Talk:Contra dance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Dance Portal Contra dance is within the scope of WikiProject Dance, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Dance and Dance-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Please rate this article, and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Archives

Page move discussion Other topics

Contents 1 Improvements Needed 2 Same as Contradanza? 3 Copyright and Social Dance Choreography in the US 4 Peer Review 5 Choreographies and choreographers 6 History 7 Allemande vs. alamande 8 Contra Corners Diagram 9 Stubs needed 10 Booking ahead 10.1 Third opinion 10.2 Fourth opinion 11 Terminology 12 history of double progressions in contra dancing 13 history of dance camps 14 Video 15 external links and TOC

[edit] Improvements Needed

1. I (To_Serve_Man) think that we ought to add a new section on contra dance culture, to which issues of changing partners, accepting the first invitation, etc., should be moved. Further, I would like to see some discussion of the important characteristic of playfulness, as well as flirtation which, when combined with the fact that alcohol consumption is not part of the dance culture, distinguishes contra dance from many other dance forms where anxiety plays a large role. In many forms of dance, one finds that drinking plays a significant role in its culture, where it is used to lower inhibitions and the anxiety of asking a partner to dance, whereas the culture of playfulness surrounding contra dance is what I believe makes it so compelling and unique.

I think a culture section is a good idea.

Can we make reference to the type of music usually played. Is live old time music the best description. 75.28.162.189 05:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I definitely agree that we need this section. There are certain elements which set the music played at contra dances apart from the same music (whether it leans more towards old timey, québécois, irish, etc) when the musicians aren't dance musicians. I'll work on a draft of something... are any of the rest of you reading this c.d. musicians? --Eitch 07:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Music √, partnering √, alcohol √. We now have everything but the playfulness/flirtation/everyone hugging/friends as soon as you're introduced aspects. — eitch 05:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I personally don't like the description of the music as being 'old time' music. I'm fairly active in the Massachusetts contradance community (usually contradancing at least once a week) and know many of the bands (Notorious and Crowfoot, for examples) write some of their own material or use more modern music, like "Bei mir bist du schoen." (While to some people that is 'old time,' 'old time' often means older music.) Some contradances feature popular modern music, but those are less common, at least in New England. I think 'folk' music is a better generic term. The way the music is described in the article now as mostly being reels and jigs from the 1800s maps pretty well to what most of the contradance musicians I know play at the dances. Jkbaum (talk) 21:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

(The Old Time suggestion was Jan 07, long before what's there now was added) — eitch 22:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Same as Contradanza?

In Spain and Cuba especially they have Contradanza (just a redirect here for now). Are they the same, related, or what? To be comprehensive, this article should cover that if it is related. I know nothing about it, but had the feeling they were related. Thanks all - Taxman 21:10, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

Just saw: it isn't the same, and contradanza hasn't redirected for a year and a half. — eitch 05:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright and Social Dance Choreography in the US

Following up on the some of the above incorrect worries about copyright (in the 'Choreographies?' section). Choreography, and Social Dance Choreography are special cases in US copyright law. Here's why:

In the US, by a California Federal Circuit Court decision in 1867 ( Martinetti v. Maguire, C.C.Cal.1867, 16 F.Cas. 920, No. 9173.), dance choreography (whether performance or social dance) was excluded from the ambit of copyright, since the law in effect then did not contemplate dance choreography, and the constitution merely states (in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8):

(The Congress shall have Power…) To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries

Since staged ballet (the choreography under question in the case before that Federal Court) was determined by the court to be neither a "science" nor "useful art," all choreography failed to merit copyright in the US, without an enabling Congressional law. The settled law later became that a dance might obtain copyright status as an integral part of a "dramatic work." There are also instances where the US copyright office in the 20th century rejected attempts to register a ballet. Hence all dance choreography published before the changes in the US copyright law enacted in 1976, and coming into effect in January 1, 1978 are in the public domain. The Copyright act of 1976 contemplated copyright for choreography for the first time in these sections:

Title 17 Chapter 1 Sect. 102. Subject matter of copyright: In general

(a) (4) pantomimes and choreographic works

But the report of the Judiciary committee that reported the bill out has this interesting qualification. Here's an excerpt from the legislative history, specifically excluding "social dance steps" from coverage within the term "choreographic works":

HISTORICAL AND REVISION NOTES

House Commission on the Judiciary

HOUSE REPORT NO. 94-1476

94th Congress, 2nd Session (1976)

... Of the seven items listed, four are defined in section 101. The three undefined categories - 'musical works,' 'dramatic works,' and 'pantomimes and choreographic works' - have fairly settled meanings. There is no need, for example, to specify the copyrightability of electronic or concrete music in the statute since the form of a work would no longer be of any importance, nor is it necessary to specify that 'choreographic works' do not include social dance steps and simple routines.

Further, also within the copyright law, from section 102 :

(b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.

I realize some specific citations are in order on this topic. To come...perhaps. Yellowdesk 04:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peer Review

What do people think of obtaining a couple of outside reviews of Contra dance? At Wikipedia:Peer_review. The article is pretty stable, although lacking almost all citation to published works demonstrating that the information is not "original research." It would certainly point out what directions...if any, are desirable, from "experienced outsider non-contra-dancers." -- Yellowdesk 09:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

One of my amusements while on vacation is working on a —I wouldn't say "big," but maybe "biggish"— addition to the article. I don't expect it to be controversial, but it may well inspire further additions (not to mention the ever-amusing stylistic exchanges (e.g)). So… I think it's a good idea, but let's hold off for a bit. --Eitch 04:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure -- Yellowdesk 17:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Choreographies and choreographers

How about someone adding a description of the role of choreographers/composers and the relative prevalence of modern versus traditional choreographies?

In the contra dancing that I've done, mostly in California, I've had the impression that quite a few of the dances are modern. This is a casual impression based partly on the occasional announcement of a choreographer's name; it's also based on the fact that we do mostly improper dances, and my impression that the traditional body of contra dances consists mostly of proper dances.

--Rich Janis 02:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

That is correct, depending on the dance series, community and venue, about 95% of dances done these days were composed in the last fifty years, and probably most of those were composed in the last 25 years. -- Yellowdesk 00:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

This is, in part, the topic of the famed Big Addition I been "working" on for months now (the one I mentioned when we were thinking of going for FA status). Sounds like I ought to get on that. =) --Eitch 01:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

An opportunity for some genuine citation, perhaps? The couple of Ted Sannella books, and those by Larry Jennings (available via CDSS), and several others, would be welcome sources to cite. -- Yellowdesk 04:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History

There seems to be a bit of a gap in the history section missing between the 1700's and 2005. Could someone add at least a bit about dancing in New England in the 19th century, and Ralph Page's and Dudley Laufman's role in preserving and reviving contra dancing? Also perhaps a comparison between the traditional dances (active and inactive) and the modern dances (symmetrical)? 199.125.109.11 20:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

A minor shortcoming - what's three hundred years? =) Oy yoi. Ditto my response to the choreographies discussion just above this. I recently found a few pages of notes from antique contra dance books - here's to hoping I type it up soon! --Eitch 05:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed the mention of my name (Tony Parkes) from the History section. This is not false modesty; Ted Sannella and Dudley Laufman were the prime movers behind the 1960s revival of contra dancing, well before I came along. I may have been the first of my generation to take up contra calling, but only by a few months; a lot of good people started soon after I did, and I don't think I should get special mention. Tparkes (talk) 17:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Allemande vs. alamande

Since its inception, this article has used the word allemande to refer to a basic dance figure. The Allemande article seems to describe it as more of a dance than just a figure within a dance; it also states (from edit 15:43, 29 June 2006 128.192.54.69),

in contra dance it is spelled alamand (or alamande) - since it is derived from the French "a la mande" - by the hand.

However, that same editor wikilinked the word Allemande in this Contra dance article to the Allemande article without changing or further commenting on the spelling used here. Of course, variant spellings are commonplace for words that go back hundreds of years, and many websites use both spellings (e.g., [1]).

Does anyone have more info about these variant spellings? Are these two truly interchangeable? Is one spelling correct (or "more correct"?) for contra? Are corrections in order to either the Allemande article, or to this Contra dance article and its associated Contra dance choreography article? Or, is this whole issue a waste of time?

Thanks, -Rich <Rich Janis 08:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)>

[edit] Contra Corners Diagram

There's a bit of a disagreement over two figures illustrating contra corners. I'd like to know what people prefer (on the Contra dance choreography page).--Eyrian 00:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The first is more descriptive, particularly if you mention that the "A" stands for "allemande." Lifthra 01:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's what I was thinking:

• My uncontroversial comments:

- The path representations of the first corner allemandes are allemande rights, as are the color codings for the #1 woman's corner allemandes.

- The the set diagrams and (assuming across-the-set heys as described in the text and as done, I'd estimate, ≥99% of the time) the hey diagram have the sets running left-to-right.

• Visual representation theory:

- Maximize the amount of data while eliminating meaningless features (cf. Tufte's High Data:Ink maxim). i) Why use grey for neutral when we can use white? ii) The male/female symbols are redundant with the squares/circles - one symbol for role is enough. iii) The black arrows carry the same information as the final arrow heads on the colored paths. iv) The looping paths, the L/Rs, and the color coding of the As all mean the same thing.

- The diagram complements the text and so need not include everything, especially if inclusion is at the risk of making the diagram hard to read. I feel the criss-crossing lines needed to show the correct first corner allemandes would do this, and that the partner allemandes already do this for the casual reader. (It's pretty anazzy looking, though)

I have an idea for how to incorporate allemande direction into my version - I'll try to post it here tomorrow. --Eitch 05:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the orientation, I have danced both forms, and I simply chose the orientation that seemed most natural, and would best fit on the page. Rotations are a simple matter, though.

I chose grey for the inactive couples because it is commonly understood to mean inactive.

There are crosschecked gender symbols because using only squares/circles makes the notation more confusing for beginners, while using the same outer symbol makes them less differentiable in a longer view. I feel the intermediate arrows keep things clear over a long path.

The balance between text/diagram is a matter of taste. I chose a diagram that was almost entirely self-contained. --Eyrian 06:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Just uploaded another possibility. Again, switching the orientation would be an easy change, as would using grey and white instead of "1"s and "2"s. Thoughts, o populace? --Eitch 00:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I think things get lost in the center. --Eyrian 00:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts, for what they are worth: For actually containing all the information, I prefer Eyrian's. It tells what hand to use for the allemands, which requires thought from the new version of Eitch's. However, I find it rather intimidating. I really like the new version of Eitch's, but I'm not sure how clear it is. I prefer the other orientation, and I like having the 'L' and 'R' for the allemandes. I also do like the male and female symbols, because the roles are still refered to with genders, even if the gender doesn't really matter. Do with these thoughts what you will. Loggie 01:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

My sister's thoughts: her prefered diagram would be a mix of Eyrian's and Eitch's first. She liked the gender symbols, liked the different color for the inactives. She likes having the R and L. Her suggestion was to have the path line going through the inactive's square/circle do demonstrate interaction with the inactive. Her comment was that having the path line going around the inactive looks like the person just walks around the inactive, and doesn't interact. Her suggestion for the center was to put a circle there with A R. Loggie 02:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that about the line going around the inactives. Having the actives go inside the inactives is a bit weird though, don't you think? =) Loggie, you have the first and second contra corners switched, and making the change would produce Eyrian's diagram. What about something like Image:Contra_corners-5.JPG, shown at the right - following Loggie's sister, it's a combination of Eyrian and Eitch1. A final version would probably even have room to say "allemande left" instead of "al."

My Tuftian sensibilities are still offended by double-coding the genders (Loggie, my versions do still have gender symbols - the circles and squares commonly used in contra and square notation). Coincidentally, graphite and nonphoto blue gives us the color scheme used in change ringing (for those who like me find they're forgetting to learn new things from wp, getting all caught up instead in editing). I suppose for the sake of the color blind we shouldn't be using red and green. --Eitch 03:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Ooops. I thought something looked a little odd about my diagram. I like the new sketch though. Loggie 02:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I am being too picky, but one diagram is rotated 90 deg from the other. Would it be better to change one? 199.125.109.11 03:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I missed this discussion when it was current, but now that I've seen the implementation, I have some comments.

• After looking at the "Hey For Four" and "Contra-Corners" diagrams, both of which display the contra lines horizontally (left-right) on the page, I then clicked to "the more detailed diagram" with the Contra_corners.svg image displaying the contra lines vertically. OK, I'll admit, this re-orientation wasn't a problem, but it was a distraction. Orientating the diagram horizontally might be worthwhile, at least for the benefit of new dancers. So, count this as a second to 199's suggestion. Eyrian, if you have the time and inclination to make the change, it would also make that diagram consistent with the orientation of the text diagrams on the Contra dance form page. (My "disorientation" may or may not have been related to my amazement--the diagram is impressive, especially at that size.)
• Another issue with Eyrian's diagram is more important to me, and I see that Eitch already noted it: "The path representations of the first corner allemandes are allemande rights." Since the A-sub-L for allemande left is correct, there remains only the question of why the path direction is wrong. I imagine that it might be to avoid having a path line cross itself (perhaps that's what Eitch meant by "...the criss-crossing lines needed to show the correct first corner allemandes..."). However, graphical convenience is not more important than accuracy; also, such criss-crossing is not needed, if another change is made: replace the double lines with single lines, at least for the first corner allemandes. Eitch's diagram already avoids that particular criss-crossing, and the Contra_corners-5.JPG diagram avoids all criss-crossing.
• I hate to sound as though I'm ragging on Eyrian's diagram, particularly since I love its maze-like quality. It does bother me in one more way, though: the color shading of the As. The time that I spent trying to interpret its significance was not worthwhile. Even after reading Eitch's comment that "The looping paths, the L/Rs, and the color coding of the As all mean the same thing", I can't see how that "works", even if the color shading bears the same error as the path lines (which then elevates this issue in importance). Eyrian, even if you can explain it to me, the need for an explanation is reason enough to eliminate that feature. Also, if Eitch's comment is correct, then wouldn't the meaning of the color shading of the As be dependent on the path lines? If so, that would make it not only a third symbol for one piece of information, but one that is dependent on another symbol--a releationship that adds effort to its interpretation. Wait; I think I finally figured out why the current color shading of the As cannot work. (Oh, no, this paragraph is getting even longer--and just as I thought I was done!) The words "right" and "left" in the allemande refer to rotational direction (CW or CCW), which the path lines do show. However, the color shading of the As reflects only the static positional distinction between right and left. Thus, while both dancers move in the same rotational direction, their respective color shadings do not occupy the same side of the A. Of course, you could fix that, but the result would look even more confusing and still not resolve the other issues.

This began, believe it or not, as a quick comment about the horizontal-vs-vertical orientation. The more I looked, though, the more I found to discuss. I think this might be the most time-consuming comment I've ever made on WP, and I now feel that the underlying issue might be that we shouldn't have a "more detailed diagram" when all the details are already covered in the text & diagram within the article. I'm still open on this point, but, at the very least, we must soon ensure that readers are not confused by known errors. --rich<Rich Janis 06:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)>

[edit] Stubs needed

Can someone please create stubs for each of the bands, callers, and musicians?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.125.109.137 (talk • contribs) 22:08, July 30, 2007

• Becky Hill
• Bob McQuillen - Bob has now published 1300 dance tunes including the ubiquitous Dancing Bear
• Gene Hubert
• Carol Kopp
• Dudley Laufman Contra dance music revivalist
• George Marshall (caller)
• Duke Miller
• Ralph Page [2]
• Tony Parkes (caller)
• Steve Zakon-Anderson
• Swallowtail (contra dance band)
• Sam Amidon
• Sarah Blair
• Ruthie Dornfeld
• David Kaynor
• Randy Miller
• Rodney Miller [3]
• Lissa Schneckenburger
• Sue Sternberg
• Harvey Tolman
• Becky Tracy

I think they'd be quickly deleted without references to independent, reliable sources. Perhaps you could provide a few? --Eyrian 01:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Booking ahead

Your allegation that booking ahead is embraced by some communities is silliness. Go ahead, make my day. Name some. 199.125.109.137 14:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Booking ahead is fairly common where I dance in Winston-Salem. I'd remove this section though as it seems to be original research.--S Roper 16:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

You would have to remove most of the article if you left out sections that were not referenced. Booking ahead may be common, but do any of the callers encourage it? 199.125.109.137 03:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I admit I've never been to a dance where the caller encouraged booking ahead, but then I've never been to a dance where the caller voiced any opinion about the matter or got involved with the dancers' partner choosing in any way. I gather that you (199.125...) have, and I'm happy to believe it— I just must not have danced at the dances you've danced at. I wouldn't go so far as to say it's "embraced," either— that makes it sound like it's been institutionalized. Certainly I've been at dances in the South- and Northwest where there was some booking ahead, and dances in New England and the Southeast where it's commonplace. (Visitors, people new to the area, and those who refuse to become involved in booking ahead may find it frustrating, but that has little effect on those who do it.) Maybe its limited to the corners of the country, or maybe it's just when I'm there, but it certainly happens. — eitch 03:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

That was my point. If it was truly accepted the callers would tell you to do it. Of all the references, articles published, books written there is certain to be something written about the practice, particularly from CDSS I would think. Callers don't like to talk about it often, because they don't like to interfere with whatever the dancers want to do, but at crowded halls there are frequently warnings about keeping arms in close. I do not find booking ahead frustrating, but I don't do it either - other than very, very rarely. I stopped abruptly when one of the callers pointed out what was happening. It's funny that some dancers think that booking ahead means the dance after the next dance, yet just booking the next dance is all it takes to lock everyone out who is not currently dancing. 199.125.109.92 04:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

But the question isn't whether it's the "right" thing to do, or whether you like it or some caller likes it. The fact is, in some places it's accepted. — eitch 16:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually the question is, is there a reference that discusses booking ahead? Accepted is too strong a word. Booking ahead is used, abused, tolerated, but not accepted (other than by the clueless). If no reference can be found, just delete the whole section. (found lots of references) 199.125.109.119 02:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Strongly disagree Neutral POV is "absolute and non-negotiable." There are forums for discussing the morality of booking ahead (do like the references currently cited and post a letter, take it up with your dance community, etc) but it is not appropriate for WP to state an opinion on the matter. The references currently listed can be used to show that there is some tension around this question, that some people are strongly against booking ahead, and that there are communities in which dancers regularly book ahead, but not that booking ahead is "bad." — eitch 16:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

You've lost me there. This is an encyclopedia and it presents the facts, right? The facts are that the dance community discourages booking ahead and still does it anyway. The Milwaukee dance even has on their dance page a warning to people traveling to other dances to bring your own partner to certain dances. I have no clue what you are disagreeing about. 199.125.109.137 03:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I tend to hope people do things they're okay with doing. Following that, I assume the people who book ahead don't discourage booking ahead. These people are a part of the dance community. And so we have the facts: Some people don't like booking ahead, some people actively discourage it ("everyone," you would say), and some people don't have a problem with it and in fact do it. Presumably there are also people who don't get upset with dancers who book ahead but still don't do it themselves, people who only book waltzes ahead, and all sorts of other compromises. I'm not sure how to be more clear… Political Party A can say that Political Party B is wrong all they want, but the article "Politics in country X" shouldn't say, "[The things Political Party B stands for] are wrong." — eitch 08:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The article doesn't say that, and none of the references use the word "wrong" either. The article says it's discouraged and common, same as the references, which refer to it as a problem, bad, difficult for newcomers and threatening to the "long tradition of welcoming new dancers and including all that attend in the evening events". 199.125.109.137 19:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

"Wrong," "bad idea," "not the way things should be done" — it's all the same thing. There are places where booking ahead is actively discouraged, and places where it is not. There are people who don't think it's a problem (see my previous post). There are, I gather, dances where increased booking ahead is changing and (at least according to some) damaging the dance. But there are also very strong dances in which booking ahead happens all the time. There is no reason to make invalid generalizations; the value of booking ahead is a matter of opinion.— eitch 13:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

All the same? Hardly. It's like robbing banks. It's great for one person, the robber and terrible for everyone else. Until they get caught and then it's bad for them too. I remember seeing one person trying unsuccessfully to re-book ahead when they forgot they had booked ahead with someone they specially wanted to dance with and had booked that dance with someone else. As long as it continues to be a problem at some dances it is useful to retain a reference to the practice. When the practice goes away, just delete it. 199.125.109.33 02:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Careful: I never gave an opinion on booking ahead. If you have to attack me, use my user talk page. There are people who discourage booking ahead. There are people who don't. If you continue to not discuss or come to terms with the latter I will request you be blocked from editing this article. — eitch 15:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Just add, more commonly seen at some dances if you wish. It doesn't make it more commonly accepted. I think the topic of booking has way too many words and way too many references already. I would suggest leaving in the ten reasons reference and taking out the other two. On the other hand it would be nice when the missing 300 years from the history section gets filled in to include the rise of booking at the Greenfield dance and the fall of booking there due in part to the letters by David and Susan, two of the callers. 199.125.109.119 17:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's what I'm going to do, 199.125…: I'm going to take out the non-NPOV business. That means 1) any "it makes it hard to find partners" stuff which makes it sound like the WP article discourages booking ahead, and the whole point of NPOV is to not encourage or discourage anything, and 2) any "it creates a rush at the end of the dance," because those connote unpleasant experiences, and imply that booking ahead leads to unpleasant experiences, and so is to be discouraged.

My most recent attempt (it was so long in coming because I forgot) said nothing good or bad about booking ahead, and specifically acknowledged the fact that some people don't like it. You had provided links to callers asking dancers to not book ahead. You changed,

"Booking ahead (lining up a partner or partners ahead of time) is commonplace at some dances and actively discouraged at some others.[+ anti-booking ahead refs]"

(an attempt to satisfy your arguments in this discussion thread) to

"Booking ahead (lining up a partner or partners ahead of time) exacerbates the rush to find a partner, and is discouraged, although it is seen in some areas.[+ same refs]"

Now, the authority problem with "using wording from reference" (your edit summary) is that the references in question were chosen for the very reason that their authors don't like booking ahead. This is so obviously that, in light of this discussion thread, it is very hard to assume good (NPOV) faith in the motivation behind your edit.

The reference in question was chosen because it states that in the UK dancers come with a partner and stay with the same partner for the whole dance. It mentions booking ahead in connection with dancing in the US. All of the references were chosen because they mention booking ahead, not because they contained a particular view of booking ahead. You can't really mention booking ahead without also complaining about it though.199.125.109.92 (talk) 15:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

There's also the logical problem with the claim that booking ahead creates a rush. Booking ahead does not create a rush; booking ahead cuts down the number of potential partners. The tradition at some dances of finding a partner the second a dance ends so that the next dance can begin immediately is what makes dancers rush to find a partner so that the next dance can begin.

Picture if you will a Saturday dance in Town A (where I used to live) where 40 people show up. It's a relaxed dance, where people linger when each individual dance ends. The caller chats with the band, people walk around and get their next partners. Now picture a dance Town B (where I live now). On a slow night 100 people show up. Let's say an unrealistic(ally large) 60% book ahead. Now there are 40 people who have to find partners at the end of the dance. Now: Do they have to rush? I will grant you that it is conceivable that some mob effect kicks in: "All those other people have partners!!! I better get one fast!!!!!" But not only have I never heard of this effect but I can't think of a situation to study it in other than a dance, and so I doubt that it's been done. (I suspect not much psychology research has been done about effects seen at dances.)

That is to say, It's an interesting idea, maybe booking ahead makes non-bookers rush. But I bet that if the caller in Town B started putting longer breaks between each dance everyone, whether or not they had booked ahead, would take longer to line up. Either way, it's not even original research yet — it's just speculation. — eitch 23:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Third opinion

Debating topics in talk pages should be avoided. Since the matter is disputed, it is imperative that editors adhere closely to verifiability requirements. Finding the best available reliable sources and reporting only what they state is the best way to move forward. Relying on one's opinion or experience is original research. If there are questions about the reliability of a particular source, feel free to raise the reference at the reliable sources noticeboard. Vassyana (talk) 10:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

You mean debating topics in talk pages is discouraged? ;-) Joriki (talk) 21:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fourth opinion

In my view, there are two separate problems here: Establishing roughly at what fraction of dances booking ahead is discouraged, and deciding how to accurately convey that fact in the text.

The current formulation, "is discouraged", is quite strong and implies to my mind that it's discouraged at almost all dances. I did a Google search and found these Notes on Calling Contra Dances, which say:

There has been a lot of discussion in contra dance forums about booking ahead, that is, signing up dance partners in advance of the dance, and how it can be addressed. I suggest it should not be addressed - the caller should not impose his/her preference in the matter on the dancers. Try to address the problems that you think are caused by booking ahead by encouraging positive acts, such as those noted above.

So it seems that not discouraging booking ahead is not only practiced but also recommended in at least one guide that a lot of people will find if they search for contra dance and booking ahead. I think this information should be taken into account in finding a new formulation of the disputed sentence.

Joriki (talk) 21:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Well you can 1) Say what it is 2) Say that it causes problems 3) Say that it is more common at some of the larger dances 4) Say that callers don't like to talk about it, though that last is not universal. However, I don't think it deserves that long a sentence. It is a pretty minor aspect of contra dancing. 199.125.109.119 (talk) 19:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that booking ahead is contentious, is discouraged in some communities, and is actively practiced in others. I also agree with the NPOV flag on the current wording in the Wikipedia article and would like to see that statement worded in such a manner that it's less contentious and more accurate. I don't agree with the present wording "cuts down the number of potential partners." First, for the person booking ahead, it's not necessarily that he has fewer choices. It's the people looking for a partner for that particular set who have fewer choices because of people who book ahead. Second, it's not just booking ahead where that's a problem. If someone does not quickly choose a partner, he might encounter a similar situation where the number of potential dancers diminishes the longer he takes to find his next partner. I'm going to adjust that line slightly to attempt to make it more neutral.

I dance at venues with varying populations: from one dance that commonly has fewer than 20 dancers to another dance that has around 40 at the beginning and end to perhaps around 100 during its peak time on a very good night to others that regularly have more than 150 dancers. At the smaller dances, it might be possible to dance with almost everyone of a particular gender during the entire dance (and some weeks, everyone present regardless of gender). People might still choose to book ahead. Even if someone is booking ahead, the number of potential partners is still generally the same, but not necessarily the same for any given set. If there is a gender imbalance at any of these dances, dancers generally try hard to book ahead to make sure they aren't sitting out. (A good remedy for this problem is a willingness to dance both gender roles, though perhaps that might be discouraged or deemed unusual or inappropriate in some communities.) Some people choose to book one dance in advance as a polite way of turning someone down for the current dance: "Thanks, but I already have a partner for this dance. Would you like to dance the next one instead?" Jkbaum (talk) 22:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Well you have certainly made a good point for bad dance etiquette. Actually correct dance etiquette is that if someone asks you to dance and you refuse, you are not permitted to dance with anyone for that dance, you must sit it out. It isn't ever polite to lie to someone about anything. What a horrible thing to say to someone. You don't think it hurts their feelings and they can see right through you like an empty pickle jar? If you really were going to dance the next one with them why not just dance this one with them? You may "generally try hard to book ahead", but I refuse to book ahead, and if you read the papers on booking ahead you will see that booking "only one dance" is all it takes to force newcomers and the shy, forlorn and forgotten to never dance all night. I don't doubt that you do see a lot of booking ahead but just because so many people do it doesn't make it any less discouraged as a really bad practice. However, there is one exception. Dance cards. Some of the dances have dance cards listing the dances for the evening with a place to put your partners name for that dance. That type of booking is definitely acceptable, but you only see it done very rarely today. 199.125.109.92 (talk) 13:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Terminology

The Terminology section has bugged me for some time. Sorry, Eitch, but it just strikes me as unencyclopedic (w/o trying to be specific about what that means). So, I'm deleting this section. The terms are already sufficiently emphasized in context in these three articles.

The only exception is the term weight, which I feel needs more of a "how-to" description that should be in the article where the term is used, so I'm moving its description to the Contra dance choreography article and modifying it based on a source that I'll cite. I realize that Adca removed this description from the choreography section of this article, but w/o arguing whether it is or is not a choreographic term, the simple fact is that it appears in context only in the choreography article. I'm dropping the centripetal force reference because it doesn't seem to meet the standard of significantly adding to readers' understanding of the topic.

Rich Janis 23:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

No need to apologize, Rich. I just loom over this article because I'm a horrible horrible procrastinator, and it's much more fun than reverting vandalism to obscure articles.

I agree that the section is no longer necessary. It was originally an attempt to make reading the (very long) article easier— you could read along, say "Wait I think I remember reading that term somewhere way back" and just pop down to the bottom for the definition. The c.d. articles are much more user-friendly now. — eitch 18:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

"Couples consist of one lead (also gentleman, or simply gent) and one follow (or lady)." Lead and follow? Where did that come from? That sounds like Western Square dance terminology, not contra dance terminology. No one leads in contra dances, other than very rarely. If anything the lady does the leading, as in a ladies chain or in a hey. How about, "Couples consist of two people, traditionally but not necessarily one male and one female, referred to as the gent or gentleman and lady." 199.125.109.119 (talk) 19:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I just now saw this comment that explains the recent back-and-forth. Lead and follow are the terms used in gender-free dances. — eitch 15:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Huh? All I have seen is bands and bare. Doesn't need to be in the main article, which doesn't even mention gender-free dances. Like I said, no one leads in contra dancing. That is a ballroom (etc.) dance term indicating which partner is leading and which is following. One caller talked about teaching kids, which are inherently gender-free, cause all the boys have cootees or is it the other way around, so what they do is have the kids pick two nouns, and half of them become one and half the other. The labels in contra dancing are not dominant/subservient, they are just "the person on the left and the person on the right at the end of a swing". 199.125.109.82 (talk) 20:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] history of double progressions in contra dancing

The 'history' section implies that double progression dances were added some time in the 70s. I imagine that in English country dance they go back further than that… when did they show up in contra dance? — eitch 16:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

This history[4] says they were popularized by Herbie Gaudreau, although it does not give any dates. By the way there is clearly no such thing as "western style contra dancing" (in 1999 at one dance "they had live music in the contra hall, and therefore a lot of traditional style contra dancers attended"). Western style square dancing yes, western style swing dancing yes, western style contra - emphatically no. This one[5] says that becket formation was popularized in the 1970s, after Becket Reel, written (or "devised") in the 1950s by the same Herbie Gaudreau. This reference[6] gives 1971 as the publication date for Herbie Gaudreau's book Modern Contra Dancing, a collection of 50 dances. Tony Parkes suggests[7] that Al Olson came up with the name Becket formation in the 1970s. The same reference asks if Shadrack's Delight, written in 1972 was in fact the first symmetrical dance (or "equal" dance). Note: Since the reference is 10 years old I would have to say that it is. 199.125.109.82 (talk) 15:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Your first citation, the one which evidences Gaudreau's role in popularizing double progressions, is a broken link.

Is there an online or computer-file version of the piece by Gaudreau you've cited in the main article? If not, could you add quote to the citation (as in the OED citation)?

"In the fin de siècle era from 1880 to 1900, folk dancing was neglected in Europe and in America. But then Cecil Sharp in England began to research the old English country dances, both from actual dancing in rural communities, and from books of the Playford era. This eventually led to the foundation of the English Folk Dance and Song Society (EFDSS). In the Twenties, Henry Ford brought the New England dancing master Benjamin Lovett to Detroit to revitalize old-fashioned dancing. Soon after this, Lloyd Shaw, a school principal in Colorado, began to research square dancing at the foot of the Rocky Mountains, and made the USA aware of their heritage. The ensuing boom of squaredancing during the Forties and Fifties also kindled an increased interest in contra dancing. The changing style of square dancing demanded a change in the style of contra dancing too. Alternate duple minor sets became the rule. The distinction between the active and inactive couples became less obvious or was avoided. Herbie Gaudreau, a square dance caller and contra enthusiast, wrote a lot of 'modern contras' and popularized features like double progression, automatic cross-over and the Becket formation. The leading authority in the field of contra dancing, however, was undoubtedly Ralph Page, a man who had learned contra prompting in an unbroken family tradition." http://www.heinerfischle.de/history/c-history.htm 199.125.109.119 (talk) 17:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Since the reference is ten years old you would have to say it is what?

Uncontested that Shadrack's Delight is the first of this type. 199.125.109.119 (talk) 17:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

As for regional contra dance styles (and I don't know what brought this up): they certainly exist. That is different from drawing an analogy (traditional square dance):(Modern Western square dance)::(east coast contra dance):(western contra dance), or (East Coast Swing):(West Coast Swing)::(east coast contra dance):(west coast contra dance). Modern Western square dancing is complex, instituted thing with rules and levels, and traditional square dance has none of that; west coast and east coast contra dance events are the same. Western Coast Swing has different basic steps from East Coast Swing; contra dancing in different regions of, say, the US doesn't differ in its fundamentals. Nevertheless, the feel and experience of dancing with a dancing with a contra dancer from the west coast is noticeably different from dancing with a contra dancer from the northeast which is different again from dancing with someone from the southeast (put another way, there are regional contra dance styles, of which one is from the west coast). — eitch 22:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I would contest that one is just a better dancer than the other and I won't say which part of the country they are from. I know I met some very smooth dancers in Palo Alto, California, and when I asked them how long they had been dancing, they said, about three months. You can go up and down a contra line and meet less than two really smooth dancers in most parts of the country. Contra dancing does not have any set footwork, so learning it is, well, non-existent. On the other hand there are actually workshops teaching how to make smooth transitions from one figure to the next - ladies chain to swing, left hand star to swing, etc. One of the mistakes that beginners make is turning awkward directions to get to the next position. Dancers with a background in dance (ballet or ballroom) tend to adapt easily to excellent contra dancers, without going through a lot of awkwardness. I have to agree that the southern mountain dances are different from the northeast - so much so that I was almost going to mention it, but it is the southern mountain squares that are actually different, not the contras. Contrary to all logic they are faster than the northern squares. 199.125.109.119 (talk) 17:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a couple of clarifications: (1) There is indeed a "western contra" style, and I'm not talking about Modern Urban Contra as done on the west coast vs. the east coast. Some of the modern "western" square dance people - who like the phrasing and relaxed feel of contras vs. modern squares - have formed clubs with mostly-contra or all-contra programs. They have kept many aspects of M"W"SD (the club structure, the dress code, the recorded music), and they tend to come in couples and dance together all night. It is absolutely true that there has been a culture clash when T-shirted "traditional" contra dancers have entered the contra hall at some National Square Dance Conventions. (2) I never meant to ask whether my "Shadrack's Delight" (1972) was the first symmetrical or equal contra dance; I knew it wasn't, as all of Herbie Gaudreau's dances are older. What I meant to ask was whether it was the first non-Becket contra to have everyone swinging partner simultaneously. Since asking, I've realized that it wasn't; Rod Linnell, in his "Verona's Favorite," used the same gimmick (have the gents cross to swing partner on the lady's side, then get everyone back with a half chain and a half right and left). I forget when he wrote it, but he died in 1966, so it was well before Shadrack. Tparkes (talk) 19:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] history of dance camps

This topic began as a continuation of the "history of double progressions" topic, from which it was later separated. --Rich Janis (talk) 09:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

More dance history. I think the sentence on the Folk Festival and Pinewoods should be moved back earlier. It was put into the 50s section on purpose because at that time they served as a focal point for callers. Today there are dozens of similar camps and the Flurry is bigger than the Folk Festival. Also there are lots of dawn dances, due to the increased popularity of contra dancing. NEFFA dates from 1944[8] and Pinewoods from 1933.[9] Today I never see any of the most popular callers at NEFFA, presumably because it is an all volunteer festival. Rather than NEFFA being a focal point today, most people don't go there because it is too crowded. 199.125.109.119 (talk) 17:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess 199.125.109.119 thinks Lisa Greenleaf is not popular. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 14:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Why's it crowded if no one goes?

You never heard of Yogi Berra saying that? "No one ever goes there anymore, because it is too crowded." The point actually is that there are more contra dancers today, and in more places, but NEFFA is quite crowded, a lot of people don't like to go there because it is so crowded. With less dancers it would take everyone going there to make it crowded. With more dancers just a few going makes it crowded. There are also dances all across the country, and while there are people who notably come every year from far away, for the vast majority of dancers, traveling that far doesn't even come up as an option. And ok, not counting Lisa, and five others I won't mention, the most popular callers never go to NEFFA. Make that six others I won't mention. 199.125.109.119 (talk) 23:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The placement of NEFFA and Pinewoods: they are mentioned in reference to contra dance today, not in their historical context. If the history section is fleshed out more, I can see those two moving to an earlier spot (in the future "contra dances become huge events" sub-section). — eitch 23:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The history section would need subsections if it got any bigger. NEFFA and Pinewoods are not proportionally as important today as they were 50 years ago. For today I would write a sentence that would go something like "Today the Flurry, NEFFA and other special events like the all night Dawn dances and the annual Snowball bring together large groups of dancers." 199.125.109.119 (talk) 23:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I was confused by the flow of this section, so I split it where the subject changed to dance camps. Maybe I'm missing the point of these comments, but I removed some recent text from the article that I think blurred the historical context of NEFFA and Pinewoods. --Rich Janis (talk) 09:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Video

I see that there are at least two videos of the Peterborough Snow Ball this year, and one from last year, along with some from the Florida Snow Ball at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4WuzxHrZX4 199.125.109.92 (talk) 19:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] external links and TOC

I don't want to just go revert, so I thought I'd say here: I think putting all of the categories of external links in the table of contents just makes the TOC too long, and makes it look like half of the information available in the article is the list of external links. I put the 'find North American dances' in the TOC figuring that a bunch of people coming to the article might be looking for that. Now I don't think that was a good idea. I think now that none of the external links categories should be in the TOC, so as to not take up so much space.— eitch 13:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree- I don't think they should be in the TOC. I haven't had a chance to look through them, but there do appear (at a brief glance) to be quite a few- is there any link trimming that could/should be done? Loggie (talk) 12:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)