trans Vector Technologies, Inc, 184 Estaban Drive, Camarillo, CA 93010-1611 Phone: (805)484-2775, FAX: (805)484-2718, EMail: xxxxx@xxx.xxx
I entirely agree that dances should be taught as published even if they are frequently danced in a slightly different version. I have been dancing Mairi's Wedding since about 1960 and most often the set has wished to do a right shoulder pass. I hope that , when teaching, I have always pointed out the variations that may commonly occur. Whichever way you do it, it is still one of the most popular dances! Oberdan asks for the main points of doing dances as written. The joy of SCD is that one can dance anywhere from New Haven to New Plymouth and know that a given dance will be danced (almost) the same wherever one is. It is very uncomfortable to find that a "local" variation has been introduced in a dance that one is sure one knows! Colin Garrett
I hadn't intended replying publicly to this, but as both Susi Mayr and Oberdan have now seen something different in my remark > To add one more date: James Cosh died in October 1995 let me say that it was purely and simply a comment, linking back to the "Dating and Dancing" that started this discussion (remember...?). Irene van Maarseveen Pretoria, South Africa xxxxxxxx@xxxx.xx.xx
> > (personal improvization) directly affects only you and your partner; > > That's the best thing anyone has said so far , IM(H)O, of course. > > Do what you like, as long as you know what your partner feels about it. > > And let's not get too stuffy about these things, please. >> > >I beg to differ... It affects the whole set..... Right. I'll beg, too: >eye contact, You don't have to be in the prescribed position to look at someone. Au contraire, eye contact helps enormously in hinting imminent variants of a figure, and taking up the cue and acting accordingly. >covering, I was thinking about dancing not demonstrating. >the shoulder passed in the middle of MW affects the entrance into the next 1/2 >reel. Hardly! In any case, the "wrong" shoulder gives plenty of time for second corner to see you coming, whereas the L shoulder passing brings you up very close to 2nd cn in the 4th bar. >This is a 'team sport' Not an individual one... I should have said it was a couple sport. The new dances do indeed require more team work and correct relative positioning, speed, balance, compared with the older ones where you dance mainly with your partner, or as a couple with one other couple. >I always remember >the 'divine Miss M' saying "if any one dancer is 'noticed' as standing >out.....thay are not exhibiting good teamwork, I'll even disagree with Miss M: who is on exhibition? I thought we were there to enjoy ourselves. On the dance floor, is every dancer identical in style, manner, personality...? some are bound to stand out. In fact, going back in time a little, when formal dances were the one place where polite society allowed a little mild flirting, many dancers were there just to show off and attract a partner, so we could say that fancy stepwork, turns, twiddles and handstands are all part of the tradtion. Don't we want to keep tradition alive? Yours, Martin, Grenoble, France. ------------ http://perso.wanadoo.fr/scots.in.france/ --------
Yep. Of course standardization is also a major part of our tradition. Chopping anothers comments to shreads isn't -- unless it is a new tradition. > ...there just to show off and attract a partner, so we could say > that fancy stepwork, turns, twiddles and handstands are all part of > the tradtion.. Don't we want to keep tradition alive? Richard L. Walker Pensacola FL (City of Five Flags) USA xxxxxxxx@xxxxxx.xxx
On Thu, 31 Jul 1997, M Sheffield wrote: > >eye contact, > You don't have to be in the prescribed position to look at someone. Au > contraire, eye contact helps enormously in hinting imminent variants of a > figure, and taking up the cue and acting accordingly. I "see" the dancers behind me and the dancers in all the sets. How many of you will reach this level of dancing if you are continually dancing with just your partner and can't expand your horizons to include even your own set? Bruce Hamilton now has a series of classes aimed at helping dances achieve this attribute among others. > >covering, > I was thinking about dancing not demonstrating. Here I go again: We use the word "covering" as though all we are is a team of demonstrators. In fact if you are dancing socially you are dancing together with the whole and you can look (or feel) other sets "covering" My, how I hate that word! But then shouting "Togetherness" at a class of Scottish dancers wouldn't achieve the right results either. > In fact, going back in time a little, when formal dances were the one place > where polite society allowed a little mild flirting, many dancers were > there just to show off and attract a partner, so we could say that fancy > stepwork, turns, twiddles and handstands are all part of the tradtion. > Don't we want to keep tradition alive? I believe that there were more rules about does and don't then there are now. The tiniest movements were considered flirtaceous and good footwork and displaying knowledge of how to dance were a compliments to one's partner. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Priscilla Burrage Vermont US (xxxxxxxx@xxx.xxx.xxx)
xxxxxxxx_xxxxx@xxxxxxxx.xx.xxx sez: > No wonder many folks (Peter Price - you listening?) > have given up contras as too risky! Hate to see that happen to SCD! Despite this, in many places it is far easier to convince beginners to return to Scottish than contra dancing, because beginners are more likely to enjoy themselves and see people having fun around them. Ahem. I think the problem here is really that Mairi's Wedding and Montgomeries' Rant are danced so frequently that people forget they are actually complicated. I doubt that would have happened, say, with Black Mountain Reel. Jon
xxxxxxxxx@xxx.xxx wrote: > I always remember > the 'divine Miss M' saying "if any one dancer is 'noticed' as standing > out...thay are not exhibiting good teamwork, and that is NOT good dancing!" So if a set is threatening to fall apart, one should not stand out by setting an example to keep the set together. Urm. You must believe Miss Milligan herself stood out somehow in a positive manner to be quoting her thus. Jon
The Mairi's Wedding thread has me thinking...a previous message said >The joy ofSCD is that one can dance anywhere from New Haven to New Plymouth and know >that a given dance will be danced (almost) the same wherever one is. It >is very uncomfortable to find that a "local" variation has been introduced >in a dance that one is sure one knows! One of the reasons I enjoy SCD is precisely because of the local differences. Doing a dance exactly the same way everywhere would get rather boring - imagine if every restaurant you ate in cooked food the same way! Thankfully, we have regional cuisines and ethnic dishes. Why not have regional dancing? Just as you find a good recipe from another part of the world, you can bring home an interesting dance variation and try it in your own dance group. (I'm thinking of 'Wilder Geese' as I write this!) If everyone danced the same way, or did the same dances on each programme, there would be little reason to travel to other cities to dance. As for twiddles in dances...I teach my group the way a dance is written, then point out the variations they may find (such as twiddles, or right hand passes in Mairi's Wedding, or 'flippy turns' in Duke of Perth, or having 1st and 2nd couples dancing Petronella). I encourage beginners to refrain from doing the 'extras' until they know the 'correct' dance version. From there, it's up to the individual dancer and the collective dancers in the set to decide if now is the time and place for extras, or if it should best be held off for this dance. We're all adults here, and my group doesn't need me constantly supervising them. It seems to work well that we have one or two dances where we can all cut loose, such as Mairi's Wedding, after doing all the other dances properly. Todd Pierce xxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Scottish Country Dancers of Caledonian Society of Baton Rouge, LA (not an RSCDS-affiliated group or branch, if anyone wondered - and I'm not trying to make any statements by pointing this out to you - just might help explain our local attitudes a little better)
Jon Kay <xxxx@xx.xxxx.xxx> writes > I think the problem here is really that Mairi's Wedding and > Montgomeries' Rant are danced so frequently that people forget > they are actually complicated. I doubt that would have happened, say, > with Black Mountain Reel. You forgot regional variation in repertoire, Jon. Among New Scotland when I was starting to dance Black Mountain Reel fell into the same category as Mairi's Wedding - good hooley in which to let one's hair down - and Montgomeries' Rant didn't. Just throwing in my twopenn'orth. Ian BTW Just out of curiosity, where are you based? It didn't seem to show up in your signature. -- xxx.xxxxxxxxx@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx Edinburgh, Scotland
>>> I have been reading the Maire's Wedding discussion with interest - and some exasperation. It seems to me that opinions are becoming needlessly polarised on this thing. <<< Thank you very much, Monica - I was really starting to wonder whether SCD is the right form of dancing for me! Well, not really after 18 years; but I have noticed before that quite a few Scottish Balls tend to be - let´s say, not overly exuberant. Probably because everyone seems to be afraid that someone is going to stop the music if you twirl (I have known this to happen, though not to me!). And when I hear now that you´re not supposed to stand out it reminds me strongly of dreary East German Communism - everything was the same grey over there. I firmly believe that there is room for both - for standarizing, so dance groups do not completely drift apart, and for variations, for twirls, for fun and exuberance - at the right place, in the right set. And it annoys and hurts me when people try to tell me it´s wrong to find the JOY OF DANCING in exuberance; that you´re supposed to have fun _exclusively_ in covering and phrasing and in "being good". So, enjoy yourselves dancing - and let others do the same! Kerstin Kuhn, Proitzer Muehle, Germany
Kerstin Kuhn writes: >And it annoys and hurts me when people try to tell me it¥s wrong >to find the JOY OF DANCING in exuberance; that you¥re supposed to >have fun _exclusively_ in covering and phrasing and in "being good". For some reason, I am reminded of the great philosopher/singer/moonwalker, Michael Jackson, who repeatedly exclaimed: "I'm bad, I'm bad, I'm bad", meaning of course, that he was very good. I guess that means it is good to be bad. :) I like exuberance in a dancer. Also, like Kerstin and Monica, I dislike it intensely when some dancers appoint themselves as judges of whether _other_ dancers are dancing suitably. I think such self appointments are way out of line. I also think dancers should take personal responsibility and judge for themselves if their own behavior is appropriate. Now, regarding embellishments: Lets not confuse embellishments with exuberance and fun. I think there is a place for embellishments and that they can be fun when they are performed skillfully and are not at the expense of other dancers. Embellishments can be very un-fun if somebody is confused, battered or injured because of them. Who said that passing left shoulders for a diagonal reel of 4 is not fun? Who said that doing a dance or formation correctly is not fun? Who said that phrasing well is not fun? Maybe it was somebody with a broken fun meter. SCD is a group activity. I submit that most of the fun we derive in a dance owes to our interactions with the other dancers--not so much from the specific formations and their sequence but from the opportunities they provide to interact. Some forms of embellishment such as twiddles (extra twirls) are either socially neutral or anti-social (especially when poorly executed). A well-executed twiddle adds nothing to the social feeling of the set. It is fun for the twiddler because it allows the dancer to push his/her own envelope of skill. If the twiddle is performed successfully, the rest of the set can be impressed by the twiddler's prowess. But do not be deceived that twiddles improve the sociability of the dance. A twirling dancer is not interacting socially with the other dancers--a twiddle is danced primarily for self gratification. I will be the first to admit that self-gratification can be very healthy. But if you need large doses of it, there are dance forms such as Highland dancing and Country Western line dancing where individual prowess is really appreciated. For Scottish Country Dancing, however, I can't imagine anything more boring or sterile than a set of dancers trying to impress each other with their individual prowess (Ho, Hum; big YAWN!). [Speaking of individual prowess, I am reminded of Michael Flatley at the end of Lord of the Dance, strutting around the stage, arms uplifted, yelling YES! YES! YES! to the unending applause of the audience. After about the fourth encore my 12-year-old son exclaimed, "Boy is that guy full of himself or what!"] Now, if you really want to impress the other dancers by doing twiddles in the middle of diagonal reels of 4, be sure you do it with a LEFT shoulder pass--it is much more demanding than with a lazy right shoulder pass! (Ooops, I think I have admitted to some skill with a socially neutral behavior...) Cheers, Oberdan Otto. Trans Vector Technologies, Inc, 184 Estaban Drive, Camarillo, CA 93010-1611 Phone: (805)484-2775, FAX: (805)484-2718, EMail: xxxxx@xxx.xxx
At 09:03 PM 8/2/97 -0700, Oberdan Otto wrote: >Some forms of embellishment such as twiddles (extra twirls) are either >socially neutral or anti-social (especially when poorly executed). A >well-executed twiddle adds nothing to the social feeling of the set. While this may be true most of the time, I would disagree about it being a universal. An exception that comes to mind is in the track figure of Flowers of Edinburgh. When the leader of the track is sufficiently far ahead that their adding a twiddle won't throw the follower off, a well placed twiddle can add tremendously to the flirtation of the figure. It permits the two to make brief eye contact, and seems to say, "I *want* to be caught, and I'm giving you a chance to catch up." Naturally, for this to work without hurting the dance, the leader must compensate by travelling farther on all of the other steps, thereby being in the appropriate position at the end of bar six. And of course, it would not be an appropriate thing to do if the follower (or, to a lesser extent, anyone else in the set) is a beginner. But in the right circumstances, that twiddle does indeed add a level of sociability to the dance. cheers, Lynn Messing xxxxxxx@xxxx.xxxx.xxx Pennsylvania/Delaware, USA