Issue 2414: Imp Bk Vol 1

New issue submitted

Assigned changed to »anselm« (previously »None«)
Disposition changed to »Fixed« (previously »New«)

We need to distinguish here between the original publication of the book by the ISTD (where it says “Volume One” on the title page so we should probably run with this) and the recent republication of volumes I-III by the RSCDS. Presumably volume 1 was also published by the ISTD (rather than Russell and McConachie) so we should fix that.

This issue has no business being filed on the group page of Russell and McConachie so I’m moving it over to the Imperial Book Vol. 1.

You are correct Anselm, in your assumption that the 1966 book of 12 dances were ‘published by order of the Council of The Imperial Society of Teachers of Dancing Incorporated’ It has been unfortunate that Volumes 2-5 were tacked on but in fact were the result of the annual competition. This joining up reasonably so, has been continued by RSCDS through Mervyn’s excellent work of two books thus bringing these previously unknown of dances (plus a few of his too) to a wider interest group of dancers/ teachers. I see that Mervyn has clearly given the acknowledgement that the ISTD originally publishing these. My concern is with Collectors/ Arrangers of dances - and let’s face it that’s how the original RSCDS books began are missing out on your website to properly reflect their role in the development of SCD by your ‘catch all’ categories of Author and Publisher. Also, note that 1960 18C Dances and 1963 Grampian collections were ‘’edited and adapted’ ‘ and collected and arranged’ both resp. clearly marked as such. None were ‘devised’ by known by name devisers. Best wishes, Stephen

There’s a considerable grey area between “collecting”, “arranging”, and “devising”. Certainly examples abound where the ®SCDS have “adapted” or “arranged” dances that they’d “collected” to a point where their original authors would never recognise the result. They even managed to do that to some modern dances without bothering to ascertain their known authors’ consent before the fact. Perhaps Jack McConachie had a lighter touch but we don’t know because invariably these people didn’t condescend to document what they actually did (someone would have to go to the Bodleian to check McConachie’s book against the original manuscript).

We have to remind ourselves time and again that the folks doing the “collecting and arranging” or “editing and adapting” – from Miss Milligan to Jack McConachie to Mary Isdale MacNab – weren’t scholars interested in precise “critical editions” of the old manuscripts but instead pragmatists interested in using the old material to create (and I’m using that word very deliberately here) dances that would be worth dancing given modern (RSCDS-style) technique and today’s tastes. True “collectors” would have had to use a completely different approach in order to accurately preserve and document what they actually found, which is something that certainly the early SCDS was not losing sleep over at all, and which doesn’t seem to have cramped Mrs MacNab’s style, either. So I’m not worried too much by the fact that the database doesn’t distinguish clearly between “devising” and “collecting”, simply because the real world of SCD doesn’t either. I agree that this should be explained better in the database and I’m considering how that could be done.

Thank you for your thoughtful response. The verb to create would cover both those that devised as well as adapted and collectors that modified historic manuscripts to suit a modern (relative word) style of dance. Miss M certainly knowingly fell into that category others like Mrs MacNab unintentional fell into that category as they collected by mouth or demonstration handed down dances. The trouble with using creator it is too vague and a database should excite and interest its user to search further and develop an appreciation. Sadly, a catch all word can stifle that. Best wishes