We're using cookies to make this site more secure, featureful and efficient.

Issue 1408: Figure misnamed as "Set and Rotate"

Object
The Ruby Rant (Dance)
Submitter
Bruce Herbold (bherbold)
Assigned to
Anselm Lingnau
Priority
Normal
Disposition
Needs help
Description

the dance does a figure like Set and Rotate,but it isn’t really … I would prefer either a new name in the formation list, or no name since the figure only occurs in this dance AFAIK

Previous Actions

  • Date  April 1, 2018, 3:52 a.m.
  • User  Bruce Herbold (bherbold)

New issue submitted

  • Date  April 1, 2018, 2:54 p.m.
  • User  Eric Ferguson (EricFerguson)

Subject changed to »Figure misnamed as “Set and Rotate”« (previously »misnamed figre«)
Assigned changed to »EricFerguson« (previously »None«)
Disposition changed to »Being handled« (previously »New«)

This is worth discussing. The figure [1-8] is close to but differs from “Set and Rotate”. In SCDDB figures only get names if they appear in 3 or more dances, so that option is out. I added the formation “S&Rotate” to the listing, expecting that users looking for this formation would like to find this dance; they will spot the difference at once from both diagram and crib. If we remove the reference, nobody will find this interesting variant. Give your opinion please.

  • Date  April 1, 2018, 6:04 p.m.
  • User  Anselm Lingnau (anselm)

We want to stem the proliferation of named “vanity formations” that occur in very few dances. As Eric says, the rule of thumb is that we would like a named formation to occur in three or more different dances, ideally by different devisers.

The notion that a formation is a “variation” of another well-known formation is prevalent enough to attract notice. In the new formation system that I’ve been developing for the Society’s “Index to Formations and Movements” there is the notion of a “variation flag” that can be set if an occurrence of a formation is a variation on the normal case, while calling this fact to attention to viewers. For example, the formation in the final 8 bars of Peggy's Strathspey from Book 41 is basically an espagnole where the two couples turn one and a half times round instead of once round. It makes little sense to declare this to be a distinct formation because it occurs only in that dance; it is much more reasonable to list it with the other espagnoles and flag it as unusual. Right now people are left to their own devices to find out whether a formation is the canonical version or a variant, which is less than optimal, but we can make that more obvious in the future.

  • Date  April 1, 2018, 7:32 p.m.
  • User  Bruce Herbold (bherbold)

I hope I am using this ‘issue’ correctly – I had simply replied before, but apparently here behind the scenes there is more organization. So the note which Anselm is responding to was me saying: I fear people looking for Set and Rotate will find this dance and interpret the crib or figure as the figure they were looking for. The classic error of teaching solely from the WGB.

Could figures not be identified as ‘variants’? Ie S&ROTATEVAR. That would be generally useful and alert the user. And someone looking for ‘that dance with Cross and rotate might find it under the variants of S&Rotate3

B

Now having seen Anselm’s response, I would happily point out that some figures are almost defined by varying – Hello and Goodbye ends differently almost every time, it seems… I would certainly hate to see each variant get a different name.

  • Date  April 1, 2018, 8:56 p.m.
  • User  Eric Ferguson (EricFerguson)

We all know how often variants occur. Remember the the teacher who told 1M after the mirror reels of three “Whyever did you finish that reel between third couple”? And he replied “but you said ‘Gates of Edinburgh Reels’”!

I think Bruce can be reassured. We all know that the crib and diagram describe the actual dance. If the SCDDB overview page includes some formations that do not agree precisely, no dancer will be misled. In any case those formation names don’t appear on any crib sheet. But we crib and diagram authors must be careful to point out if the formation is a variant, or else leave out the formation name altogether.

As for now we can only “make do” with the current restricted list of formations. I suggest that we DO use them also for variants (if not too extreme).

In the new formation structure that Anselm is building, I suggest we include “variant codes” for “non-standard beginning” and “non-standard end”, as those are so common.

Anselm, may I suggest that you create a discussion forum somewhere on Strathspey, where all persons interested can join the design effort and contribute ideas. I expect it would also create wider support for the new format.

  • Date  Dec. 11, 2022, 2:02 a.m.
  • User  Eric Ferguson (EricFerguson)

Assigned changed to »anselm« (previously »EricFerguson«)
Disposition changed to »Fixed« (previously »Being handled«)

This broad topic, of how to name and identify “variants of formations” remains important. I leave it to Anselm and the team to take this up again if they wish. But we need to consider it "Fixed"as far as this particular dance is concerned

  • Date  Dec. 11, 2022, 2:06 a.m.
  • User  Eric Ferguson (EricFerguson)

Disposition changed to »Needs help« (previously »Fixed«)

Adding tag “Needs help” to draw attention to this broader topic. It’s “Fixed” for the dance.