A simple pact of silence

One of my contra friends (I think Maia?) recently posted swearing a pact that they would do one very simple thing to do their part to increase the joy and understanding on their dance floors: Stop talking during walk-throughs.

I am a person who talks _incessantly_. I am also a pretty good teacher, and competent (sometimes extremely so!) at teaching most of the dance forms I find myself doing. However, I think that this suggestion is a damn good one, and I'm officially throwing in my lot. I, Katarina Whimsy, in pursuit of a Better Dance Floor and More Accessibility For Beginners do solemnly swear that I will shut my damn mouth when the caller or MC or teacher is talking through the dance the first time. Even if I think I can teach it better. Even if I think they're missing something important. Even if someone really charming is my partner and we're fourth couple and I'd rather be flirtingtalking to them than paying attention because I know I can pick it up once the music starts.

Should you catch me not, feel free to give me a pinch. And absolutely, I will continue to teach beginners as I dance with them, in the spaces between rounds of the dance, and fast gestures and frantic words called while we move. But while the Person In Charge is talking, I am going to _shut up_ and let them talk. They've got a plan going on here, let's let them actually do it.

So signed, so true.

My argument against 2-couple dances in 4-couple sets

I'm not sure I've ever written this post, and I just made reference in a bio that points at this blog, so here we go. If you don't dance Scottish Country Dance, this may not make the slightest bit of sense to you. That's okay.

I don't think two-couple dances should be danced in four-couple sets.

I wouldn't think of this as a particularly controversial statement to make, but I've gotten some very confused and blank looks when I've tried making this assertion. My reason is simple --I want to have as much dancing as possible. When you dance a two couple dance in a four couple set, at least traditionally, where only the 1s start as active, then the original 3s and 4s lose out on a round of dancing. I find that terrible.

(Don't believe me? The eight rounds of a two/four dance go like this, with italics meaning the couple is dancing and bold meaning they're active. Couples keep their original number throughout:

4321
4312
4132
1423
1243
2134
2314
3241

If you count it up, 1s dance six times (3 active), 2s six times (3 active), 3s five times (3 active) and 4s five times (2 active). 3s and 4s lose out on a round of dancing, with the 4s being deprived of one round as active.)

Luckily there are some very simple fixes to the problem, to ensure that everyone in the hall gets an equal amount of dancing (as it should be). My favourite is just encouraging the dance to be done in a three-couple sets instead, and the musicians play six times through.

You can also solve the problem by having the 1s and 3s start in the first round. I recognize that this is not the "proper" way to do things, but it makes it so everyone gets six rounds of dancing (and 3 rounds as the active couple). It may feel a little weird for the 3s, who spend one round active, then several rounds moving up the set before they are active again, but if contra dancers can manage that sort of weird reversal, us SCDers certainly can.

(When I'm being especially irreverent, I will also suggest the "solution" of having the musicians play the music nine times through instead of the typical eight, so that the 4s can finish their last round active. I suspect that this would lead to people tripping all over the dance floor in confusion, however, and would probably cause the 1s to start again, thereby not really solving the problem of inequitable dancing in the first place.)

So dear Scottish Dancers, here's my plea: I want to dance as much as possible. When I find myself as the third or fourth couple in a 2-couple dance, I know that I'm not going to get as much dancing as other people and I find that unfortunate. Please, encourage a dance floor where everyone gets in as much dancing as possible --stop regimenting your two-couple dances into strictly four-couple sets with only the ones active.

Totally in no way inspired by real events last night during the fifth dance

Set dancing is commonly known by another title --social dancing. This is because it's almost always a very social event, one where you get to interact with many different people over the course of each dance. There are great advantages to dancing in multitude like this. Non-active dancers can help lead less experienced dancers, or detangle knots. Multiple people are trying to remember the sequence, and can guide each other if someone forgets. And of course, every dance, you not only get to interact with one partner, but with multiple other couples --from your standard eight people in a square, to the thirty couples or more at a big enough contra.

However, there is one significant disadvantage to social dancing, that doesn't really come into play with any other type of dance. Once you commit to a set in a social dance, you're stuck. You _must_ dance, or attempt to dance, the entire rest of the sequence. If you quit halfway through, you have not just stopped your dance --you have stopped the dance of everyone else as well.

Now, I'm not saying if you suddenly injure yourself, or feel faint, or otherwise have to pull out halfway through for medical reasons, you shouldn't. Persevering against all better instincts is for fools, especially when a medical emergency is on the line --please protect yourself so that you can come back and dance another day. But try to be aware of your body. If you're likely to become exhausted, sit out a round --there's no shame in it-- or if you're truly unsure whether or not you'll be able to complete a dance, find a friend who's not dancing who is willing to step in for you.

But don't just quit. Even if the dance is difficult, ill-taught, frustrating, even if your set has fallen to pieces 'round your ears. Much of set dancing repeats itself --reset yourself in the position you need to be at the end of the phrase, or the time through, and get ready to try again. If you're too petulant to reset, too annoyed to try again, then for lands sakes, at least get out of the way. Unless all eight+ people involved have agreed that the dance has become undoable, you will be impeding someone else's ability to dance if you stand in the middle of the floor, or remain at the top of the set and refuse to let others go.

Also, should you reach such a state of irritability that you refuse to go on, please find it in your heart to apologize to the rest of your set. They were depending on you in order to fully enjoy this dance, it's boorish not to acknowledge that fact. The least you can do is say you're sorry.

Lest they carefully and specifically mark you in their mind as someone to never share a set with again.

(As a postscript, I feel I should note that I am in no way referring to the knots that can occur when very new dancers are being thrown into a set dance with little or no previous training. New dancers mess up. They're inexperienced, it happened, dust off, back to places, and try again. My anger is only directed to when someone -of any dance level- consciously makes the decision that they are no longer willing to participate in this dance, and so ruin the rest of the dance for people who needed them present.)