[SCA-Dance] Greetings and question

[Mikuláš]

Jane & Mark Waks wrote:
> Mikuláš wrote:
>> You can easily check which longways for as many as will are fine for 
>> SCA period on
>
> Well, I don't know about "fine". It's a complex question, really, and 
> doesn't admit any simple answers.
>
> Let's step back a minute, and talk about theory. The thing is, 
> essentially all English Country is, arguably, technically out of 
> period -- that is, the first descriptions we have are just outside the 
> latest common definition of SCA period (the book is 1651, and few 
> people seriously argue the SCA as being later than 1650). Now, we have 
> every reason to believe that many of those dances were being done 
> before 1650, so you can slip them inside that line with some 
> confidence. But if you go by the *technical* definition of SCA period 
> -- the one that's actually in the rules, 1600 -- odds are pretty good 
> that *none* of these dances were being done in exactly that form.
>
> So what do you do about ECD? Answers vary. Some purists argue that 
> it's all post-period, since it's after 1600, and that ECD is entirely 
> outside the SCA's purview. Others go the other way, and argue that, 
> since we know that Playford was describing these kinds of dances, we 
> have every reason to believe they were doing these styles of dance 
> before 1650, so all of English Country is pretty much fair game. (By 
> which definition, late 17th/early 18th century dances like Hole in the 
> Wall and Female Sailor are reasonably okay.) Both of these arguments 
> have some validity; neither is perfect.
>
> Personally, I split the difference. The thing is, the set dances in 
> Playford are more *like* the dances of the Renaissance. The circular 
> ones are vaguely bransle-like; the squares (especially the squares for 
> 4) vaguely like late Italian stuff. So I tend to consider them "close 
> enough" -- forms that are transitioning out of the Renaissance.
>
> By contrast, the longways dances are practically the *defining* social 
> dances of the Baroque period. You see the barest traces of them around 
> 1600; by 1651 they account for something like half of Playford; and by 
> 1700 they've pretty much taken over completely. So I think of them as 
> transitional forms *into* the Baroque.
>
> So putting this together, I personally teach everything in Playford 
> *except* the longways dances, on the grounds that they are a bit too 
> "Baroque-ish". (Not to mention the fact that we do them *so* badly. If 
> you ever get a chance to learn Hole in the Wall taught in proper 1700 
> style, take it: it'll make your head spin.) That's a very rough and 
> ready rule, no more certain than the others, but it works for me, 
> since I am skeptical about artificially sharp lines in history.
>
> So there's no clear definition of "okay for SCA" when it comes to 
> English Country. You have to decide what philosophical approach you're 
> taking to period, and that determines your answer to the question...
>
>                 -- Justin
>
Thanks for a deeper insight!

I agree very much, I just didn't have time enough to get too involved ;)
Just two biref notes:

- datation of the tune can be very helpfull (although sometimes hard to 
get right),
- some of the progressive longways in the first edition should be 
definitely older than 1651, if you take a closer look, you find that 
some of them, for example Bobbing Joe, are quite strange and not fiting 
to what we consider to be "normal" progressive longway. Those seem to be 
those "transitions" Justin talked about. Some of them, on the other hand 
(Tom Tinker is a good examle), seem to be quite what we are used to. And 
definitely more baroque in style.

Mikulas
(a-non-SCA-nian-confused-and-not-realy-worryied-about-those-proper-period-problems)