Rickey, Dorcas, I think you could go either way. If you had a huge database of dances with the moves entered in standard formatting, you could look at their "genetic code" and pull out key markers that would give key groupings. I'm going outside my own field, but I think this is a common technique in biology/genetics. The "Dance DNA" would be significantly shorter than a standard set of DNA.
Alternatively, you could decide on a classification system ahead of time, and file/mark things determined by pre-existing criteria. I think the second would be easier and more intuitive, but the first might yield more surprising insights. On Sat, Sep 1, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Dorcas Hand <[email protected]> wrote: > I guess my day-job is showing (librarian), but the idea of a cladistic > taxonomy is fabulous! Even if there were a code for the various options and > we added that code to our records so that (eventually we would see the > connections even without consulting the actual tree. Hmmm - if only I had > another life to have time for such an adventure... > Dorcas > > -----Original Message----- > > It'd be fun to see a cladistic taxonomy of contra dances (and related > forms), showing the similarities and differences; be they regional, > composer, historic, or otherwise. I don't remember which caller, but > someone broke contra dances in to primarily 1 swing and 2 swing dances > (with some others), and then branches 2 swing dances into dances where the > swings are in adjacent phrases (ex A2 & B1) or non-adjacent. That type of > tree system could be the basis for basis for classifying dances and keeping > track of how close your dances are to others (you'd still need a database > of existing dances to compare to). > >
