On Jan 3, 2013, at 4:04 AM, Alan Winston wrote: > On 1/2/2013 10:07 AM, Louise Siddons wrote: >> <snip> >> And when you pile up a bunch of figures that involve a certain amount of >> leading that tends to fall to one role more than the other, then you have a >> dance where there's a lead role and a following role. (I would include >> promenades and butterfly whirls in this category of led figures.) Yes, there >> are dances where the "unexpected" dancer leads these figures, but the very >> fact that it is unexpected (and that a gents' chain, for example, prompts >> murmuring and often a "hoho, you didn't expect that, did you?" tone from the >> caller) supports my point. > Didn't you just make an argument that the roles are different, rather than > that they are inherently lead/follow figures? (For example, the Scots (and > Fried Herman, following them) call the twiddle at the end of rights and > lefts a "polite turn". Is that a led figure by definition? (It's usually > done with same-sex neighbor.)
Two people made the point about different roles not necessarily being lead/follow roles, and I think this is true. But in the case of the courtesy turn -- or even an open chain -- i do think that the dance is improved/perfected by one person allowing themselves to be led by the other. Yes, you *can* get where you need to go without help, but it's a better dance if you don't. I could twirl myself when I waltz with someone, too, but it's a lot less satisfying. I think for me the key point is that when you have a lot of figures that are improved when the same dancer in a couple, or the same gender throughout the group dance, is leading, then the dance becomes a dance that is characterized by a lead/follow structure. Not necessarily limited by that, but it is one aspect of their overall character. And that characteristic can be strong or weak in any dance form or style -- it isn't black and white. > Similarly, "hoho, you didn't expect that, did you!" accompanies dances with > same-sex swings, men gypsying, etc. Certainly the sets of "led by a follow" and "unexpected figure" do not have to be fully contained within each other. > And on a similar front, English dancing has ladies chains, both open and with > courtesy turns. Would you argue that English dance is inherently lead/follow? I would suggest that the transition between ECD and contra demonstrates an increase in the lead-follow characteristic of the dance that is analogous to the increase in lead-follow characteristic between contra and, I don't know, polka. (I would also suggest that we can trace a decrease in lead-follow characteristics through 20th-century dance forms all the way to hiphop, if we look for it -- but that's getting off-topic.) At risk of, in some sense, changing the topic dramatically: I have to admit I'm always surprised at why people feel so strongly negative about the idea of lead-follow as a trait of contra dancing. Does it rub up against strongly-held community values of democracy/egalitarianism? And if so, does our communal practice justify our belief that we exemplify those values? Why is the contra community so enthusiastic about the question of lead-follow (and why is it, generally speaking, so open-minded and progressive re: gender roles), and yet hardly anyone ever talks about the racial segregation in the community? Louise.
