Jim,
Larry carried a stop watch... many a night I would sit there with
Larry and count not only beat/seconds but also how many revolutions
and steps in different swing positions... and compare one dancer with
another's footwork etc.. He loved to break down the dance/movement to
its smallest piece...
I would not hesitate to have a band change tempo in the middle of a
dance if they were ether dragging on or running a race. The caller
can see what is working on the floor.. and it is about the dance.
On the other hand.. Bob McQuillen will stop a chestnut cold in the
middle of a dance if the fiddler is to fast or two slow.
Don Primrose
Nelson NH
On 3/8/12, James Saxe <jim.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 8, 2012, at 9:59 AM, Martha Edwards wrote:
>
>> ...
>> I also remember reading somewhere in my two Larry Jennings books
>> that 120
>> was the ideal tempo, but I can't find the reference, so maybe I made
>> it up.
>
> The remark to which Martha refers appears on page 37 of _Zesty
> Contras_, in the section V.2 ("Time Management). Larry writes:
>
> I know from having recorded many dances that the tempos used
> vary between 30 seconds per change of 64 beats and 35 seconds
> per change. A lovely average tempo is 32 seconds/64 beats. ...
>
> On page 42, in his sample self-critique, based on a tape of himself
> teaching and calling "Country Doctor's Reel," Larry describes the
> tempo thus:
>
> Tempo: 33.8 sec. (average time required for one change).
>
> I believe Larry preferred to write tempos in terms of seconds per
> change (64 beats) rather than beats per minute because he did his
> timing with a watch--probably a stopwatch--rather than a metronome.
> Perhaps someone who spent more time with Larry than I did could
> confirm or refute this.
>
> In any case, I believe that a stopwatch is a substantially better
> tool than a metronome for measuring (as opposed to setting) tempos,
> particularly if the stopwatch has a "Split" or "Lap" feature. This
> is a button that makes the stopwatch display either the current
> cumulative time (since last started) or the time since the last
> split/lap or both, while also continuing to run so that you can
> capture more split/lap times later. Some watches store split/lap
> times in a memory that you can examine later at leisure. Sporting
> goods stores typically carry such stopwatches with a variety of
> features, memory capacities, and physical durability (or lack
> thereof). Nowadays many cell phones have a stopwatch feature
> built in.
>
> My technique for taking timings is to get my finger tapping
> lightly to the beat on the appropriate button (start or
> split/lap) and then actually follow through and press the
> button on a particular beat, typically beat 64 of the tune
> (or the last beat of the "four potatoes, if I'm timing from
> the start of the tune). Then I do the same thing at the
> corresponding place in the tune 64 beats (or 128 or 192
> ...) later. I find that in this way, I can keep my timing
> inaccuracy down to a couple tenths of a second or less most
> of the time. That amounts to less than one beat per minute
> when averaged over one round of a tune, and less when
> averaged over multiple rounds. As an example, here are
> results that I got just now by timing the same two repeats
> of a tune on a particular YouTube video five times:
>
> 31.50 + 31.23 = 62.73 (avg. = 31.365 sec/change; 122.4 bpm)
> 31.44 + 31.22 = 62.66 (avg. = 31.330 sec/change; 122.6 bpm)
> 31.43 + 31.36 = 62.79 (avg. = 31.395 sec/change; 122.3 bpm)
> 31.51 + 31.22 = 62.73 (avg. = 31.365 sec/change; 122.4 bpm)
> 31.47 + 31.22 = 62.69 (avg. = 31.345 sec/change; 122.5 bpm)
>
> By taking multiple split/lap times over the length of a dance,
> you can also get get quantitative information about whether the
> band maintained a steady tempo or sped up, and if they sped up,
> whether it happened gradually or suddenly (e.g., at a tune change),
> etc. Unlike with a metronome there's no need to look at a
> stopwatch continuously while taking timings. While I've described
> taking split/lap times at intervals of 64 beats (or multiples
> thereof), there's no need to devote much attention to counting
> to 64, since you can let the phrasing of the tune and the pattern
> of the dance effectively do the counting for you.
>
> To convert from seconds per change to beats per minute, you can use
> the formula
>
> # of beats per minute = 3840 / (# of seconds per round)
>
> The 3840 (= 60 x 64) comes from the fact that there are 60 seconds
> in a minute and 64 beats in one round of a standard-length contra
> dance/tune. Or you can remember a few equivalences, such as 32
> seconds per round being 120 beats per minute, 30 seconds per round
> being 128 bpm, etc.
>
> While calling, I find it fairly easy to make a quick assessment of
> the tempo by taking a few split/lap times at 16 beat intervals
> (16 beats/8 sec = 120 bpm; 16 beats/7.5s = 128 bpm; 16 beats/8.5s
> =~ 113 bpm) without distracting much attention from watching the
> dancers. Such measurements can help me check a visual impression
> that dancers are either plodding or racing and decide whether
> the situation warrants signaling the band to adjust their tempo.
>
> --Jim
>
> On Mar 8, 2012, at 9:59 AM, Martha Edwards wrote:
>
>> Alan's answer is the "right" one, in my experience, but I offer this
>> anecdote:
>>
>> I used to wonder what the "right" tempo for a contra dance was, so
>> any time
>> the following three things happened at the same time, I took note of
>> the
>> tempo.
>>
>> 1. I was sitting out the dance
>> 2. I had a metronome handy
>> 3. The dancers looked really happy dancing
>>
>> In EACH of the several cases in which those three things happened
>> simultaneously, the answer was, surprisingly, the exact same thing:
>>
>> 120 BPM
>>
>> Mind you, that's just contra, and a smallish sample just in the
>> Midwest.
>> Because of a square dance tradition in Missouri that sometimes used
>> tempos
>> up to 144bpm (!) we were occasionally treated (or subjected) to those
>> faster tempos and developed a style of dancing that made it
>> difficult for
>> us to dance any slower than about 112bpm (that's only two metronome
>> marks
>> away from 120bpm). Bands from the East coast would come and play at
>> 104-116bpm, and we would find it hard to stay with the music. In
>> recent
>> times, the tempos from our old-time bands have slowed a bit, and
>> more of us
>> have experienced bands from elsewhere at dance weekends - but we're
>> still
>> happiest at 120bpm, for some reason.
>>
>> I also remember reading somewhere in my two Larry Jennings books
>> that 120
>> was the ideal tempo, but I can't find the reference, so maybe I made
>> it up.
>>
>> You should also know that, on a slightly different topic, the old-time
>> musicians who play for contra dances (around here, anyway) look at you
>> mighty funny if you even mention the word metronome or beats per
>> minute, so
>> don't do it. Do what Alan said - tap your foot, deedle, or better
>> yet, keep
>> your mouth shut, because some of them have pointedly told us callers
>> that
>> it's not our job to tell them how fast to play (strange but true!).
>> The
>> best way to keep the peace with those folks if you want a slower
>> tempo is
>> to ask them to play a slower tune. That they can, and will, do.
>>
>> M
>> E
>>
> [earlier quoted messages snipped]
>
> _______________________________________________
> Callers mailing list
> call...@sharedweight.net
> http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
>
