Hi Isaac (and colleagues), First, for myself, I am really not interested in the particulars of choreographic credit. Whatever I "create'' in this genre I give freely and unlimited use. Maybe my more particular issue lies in the way I think about this and a couple of other 'modules' I have come up with and used.
I came up with these two particular isomorphic A parts, which I thought are pretty interesting and flow well. What I use for the B part with these modules will depend on the specific event characteristics such as dancer skills, variety of choreography for the night, and maybe a couple of other things. So, I listed 8 common B parts, most of which are identifiable components from several other dances such as The Rendezvous, A Nice Combination, and other dances that I might consider using in my own programming. Is there a definitive B part I would use for this sequence? Definitely not! So how many dances did I create? 0? 1? 2? 8? I think one could make the argument for any of those numbers, depending on their concept of originality. For me, it does not matter. If callers and choreographers find the A sequence I listed interesting and wish to attach anything else to it as a B sequence, that's fine. If they wish to attach a particular B to it, and claim it as their own, so what? It's not like anyone is getting rich from contra choreography. I'm thinking more of programming. There are a lot of unique compositions out there that serve well as great and memorable anchors. But in between all these unique dances, we need to fill a program with a variety of accessible fillers. That's where the modularity paradigm comes in for me. Probably not making much sense outwardly, but it's because I am reaching to a way of looking at things in programming that I have not quite fully grasped yet, and what all the implications of such a paradigm shift might mean. Regards, Greg On Fri, Jun 9, 2023 at 1:52 PM Isaac Banner via Contra Callers < [email protected]> wrote: > Greg you're very quickly going to come up against a group of vocal callers > which *insist *a dance has to be XX% unique from any other sequence ever > invented to be a unique sequence and who are convinced that *their *value > of XX is the only correct answer 😅 > > ... > > Generally speaking, I'd agree that most dances fall into > A) Connect the swings in a neat way > B) Get the swings out of the way as quickly as possible so we can do > something neat (Hotpoint special, eg) > > but I'd tentatively push back against naming and staking originator-ship > on even smaller component phrases of choreography. It's already pretty > nearly impossible for a choreographer to publish simpler dances these days > without a chorus of screeches to the tune of "THIS IS YYYY DANCE BY ZZZZZ > BUT YOU CHANGED 25% OF IT YOU HACK".... > > I think a lot of people on this list already know my feelings about > staking claim and authorship of mathematical truths (because, yes, You're > Among Friends exists whether we observe it or not) and my even more severe > feelings about charging for them. I'm probably in a minority on the > opposite extreme, but generally my vote is going to be against finding ways > to put our names on even smaller pieces of choreo when it's already such a > crowded medium, I think. > > Upstartedly yours, > Isaac B > > PS for more rants about dance originality, > https://contradb.com/dances/2052 > https://contradb.com/dances/2054 > > On Fri, Jun 9, 2023, at 9:35 AM, Gregory Frock via Contra Callers wrote: > > Hi All, > Just before COVID I wrote this dance (Composition 148): > > A1: N1 All L 1 1/2 to side waves, balance, N2 All R 3/4; > A2: Balance, All walk forward and swing N1; > B1: Circle L 3/4, P swing; > B2: Balance the Ring, N1 Roll away across, Balance the Ring, Petronella > twirl to next. > > Using this dance as a base, I created this dance yesterday afternoon: > > (Composition 159) > > A1: N1 All R 1 1/2 to side waves, balance, N2 All L 3/4; > A2: Balance, All walk forward and swing N1; > B1: Circle L 3/4, P swing; > B2: Right Hand Chain, Star Left. > If got me thinking that given the 'mandatory swing requirements' these > days, more and more choreographic sequences are just coming up with new > ways to interestingly connect the swings, and most of the connective filler > is just that. This is not an original concept; Cary Ravitz mentioned it > years ago. But, it got me thinking that rather than dances, I am more > creating modules these days. So, I am retitling my A parts (which appear > original, as far as checking callers' Box and Contradb) > Module A: > A1: N1 All L 1 1/2 to side waves, balance, N2 All R 3/4; > A2: Balance, All walk forward and swing N1; > Module A (Isomorph): > A1: N1 All R 1 1/2 to side waves, balance, N2 All L 3/4; > A2: Balance, All walk forward and swing N1; > Using the Circle L 3/4, P Swing B1 Module, here are some B2 modules that > quickly came to mind: > For Module A: > > - > > B2: Left Hand Chain, Star Right > - > > B2: Balance the Ring, Neighbors Roll Away across the set, Balance the > Ring, Petronella twirl to next > - > > B2: Larks Allemande left, Partners pull by right, Robins Pull by Left, > Neighbors Allemande Right ¾ > > For Module A Isomorph: > > > - B2: Left Hand Chain, Partners Balance Right hand across and square > through 2 > - B2: Circle Left, slide left to next as a couple, circle left ¾ > (rendezvous > finish) > - B2: Circle Right 1 ¼, Zigzag right then left to next > > Of course, there are plenty more that can be worked out, and even more > changing B1 to a partner swing on the other side. I look forward to seeing > some of your own variants. > Regards, > Greg > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Contra Callers mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > > > _______________________________________________ > Contra Callers mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >
_______________________________________________ Contra Callers mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
