Contra Dancing
david
help me with a question. I believe I have it right that active
couples in contra dancing move down the set while inactives move up.
What I'm wondering is... would that make the active couples odd or
even #'s (# 1 or 2)? And why does it matter that people have a number
at all? Just wondering...
David W
No spam please
Usually they would be considered 1's. In most longsways contra dances the
"major set" is defined as the entire line, while the "minor set" is the
group of 4 people (2 couples) being danced for a given iteration of the
dance sequence. That's another reason you will usually here the calls
"hands four" to establish all the minor sets in the line (and figure out if
you're active/1s or in-active/2s) followed by "actives cross over" to put
the active couple on opposite/contrary/"contradance" side.
Before the concept of the "contra" dance, the "proper" alignment of the
dance was a line of all men on one side and a side of all women on the
other. The couple crossing over would then be "improper".
Hope that helps.
Ric
"david" <davi...@nocharge.com> wrote in message
news:7299d214.03100...@posting.google.com...
Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr
>Hi David,
>
>Usually they would be considered 1's. In most longsways contra dances the
>"major set" is defined as the entire line, while the "minor set" is the
>group of 4 people (2 couples) being danced for a given iteration of the
>dance sequence. That's another reason you will usually here the calls
>"hands four" to establish all the minor sets in the line (and figure out if
>you're active/1s or in-active/2s) followed by "actives cross over" to put
>the active couple on opposite/contrary/"contradance" side.
>
>Before the concept of the "contra" dance, the "proper" alignment of the
>dance was a line of all men on one side and a side of all women on the
>other. The couple crossing over would then be "improper".
To expand on this, the "active/inactive" terminology was clearer when most
contradances were fairly unequal, where the active couple really was more
active than the inactive. Most modern urban contras are fairly equal, and
many are perfectly symmetrical; eg, in a "circle four 3/4, swing neighbor,
circle four 3/4, swing partner, ladies chain over and back, ladies start
a hey for four, continue the hey until you can join hands with the next
couple" contradance, does it make any sense to call one couple active?
-- Alan
--
===============================================================================
Alan Winston --- WIN...@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU
Disclaimer: I speak only for myself, not SLAC or SSRL Phone: 650/926-3056
Paper mail to: SSRL -- SLAC BIN 99, 2575 Sand Hill Rd, Menlo Park CA 94025
===============================================================================
Jonathan Sivier
>To expand on this, the "active/inactive" terminology was clearer when most
>contradances were fairly unequal, where the active couple really was more
>active than the inactive. Most modern urban contras are fairly equal, and
>many are perfectly symmetrical; eg, in a "circle four 3/4, swing neighbor,
>circle four 3/4, swing partner, ladies chain over and back, ladies start
>a hey for four, continue the hey until you can join hands with the next
>couple" contradance, does it make any sense to call one couple active?
In addition when you are doing a triple minor it's easier to address
the couples as 1's, 2's and 3's as opposed to "actives", "inactives" and,
er, um, "the other inactives" ("Hello, I'm Larry. This is my brother
Daryl and this is my other brother Daryl.") So it makes some sense to
use a consistent terminology and refer to the couples in duple minor dances
as 1's and 2's.
Jonathan
Charter member of the Society for the Preservation of Triple Minors
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Jonathan Sivier |Q: How many angels can dance on the |
| jsi...@uiuc.edu | head of a pin? |
| Flight Simulation Lab |A: It depends on what dance you call. |
| Beckman Institute | |
| 405 N. Mathews | SWMDG - Single White Male |
| Urbana, IL 61801 | Dance Gypsy |
| Work: 217/244-1923 | |
| Home: 217/359-8225 | Have shoes, will dance. |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Home page URL: http://www.uiuc.edu/ph/www/jsivier |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
No spam please
news:aeZfb.312$fm2....@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu...
> win...@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU ("Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr")
writes:
>
> >To expand on this, the "active/inactive" terminology was clearer when
most
> >contradances were fairly unequal, where the active couple really was more
> >active than the inactive. Most modern urban contras are fairly equal,
and
> >many are perfectly symmetrical; eg, in a "circle four 3/4, swing
neighbor,
> >circle four 3/4, swing partner, ladies chain over and back, ladies start
> >a hey for four, continue the hey until you can join hands with the next
> >couple" contradance, does it make any sense to call one couple active?
While, yes, this is interesting from a philosphical standpoint, it's getting
away from the original question of "what is meant by actives?". I'm sure
when a caller says "actives swing" we need to be able to respond to that
call correctly (which would be ones, or first couple in the minor set
swing).
> In addition when you are doing a triple minor it's easier to address
> the couples as 1's, 2's and 3's as opposed to "actives", "inactives" and,
> er, um, "the other inactives" ("Hello, I'm Larry. This is my brother
> Daryl and this is my other brother Daryl.") So it makes some sense to
> use a consistent terminology and refer to the couples in duple minor
dances
> as 1's and 2's.
That's true, too, but until everyone adapts that, dancers still need to be
to respond to the calls that are being used out there now. FWIW, I like the
scanning meter of "actives swing", or "middles do-si-do" (2s), or "bottoms
gypsy (2s or 3s, depending), but that just a personal preference. As long
as we communicate what we intend by that, I suspect the rest fits well into
the post-dance discussion schmooze discussion after the third round. <G>
[snip]
Thanx, Ric
Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr
>"Jonathan Sivier " <jsi...@uiuc.edu> wrote in message
>news:aeZfb.312$fm2....@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu...
>> win...@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU ("Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr")
>writes:
>>
>> >To expand on this, the "active/inactive" terminology was clearer when
>most
>> >contradances were fairly unequal, where the active couple really was more
>> >active than the inactive. Most modern urban contras are fairly equal,
>and
>> >many are perfectly symmetrical; eg, in a "circle four 3/4, swing
>neighbor,
>> >circle four 3/4, swing partner, ladies chain over and back, ladies start
>> >a hey for four, continue the hey until you can join hands with the next
>> >couple" contradance, does it make any sense to call one couple active?
>
>While, yes, this is interesting from a philosphical standpoint, it's getting
>away from the original question of "what is meant by actives?". I'm sure
>when a caller says "actives swing" we need to be able to respond to that
>call correctly (which would be ones, or first couple in the minor set
>swing).
There were two original questions, and the one which I was answering was
(paraphrased) "what's with the numbers - why do we even have 1s and 2s?"
Karen M.
Rather than inform you of how to calculate quadratic equations,
I'll answer your question by saying that actives = 1's and inactives =
2's. The single syllable notation is sometimes a better fit for
whatever the caller is telling you to do.
We learned out to "count off" in grade school, so it's another way
of saying "every other couple" which has even more syllables.
--Karen M.
terse is a good thing
Susan
> win...@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU ("Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr") writes:
>
> >To expand on this, the "active/inactive" terminology was clearer when most
> >contradances were fairly unequal, where the active couple really was more
> >active than the inactive. Most modern urban contras are fairly equal, and
> >many are perfectly symmetrical; eg, in a "circle four 3/4, swing neighbor,
> >circle four 3/4, swing partner, ladies chain over and back, ladies start
> >a hey for four, continue the hey until you can join hands with the next
> >couple" contradance, does it make any sense to call one couple active?
Aren't most modern urban contras also duple minor? I don't do them
enough (once a year) to have any kind of realistic sample, but that's
been my impression. I'm agree with Alan on the above - just
encountered this while teaching a Spanish dance this weekend, and
joked about how silly the term "active" was in a perfectly equal-time
dance.
> In addition when you are doing a triple minor it's easier to address
> the couples as 1's, 2's and 3's as opposed to "actives", "inactives" and,
> er, um, "the other inactives" ("Hello, I'm Larry. This is my brother
> Daryl and this is my other brother Daryl.") So it makes some sense to
> use a consistent terminology and refer to the couples in duple minor dances
> as 1's and 2's.
I have to argue with Jonathan here. I find the 1-2-3 terminology to
be horrendously confusing, because people not only have to remember
the dance, they have (as inactives) to remember whether they are 2's
or 3's at any given time. Especially for dancers new to the longways
progressive format, this is one too many things to remember.
When I teach triples - and I mostly teach triples, since they didn't
go in for duples until very late in my period ("Regency"/early 19thc)
- I teach it as "the actives are doing the figures, and everyone else
is helping them as needed." I don't mention the words "triple minor"
or the idea of "1-2-3 couples". My mantra is "look up the set for the
active couples and help them when they get to you."
This is helped along by the general period practice of not giving the
inactive couples anything independent to do - while they might be part
of a figure with the actives (hands four, for example), they would
never have something to do all by themselves. [Note: I can think of
one (1) exception to this. It's in the infamously hard "Downfall of
Paris".] If modern compositions give the inactive couples independent
action, this would be more of a problem. Happily I don't have to
worry about it. :)
Susan
The Martin
> quadratic equations,
Oh! The pain! Its been 40 years and I still flinched. And I don't even
remember what a quadratic (ouch!) equation is.
Bill Martin
david
> you're active/1s or in-active/2s) followed by "actives cross over" to put
> the active couple on opposite/contrary/"contradance" side.
So do actives cross over before starting the set and inactives not
cross over then? I'm not getting the actives vs inactives
differentiation.
David
david
> I'll answer your question by saying that actives = 1's and inactives =
> 2's. The single syllable notation is sometimes a better fit for
> whatever the caller is telling you to do.
> We learned out to "count off" in grade school, so it's another way
> of saying "every other couple" which has even more syllables.
Great description Karen. Thank you.
David W
Donna Richoux
> > "hands four" to establish all the minor sets in the line (and figure out if
> > you're active/1s or in-active/2s) followed by "actives cross over" to put
> > the active couple on opposite/contrary/"contradance" side.
>
> So do actives cross over before starting the set and inactives not
> cross over then?
Yes. The actives are also called the "ones" or "number ones" or "the
number one couple." They cross over, and the twos (inactives) don't.
Maybe where you are they just say "hands four from the top of the set"?
The couple nearer the top of the set in each ring of four people is the
active couple or number ones. The active man and woman trade places with
each other in most contras now.
After the dance has been going for a while, the twos will reach the top
of the set. They then cross over while waiting, and rejoin the dance as
ones. Same change at the bottom. You say you've done contra dancing, so
you must have some sense of that.
>I'm not getting the actives vs inactives
> differentiation.
Twenty or thirty years ago, we did dances where the ones did much more
than the twos -- hence the words "active couple." The actives often got
to swing when the inactives didn't; they went down the hall and back
while the inactives waited, that sort of thing. As people have pointed
out here, dances today are much more symmetrical.
--
Best -- Donna Richoux
Bruce Freeman
Bruce
Karen M.
Yep, if it's a duple improper. Note that this gives you alternating
genders around the ring, so if the first call is "face your neighbor,
balance and swing" you'll be doing it with someone of the
complementary gender (or person portraying that role).
Where you live, David? Regulars can refer you to local dances, and
after about 30 minutes everything will become crystal clear. (That's
not a threat!)
--Karen M.
David Millstone
back: "The actives often got to swing when the inactives didn't; they
went down the hall and back while the inactives waited, that sort of
thing."
I'm putting on my Contra Curmudgeon Cap for the moment...
The single word "waiting" that Donna mentions doesn't do justice to the
many possibilities open to the inactives in these older dances:
-- They get to talk to each other, and not just those interrupted
conversations that we have with a partner in the more modern dances,
where you get a few beats of conversation before you're off somewhere
else again. Actives are going down the center and back, inactives
waiting, that's 12 beats of music (not counting four for the probable
cast off that follows) during which they can talk with each other. This
could be dance-related gossip ("Did you notice that X is dancing a lot
with Y tonight! Do you think something's going on?") or not related to
the dance at all, such as talking about the bumper turnip crop, or the
upcoming school bond vote, or the killing frost that hit your dahlias
last night, those little non-dancing bits that help build a
community...
-- They can clog on the sidelines, improvising a percussion soundtrack
to the band's tunes, continuing the dance by interpreting it
personally...
-- They can turn their attention (ears and eyes) to the musicians,
actively listening to the music without the distraction of moving for a
few moments, watching the interaction of the musicians with each other,
perhaps catching a musician's eyes to send a smile or a thumbs-up
signal...
-- They can let their heart and feet rest up for a moment. Keep in mind
that dawn dances are not a new invention. Folks in New England a
hundred years ago would get together on occasion to dance all night,
starting after the evening farm chores, going through 'til dawn, and
followed not by sleep but by another day of physical labor.
-- They can watch the styling of the actives. Used to be, in a dance
like Petronella where originally it was only the actives who did the
"twirl and balance" figure, you'd see a lot of different ways of
balancing. You could go off yourself and try to emulate someone else's
move, although apparantly it was considered poor form to use someone
else's balance if they were in your set... And even in a dance where
there's not a B&S for the actives, the inactives get to watch more of
the dancing and, perhaps, pick up some pointers.
In many of today dance communities, with a non-stop program of dances
in which everybody is moving all the time, these options are more
limited. That's another reason why it's nice to include some of the
older, traditional dances (with actives and inactives) in an evening's
program.
David Millstone
Lebanon, NH
S Miskoe
and deciding who else would be nice to dance with.
Cheers,
Sylvia Miskoe, Concord, NH
(also a dance curmudgeon)