[Artemisia] Uprising Ball

[Bruce Padget]

On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 12:44 PM, Reuben and Arwen <reuben_arwen at yahoo.com>
wrote:

> Not to be a stick in the mud, but why teach and do dances we know are not
> SCA period?  Isn't this defeating the purpose of the SCA as an educational
> group?  Isn't this doing a disservice to "students"?  I'm not talking about
> an after hours party or "Fools Ball" where it's obviously modern.  I'm okay
> with substitutions for safety, cost, and reasonable information
> availability.  There are a lot of dances that are just as fun, easy to
> learn, and easily documented.  A lot of incorrect things have been adopted
> into the SCA, but when we know better, why perpetuate the myth?


Well, the usual justifications I hear for GOOP ("grossly out of period")
dances are:

1.  They're familiar.  They are, in the sense that they were being taught
when I joined the SCA.  (Including, I regret, by me.)  Of course, they
aren't any more familiar to the populace as a whole than period dances are.
If familiarity is the justification, we should be having new SCA dancers
doing swing and American square dance.  Indeed, there are generations of
accomplished dancers in the SCA who do not know HitW or Korobushka, having
never done them.  And if GOOP dances really were familiar, we wouldn't have
to keep teaching them.   "We have to keep teaching them because they're
familiar," seems a little circular and self-fulfilling.

2.  They're fun.  Two of the biggest advocates for GOOP dance I know state
publicly that period dances are boring.  Yeah, like Madam Sosilia's Alman,
which shocked the French ambassador to England.  Like Mercantia (the
merchantess -- of lovers).  One lady, three men, you can guess the rest.  Or
Gelosia (Jealousy), for which the title says it all.  Or maybe Canario,
which one of the stuffiest Laurels I know has dubbed "fully clothed
foreplay."

3.  They're easy.  Period dance ranges from the trivially simple (Quadran
Pavane, which 4 year olds can *nail*) to the brain-crackingly complex (Laura
Suave, which takes about two hours to teach to hardcore Italian geeks), with
all skill and complexity levels in between.  Also, complexity is a matter
for the individual.  I know folks who have no trouble with 16th C. Italian
dances who just can't get their heads around the progression pattern in
HitW.

4.  If we teach them, it will translate to interest in period dance.  I have
tried the "teach A to get folks interested in B" method.  It doesn't work.
If you want people to learn B, teach B.  The main effect of teaching skill
set A will be to create demand for activity A.  There are folks who have
started with GOOP dance and gone on to excel in period dance, like Lady
Elizabeth Carter.  (Who, sadly, cannot be at Uprising this year.)  But they
are the exception.

Frankly, the real justification is the Society's amazing inertia.   One of
Silverwing's Laws runs to the effect that the way things were when I joined
the SCA is the way they always were and always should be -- even if those
traditions were only a week old when I joined.  (Incidentally, the First
Tournament had completely pre-1601 dance, straight out of Orchesographie.)

I have spent the better part of the last decade fighting these battles over
and over.  I will be in Artemisia once during 2008, and I have no desire to
spend that trip re-fighting them.  Bump into me at Uprising, we will manage
time, space and all else that is needed to get a good northern Italian
groove on.  Impromptu dancing is quite authentic.

Regards,
Niccolo
bapadget at gmail.com