(no subject)

[sorcyress]

I don't wanna go to physics class, I wanna go back to snugglin' Brenton before he leaves for a month and then I want to play with my bicycle which means roam around and get a helmet and lock and stuff even if they are going to cost me a zillion dollars because dude, necessary.

Have I mentioned here that I have a bike now? This is basically the most exciting thing ever, and I will give you a better reaction tomorrow, which is officially play on my bike for the first time day (after therapy and before homework).

Anywho, gonna sundriespost later today, as well as try and refine the thing I wrote last week after Tech Squares so it is a little less abrasive (I got...ranty about dancing of various sorts) also, apparently I have to fight Kendra sometime because two couple dances should start ones and threes zohmgod¹. Yeah, aforementioned unposted post talks about that some too, as that seems to be my current campaign.

ANYWAYS, I should throw a bag together properly so that I can go to class and then to Diesel (where I will write my words for the day and arrrrrrg notime) and then to Tech Squares and then to...somewhere. I don't know. Byeeee!

~Sor
MOOP!

1: This is me being passionate about SCD, meaning ninety-five percent of you can safely ignore it. Also, she's probably right, in terms of the dance being properly done and remaining in the established formalities of the form, but I'm also inclined to say that I'm probably right, in terms of everyone getting to dance as much as possible.

In short, I am sorry Kendra, I like you and do not actually want to fight.

Comments

Also, did I mention: YAY! BICYCLE! :D

[harena.livejournal.com]

Yayayayay, Bicycle! ^_^

Bicycle! Bicycle!
I want to ride my bicycle, I want to ride my BIKE!
I want to ride my biCYcle, I want to ride it where I like!"

*poings in circles around Sor & hgugles!*

Re: Also, did I mention: YAY! BICYCLE! :D

[marcmagus.livejournal.com]

This has been stuck in my head off and on all night. I'm now going to be trying to fall asleep to "BI-cycle BI-cycle..."

If I keep shield_toad111 awake either air-bicycling in my sleep or muttering the song I'm going to come back and blame you...

Re: Also, did I mention: YAY! BICYCLE! :D

[harena.livejournal.com]

*is almost afraid to ask*

Did you and did you and are you? And do i need to find a ferret hole to hide in? >.>

[marcmagus.livejournal.com]

No idea, but I haven't heard anything negative about it, so I think I'm ok. I don't think there would really be need to hide regardless.

[harena.livejournal.com]

Oh, goodgood! And hee, yay!

*doesn't like making people wanting to make her want to hide*

. o O (that thought had less "wants" inside my head, honest)

[http://users.livejournal.com/_meej_/]

On the 2-couple dance thing, I think it's one of those things (just like jere7my's analysis of why, when 4's and 5's share the last round of the dance, the 4's should get out of the way and step down in order to even out dancing as much as possible) that the "right" way to do it in terms of tradition and the "right" way to do it in terms of spreading the dancing out as much as possible are, sadly, in conflict. And the RSCDS is not known for officially breaking with tradition, which (given their mission) is understandable.

But if you and Kendra do fight, do we get to cast votes about how? :-)

[kdsorceress.livejournal.com]

I understand that, and there's a certain amount to which I support the mission of not changing tradition. I don't actually insist on starting ones and threes --if you did two couple dances in three couple sets (and only six times through), that would solve the problem just as elegantly. Or hell, if you just played the music nine times through.

But if you and Kendra do fight, do we get to cast votes about how?

In a word, emphatically, No.

~Sor

[http://users.livejournal.com/_meej_/]

But if you and Kendra do fight, do we get to cast votes about how?
In a word, emphatically, No.

Aww. And you don't even know what I was going to suggest!
(Neither do I, actually.)

[kdsorceress.livejournal.com]

The we was your downfall. If it had been just you, I think I would be more willing to take my chances that you would choose something cool (boffer swords on the commons!) over something skeevy (nude jell-o wrestlin') than the generic "we" representing various people that Kendra and I know.

Or, to be more specific, your vote might be entertained. jere7my's will not. ;D

~Sor

[jere7my.livejournal.com]

*raises one eyebrow*

[http://users.livejournal.com/_meej_/]

Somehow I seem to have gotten you in trouble without even mentioning you.
*shrug*

[kdsorceress.livejournal.com]

Well, see, you are obviously going to be biased towards Kendra (being as she is, you know, your wife), and so you will probably pick some sort of fight that she will be very good at, and I will not! I don't want to get into a fight about who can know more about Roman stuff, I will certainly lose!

~Sor

[http://users.livejournal.com/_meej_/]

Ha! Well, OK, then - in the future I'll be sure to phrase all my possibly-double-entendre suggestions (as in, the sort that leave you taking your chances as to what I'm thinking) as clearly just being representative of me. :-)

[kdsorceress.livejournal.com]

*laughs* Excellent, I approve!

~Sor

[jugglergeek.livejournal.com]

Traditions are made to be broken.

Completely unrelated to this particular instance of dancing, the simple rationale of "That's the way it's always been done" is the worst possible reason for continuing to do something - especially if there's a better way to do it, that's being ignored simply out a reluctance to change.

[kdsorceress.livejournal.com]

Yes and no. I do a lot of historical dance, and part of the historical dance is balancing what non-historical elements should be encouraged (speakers for your musicians, proper kitchens for food, sewing machines, gentlemen dancing with gentlemen) and what should be politely discouraged (modern food, walking the dances rather than doing steps, modern courtesy turns (in Regency, you would not be so impolite as to grope a lady's back))

The RSCDS does do a lot of trying to recreate dances --it's interesting in that it is both a semi-historical dance form and a modern/emerging one, people still regularly write new dances and music for it, and people still regularly do dances that were first danced a hundred years or more ago. So, I recognize the difficulty in trying to balance maintaining the traditional form and making it accessible to a new crowd.

THAT BEING SAID, any tradition that lets half of everybody dance more than the other half is a Bad Tradition, and I disapprove. (Or indeed, that otherwise limits the freedom regarding amount of dancing or with whom you get to dance --see also my rants about how gentlemen should certainly be allowed to dance together if they'd like, even if there are unmatched ladies. The unpartnered ladies will either dance together, or don't have a right to complain.)

Soyeah.

~Sor

[meanfreepath.livejournal.com]

With regards to tradition in the RSCDS... there have been debates over how much the RSCDS at its founding was preserving tradition as opposed to creating its own. To be clear, I do like the fact that Scottish dancing is an evolving tradition; I like a lot of dances with modern figures, and in compiling music sets I try to include at least some tunes by contemporary composers. But with regards to RSCDS creating traditions, Two examples are the tempi of strathspeys and the practice of doing dances 8 times through.

With regards to strathspey tempo, from what I can tell strathspeys used to be danced a lot faster than they are now, even with RSCDS footwork. There are folks who claim Miss Milligan (and the quasi-deification of Miss Milligan is another topic about which there've been lots of arguments) basically made up the current strathspey step. There's a case to be made that the tempo at which Cape Bretoners play strathspeys (fast enough that doing the RSCDS step is more or less impossible) is closer to the tempo at which strathspeys were historically played and danced in Scotland.

Also... I'm trying to remember if I've only gotten this from Susie Petrov or from other people as well, but apparently the RSCDS believed it hugely important that recordings be published with its books of dances, particularly since local Scottish musicians were often nonexistent in the places to which the Society was expanding. Early 45 rpm phonograph records could hold about 8 minutes of music per side -- enough for two quicktime dances or one strathspey, each danced 8 times through. Hence our current custom.

Here, again, I do not speak from direct personal experience, but from what I can tell talking to people who have spent a lot of time in Scotland, the RSCDS apparently suffers from a serious image problem there, that of being old and stodgy. Among younger folks ceilidh dancing is apparently the rage, sort of like how contra dancing is popular here. In all honesty, we're lucky to have a lot of young dancers in the Boston Branch (not that Scottish dancing being intergenerational is a bad thing). I have friends who started dancing in college in the DelVal Branch (also a lot of young folks partly because of the BiCo and Swarthmore classes), subsequently moved to other areas of the country, and found themselves by far the youngest people in their local RSCDS classes.

[marcmagus.livejournal.com]

Just ran the math on this to confirm:

8 reps, 1s&3s start, everybody gets 3 rounds as 1st and 3 rounds as 2nd.
8 reps, 1s start: 4s only get 2 rounds as 1st, 3s only get 2 rounds as 2nd.

So yes, you are in fact right; your suggestion not only maximizes dancing but creates missing parity.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_meej_/]

Plus as 4's you're not standing there waiting for your first round through so long that you forget the dance. :-)

[tirerim.livejournal.com]

It does. On the other hand, given the demographics of SCD, many people might actually be glad of an extra time out, especially in some dances (*cough*Petronella*cough*). And if you think of it terms of the distribution of places in three couple dances (two rounds each as first, second, third, and out), everyone is actually getting extra rounds -- it's just that some people are getting an extra round at both positions and some are only getting it at one.

Just be glad we aren't doing three couple dances as triple minors anymore. :-)

[kdsorceress.livejournal.com]

In a three couple dance, everybody dances six times, and rests twice. In a two couple dance, half of everybody dances six times, and the other half dance five times, so I have no idea where you're getting the idea that people are getting extra rounds --they are getting extra rounds as ones, I suppose, but that's all. (C1 and C2 dance three times as ones and three times as twos, C3 dances three times as ones and two times as twos, C4 dances twice as twos and three times as ones)

If people want the extra time out, than there needs to be specific arrangement for them to be in the third and fourth couple spot (similar I suppose to putting beginners as C1 so they may walk it.) I would be happy to start proposing this during two couple dances, but am skeptical of it not being taken as rude to say "is there anyone in this set who wants to dance less".

~Sor

[genarti]

Extra rounds as ones often make a significant difference, though. It depends highly on the dance, but there are quite a few in which the ones have a much more energetic or nonstop part than the twos. Dancing your way to the bottom with three rounds as first couple can be a bit of a marathon, in a way that dancing your way up to the top isn't necessarily.

I don't have any strong opinion on starting with 1s and 3s versus just 1s, for the record. If I did get to pick my ideal set-up for this, it would actually be to dance two-couple dances in three-couple sets, so that everybody does it only twice and nobody gets that marathon run to the bottom. But nobody asked me when the tradition was working itself into being, so.

[kdsorceress.livejournal.com]

Oh yes, I keep forgetting to mention that --it would be just as easy, and ensure that everyone still gets the same amount of dancing, to dance two couple dances in three couple sets (and only six times through). Heck, if anything, I may prefer that simply because then you've successfully negated some of the problem involved with what you mentioned, and the ones position often being harsh on...less springy dancers.

~Sor

[kdsorceress.livejournal.com]

I ran the math as well, (I drew charts!) and got the same answer, so that's good to know. When I actually make a proper post about this, I will put that up as part of it.

~Sor

[mogwit.livejournal.com]

Not entirely relevant but I shall still insert it: once at Cambridge class I was dancing as a third couple in a two couple dance and couldn't remember whether the 3s started (it seemed logical to me, but I remembered this maybe not being the case). I asked my neighbor (LB, for the curious), politely, right before the bow chord, and she said, sounding slightly irritated, "This is NOT a contra dance."
Hmph.

[kdsorceress.livejournal.com]

I think that is relevant. Is it bad that my first response to that is "Well, maybe I'll go to the contra dance instead, since they actually let everyone dance the same amount." or something equally snarky.

Also, boo on dance elitism in all forms. Contra =/= SCD =/= Regency =/= Squares =/= ECD =/= anything else, and saying that one is better than the other doesn't make me think anything of you except that perhaps you are a little bit of an asshole.

(I should note that saying a dance is better than a different dance is definitely not the same thing as saying you prefer a dance over another dance --I myself have a hierarchy of what I like to do most*, but I enjoy all of them, and I don't begrudge anyone enjoying any of them.)

~Sor

*Regency > SCD > Squares > Contra = Victorian/Civil War > ECD

[kdsorceress.livejournal.com]

Er, and in case that wasn't clear, the footnote should be interpreted less as > meaning "is better than" and more as > meaning "I enjoy this more than"

~Sor

lVsrYgkGytwuAhMbkJF

[(Anonymous)]

Derek, although that might work, I'm not niterested to try that because as far as I'm concerned, sites should work with browsers without having to fake user agent strings. If they don't, that's a bug for the site administrator to fix, not the end user.gjph, looks like the bug has been opened in April. Personally I find it highly surprising that Microsoft haven't worked out a solution in the last couple of months for this highly visible bug resulting in widespread poor user experience. It's not as if the Firefox 3.0 betas have not been available for testing.