Michael wrote:
> The following are all 64-bar dances. The first is modern and for 3 in a > line. The 2nd is a 4-facing-4 in a double sicilian circle and the others > are square sets. The gender roles are virtually identical in all of them. > CORNISH SIX HAND REEL > DANISH DOUBLE QUADRILLE > CUMBERLAND SQUARE EIGHT > GOATHLAND SQUARE EIGHT > LA RUSSE QUADRILLE Because this was in the context of contra dancing, I was thinking of longways dances in duple or triple minor with a repeating progressive figure that takes you to a new couple, and trying to make the point that people in the English revival movement so far have thought that if you had a cool 64-bar figure it made sense to fix it up into a three-couple set rather than dance it for as many as will in arbitrarily long sets. I could have brought up "Mr. Turner's Academy Cotillion", which has something like a 92-bar figure+chorus, repeated four or five times for different figures, but I didn't think that was relevant to the discussion. -- Alan > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Alan Winston - SSRL > Central Computing > Sent: Friday, June 25, 2010 9:38 PM > To: Caller's discussion list > Subject: Re: [Callers] Gender role switching and 64-bar dances > Will Loving wrote: > > Will Mentor and I have been talking the possibility of making a true > 64-bar > > dance that either uses a 64-bar tune or twice through of a standard 32-bar > > tune. It opens up some interesting possibilities and challenges around > > making a dance that's twice as long but that people remember, get into the > > flow of and enjoy. > > There are longer dances - 42, 48 and 64 bars - but not many that I'm aware > > of. I'm interested to know what other folks experience has been about > > writing and calling longer dance sequences. I think this may be something > > some dancers are ready for, though I would try it before the break rather > > than at 11pm! > Over in English-dance-land, 64-bar longways dances (usually AABBAABB) were > common in the early 1800s (as were triple minors). What's happened in the > dance revival is that those 64-bar triple minors have been adapted into > three-couple-set dances (which is, incidentally, where Ted Sanella got the > idea > for triplets.) Dances like "Prince William" and "Fandango". > The conceptual chunking in those 64-bar sequences was pretty high. > ("Prince > William" has "cross over one couple", "double crossover mirror hey", > "contra corners", and "lead out at the sides", which were all knwon figures > in > 1800, so it was really only four chunks for 64 bars.) > Anyway, I can't think of any English dance that was published as a 64 bar > longways duple or triple and was revived as one. The closest I can come is > "Wakefield Hunt", a 48-bar triple-minor, triple-progression, which you don't > have to play a million times through for everybody to get to be active. > 64-bar perils: More figure takes longer to teach. Takes twice as long to > iterate through dance, and if it isn't symmetric people may feel cheated if > they don't get to do the "better" role. Band has to play longer or you get > fewer times through the dance. > I like the idea of trying 64 bars for four-face-fours where you might need > the > time to get into or out of square formation and still want to do a figure of > some interest. In longways, I'd consider starting with double or even > triple > progession so that you have a longer sequence but everybody gets to be 1s > and > to encounter many other dancers along the way. > -- Alan > -- > ============================================================================ > === > Alan Winston --- [email protected] > Disclaimer: I speak only for myself, not SLAC or SSRL Phone: > 650/926-3056 > Paper mail to: SSRL -- SLAC BIN 99, 2575 Sand Hill Rd, Menlo Park CA > 94025 > ============================================================================ > === > _______________________________________________ > Callers mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers -- =============================================================================== Alan Winston --- [email protected] Disclaimer: I speak only for myself, not SLAC or SSRL Phone: 650/926-3056 Paper mail to: SSRL -- SLAC BIN 99, 2575 Sand Hill Rd, Menlo Park CA 94025 ===============================================================================
