Yeah, I would agree that putting a name on the dance and attributing a choreographer is generally a net benefit to the community. I still name most of the dances I put together, when it feels right, and I agree that we need good systems to enable callers to find and collate choreography. I think also there's a sense of "I like X dance by choreographer Y, so I imagine I would like this other dance they wrote." This can be especially notable when you have folks, like Cary Ravitz, with pretty robust personal guidelines for dance construction - you know what to expect from them most of the time.
In terms of crowding in the more simple sequences, I worry at times that we're going to stop writing easy dances over time, as the only available space to stake out a claim in drifts further into complexity. When 'novel' gets too close to being synonymous with 'complex' it becomes hard to build any reputation as a dance author other than "oh, they only write weird/challenging dances"... Ultimately, you'll find my name on most stuff I publish and I think I agree with most of your criteria below, Julian, I usually just get worked up when people treat it more like they *own *the sequence rather than being the one who discovered it. The Straits of Magellan existed before Magellan ever got in a boat, but that doesn't have to minimize his contribution to oceanography. Similarly, I don't want to minimize the effort that goes into looking at a sequence of moves and making a judgement on whether it is good and ought to be danced by others. In a world where we could all be polite to each other and, in this information age, move away from staking ownership and trying to *monetize *dance choreography, I don't think I would have anything to be grumpy about. I get the sense that you agree, both from your previous message and in our past in-person conversations. Marginally more cooperative, Isaac B On Fri, Jun 9, 2023, at 12:20 PM, Julian Blechner 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]
