"Don't Mess With Tradition!" *

10/9/2012

So it appears that I've touched a couple of nerves when I made an offhand comment about quibbling with the "lady" and "gent" labels (or rather, the baggage I feel those terms carry) and it brings up a larger question, and one that actually brings in some other contra dance variants (techno contras, flourishes borrowed from other dances, and gender-free dances among them):

At what point does a variant on a tradition become not part of that anymore, and become its own thing? There are those who argue that "lead" and "follow" divorce contra from being a community dance (and others who feel that while "lady" and "gent" aren't perfect, there aren't really better alternatives as yet). Others might argue that having itinerant musicians and callers from elsewhere coming in (which seems to happen frequently, especially in the bigger contra dance communities) makes it less of a "community" dance. Or if you don't have a fiddle in your band, or happen to use a synthesizer to loop your sounds, you're not really in the realm of "contra" anymore.

Most of the people I've talked to on this blog -- with a few exceptions, granted -- count techno contras as still part of the contra dance tradition, even if it's one they don't especially care for.

So where's the line? At what point does contra not become contra anymore? Or is any possible deviation -- from an uneven (e.g., with true "actives" and "inactives"), proper, heterosexually-paired, flourishless dance done to live music with precisely one fiddle and no brass -- somehow no longer "contra?"

(To me it seems like we're starting to get away from strictly "traditional" contra, but then again I don't really see that as bad as last time I checked we were in the 21st century, rather than the 18th. Evolving and elastic traditions are not inherently bad, in my book, but I'm curious about yours.)

*(And yes, the blog title is a shout-out to the Foggy Bottom Morris Men's mummer's play callback.)

Perry

10/9/2012 09:01:38 pm

Ryan - you know I love ya, but the reason why I quibble with the terms lead and follow has nothing to do with "tradition", but more with the fact that it is not a lead/follow dance. And the only way, at least for me, that I can remember which role I am is to ask myself I am the lady or the gent. Is it that much of an issue to think of these as titles of dance roles and not only people with specific body parts? I mean, once when I danced arm-band vs bare arms, almost every dance I asked myself, OK, does arm-band mean gent or lady, I forget which, oh yeah, it means gent. I dunno - just a thought. I don't mean to offend you though - it's good to have these kinds of discussions I think. :) Carry on.

Ryan (blogger) link

10/10/2012 12:05:49 am

Perry:

No no no -- just because we disagree (and sometimes butt heads rather spectacularly) does not mean that we aren't friends or that I've been somehow deeply offended or that I have any intention of stopping dancing with you (and I hope that's mutual). Just means we see things differently. We're allowed.

Just because something irks me doesn't necessarily mean that I have the silver bullet for how to fix it, or that I'm going to stop dancing over it (I can love something warts and all, and still acknowledge the warts). I just personally reject the idea that "just because it's traditional, it's good" or "just because it's not strictly traditional, it's awful," and think that sometimes it's worth questioning the assumptions we make, even if just to remind ourselves that they *are* assumptions and that we are carrying a tradition out of its original context in some ways simply by dancing it in a different era.

Having the roles carry standardized names certainly does have value as dancers travel between communities; I'm not terribly fond of the ones we've chosen without really questioning the baggage the words carry, but as you mention "lead" and "follow" have their own baggage. I personally find the "lead/follow" baggage less loaded than the "lady/gent" baggage, and in our flourish videos it helps define roles since both Steve and I lead/backlead them. Speaking off the dance floor, at least, nobody seems to have much of a problem understanding either set of names.

Back to this entry, though:

I am, however, curious as to where other folks draw the "line" between contra and other stuff, assuming they do, since I'm not sure that's really a clear concept in my own thinking, and it's sometimes helpful to take the temperature of where other folks in the community stand on the matter.

It may be sort of like the definition of "obscenity," though, which really isn't defined in this country but is determined on a "you know it when you see it" basis (and thus leaves a LOT of gray areas). Or maybe not. Hence the question. :-)

Perry

10/10/2012 01:12:16 am

I suppose, just like "gent" and "lady" define dance roles and not necessarily the gender of the person that follows them, I guess I can see the terms "lead" and "follow" also being titles of roles rather of actually defining what they do - kind of like "active" and "inactive". Anyways, back to dancing!

dest/jess(ie)/etc.

10/10/2012 05:52:08 am

Returning to the original topic:
I don't think i have a hard line, as in you can do this or this or this and this, but add that and you're right out.
Thinking about this actually got me remembering (WARNING: less than perfectly clean analogy, in clean language; will end at the bottom of this paragraph) about the way someone once defined the difference between kink and fetish. They defined it by saying that if it's just something you enjoy it's kink but if you can't have a satisfying experience without it then it's fetish.
In a similar vein, maybe the difference between playing with the tradition and leaving the tradition is our ability to come back to the standard form (which is itself always evolving). If having fun with other styles is something interesting to play with, then it's playing with the tradition. If we love the flourishes and the unusual bands and whatnot so much that we can't enjoy a regular dance anymore, then maybe that's leaving the tradition.

Ryan (blogger) link

10/10/2012 07:45:36 am

Jess: I like that analogy (and probably should not be surprised at how many times analogies of that nature prove apt...).

So to expand upon your thought-line, where does it go if flourishes/etc. are fun, you don't absolutely NEED them each and every single time you head out on the dance floor, but if you NEVER did anything out of the "norm" ever again you'd probably get bored after a while? (I suspect there are lots of folks who fall into this category.)

Comments are closed.

"Don't Mess With Tradition!" *

Author

Archives

Categories