Your points are well taken, Julian. While I don't care that much about specific attribution of my output, I do as diligently as possible cite authors and titles for the dances I cal, and I cannot honestly say I am completely unmoved when I hear of someone calling my compositions. ;}
Greg On Fri, Jun 9, 2023 at 3:21 PM Julian Blechner via Contra Callers < [email protected]> wrote: > I wanted to chime in to defend dance attribution from a practical > perspective. > > First, I want to validate the concern Isaac is saying - the "YOU HACK" > part. Yeah, when people share new choreo, and people immediately push-back, > that's not always helpful. We should always strive to be be ... yannow ... > polite to each other. And that isn't always true, and it doesn't feel great. > > That said, dance attribution - even setting aside the "giving a nod to > other choreographers" or the copyright aspects - has a variety of practical > purposes for me. > > The summary of these is "having names of dances is an essential tool for > discussing dances." > > 1. If I like a dance, having the dance name and caller means I can collect > it way more easier. I'm constantly updating and expanding my box. > 2. If a dance is really similar to an existing one, knowing what that > existing dance is means I can look at it, as a choreographer, and maybe see > advantages / disadvantages of the original choreography. > At least once a night, I generally swap out equivalent moves of a dance > for any number of reasons - fitting music better, vary up moves in an > evening, ensure moves are covered earlier to build a program based on > called moves, etc. > The alternative is not knowing about the other variations. I _want to > know_ them because they help me. > 3. Dance names with figures mean we can store them in online database and > then search for them. > 4. Having your name on things is a motivator for many people. That > motivator means more people writing dances, and more innovation and > creativity. I think these are positive things. > > Then moving on to the less "practical" reasons: > 5. There's a bunch of dancers who recognize dance names, and it gives them > joy when they recognize a dance name said on the mic to one they've enjoyed > before. > 6. Naming dances that are similar to others is a nice way to acknowledge, > preserve, and be part of the living history of contra choreography. Like, I > really like that there's a bunch of "Trip to ... " dances. I enjoy seeing > dances with similar names and how choreographers riffed off each other. I > think that's really cool. And yeah, we need to have attribution to achieve > that. > 7. Or even just --- a lot of us enjoy the silly and creative names of > dances, at face value. > > I've heard a few different ways to tell if a dance is "original", and I > don't know that there's a "right way". > But here's mine: > - If it's a trivial change to one move, it's a variation. > - If 25% of the dance is changed (noting that the swing and its preceding > move in a quartile of the dance I consider 2 moves): > --- If it's pretty standard moves, then I like to name my dance with an > homage to the original. > --- If it's some real fresh choreography, then the focus of the dance is > on that freshness, and the homage really doesn't make as much sense, to me. > > And ... yeah. When we have about 12 to 20 base moves, it does mean that > almost all of the "simple" combinations are taken. But I don't think > that's a problem - I think it's a feature and it keeps us thinking and > innovating. > > In dance, > Julian Blechner > > > 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] >
_______________________________________________ Contra Callers mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
