Peter, THANK YOU for posting the link to David's essay. So many spot-on points
in that!
http://davidmillstonedance.com/writing/essays/35-essay-hot-dance-philosophty
One thing I have long wondered is this --- Just who is "no one" that is passing
judgment? In some ways it brings me right back to 7th grade, when there were
always those kids that "no one" liked (cruelly given that status, often by no
particular action of their own.)
And why not have different flavors for different people? For example, there
are plenty of people who strongly dislike and don't attend the series I
co-organize, among them some of my favorite dance partners. But there are
others who do like and attend it.
As to the question of bands/callers who own the dance, Merle's point caught my
attention -- If a band "no one" likes is willing and able to put on a dance,
then more power to them. Even if 15 people attend, then that's 15 people
who've done something different than sit in front of their computer on a
Saturday night.
And likewise, why couldn't "no one" organize an alternative dance in the area?
They already don't want to go to the other dance, and probably many of them
don't. Why not have another option for those other people to get out and dance
too?
I read lots of David's essays, so it might have been a different one that made
the point about having it be "normal" to play fiddle tunes. But I think the
same way about dancing. Wouldn't it be awesome if there were so much dancing
in the area that people thought it was "normal"?
One more thing about community-mindedness. I agree with Perry that this is an
important aspect of our dance forms. Still, I think it's okay for people to
want different things.
Yours in pondering,
Chrissy Fowler
"Dance, when you're broken open... dance, when you're perfectly free" ~ Rumi
chrissyfowler.com
belfastflyingshoes.org
westbranchwords.com
