![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The Darkover science fiction convention is coming up, Thanksgiving weekend (25-27 November), and there are two dance events during the convention for which we need musicians: a Regency ball on Saturday and a small Playford dance session on Friday.
If you're a musician who'll be at Darkover and think this sounds like fun, please let me know (comment here or send email). Also tell me whether you have the music we used for the Regency ball last year or need me to get a copy to you.
At the moment there's nothing on the convention web site's "Main Programming" page, but in past years both dances have been scheduled for 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM, with the possibility of Friday's running a little longer.
(no subject)
What an intriguing convention...
(no subject)
How is it more intriguing than Regency, anyhow? :)
(no subject)
I'm in the Chicago area and know little of east coast conventions...
(Love the icon!)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
actually what makes it wierder...
(no subject)
Darkover is also much more of a music con than most other "generic" (that is, not officially music) cons. Glenn's celeidh band often plays, and my group plays a mix of folk and renaissance (and a little filk), and Cliff Art is this sort-of-jazz-kinda group, and there's an instrumental jam, and sometimes sacred-harp singing, and the midnight Hallelujah Chorus, and...
Yeah, it's an unusual con.
(no subject)
Music geek? You could say that. I had to do the research for Minstrosity's "Tread the Measure" CD. Which includes some of Playford.
(no subject)
Whoops. I didn't notice that the post did not contain the information (sent to me by other means) that the dances hare are from the 1670 Playford. Yes, there are undoubtedly dances in that edition that go back to Elizabethan, but by the 1670 edition, IIRC, there's a significant shift from set dances to longways dances, which are pretty rare closer to 1600.
(It appears we might have different understandings of the SCA's cutoff date, there being two common ones, but I'd rather just note it than open that can of worms. :-) )
Music geek? You could say that.
It looks like you have a fun group. Are you the dulcimer player? I play dulcimer too. Do you ever make it to Pennsic?
(no subject)
And please educate me further - I've only ever encountered one cutoff date for SCA: 1650. (Of course, I also haven't done SCA for about 15 years, either.)
And I have a reprint of the 1651 edition on my computer. :-) Which he would not have published "But that there was a false and surrepticious Copy at the Printing Presse, which if it had been published, would have been a disparagement to the quality and the Professors thereof, and a hinderance to the Learner". Some are set longways, some are set for four, some ("Gathering Peascods") are set for as many as will.
(no subject)
The SCA's governing docs (bylaws?) describe the organization as being about "pre-17th-century" history/culture/recreation/etc. That would mean through 1600. Early on, a convention arose for documentation (in competitions) to be lenient through 1650, on the grounds that they didn't have instantaneous publication the way we do and if it was written down by 1650 it was probably not unheard-of by 1600. (Obviously the amount of hand-waving this requires varies widely by field.) Over time this has caused many people to think that the target date is 1650.
I'm not one of the people who's hard-nosed (either way); there's a lot of stuff that we can't document pre-1601 that I enjoy (music and dance, primarily). But 1601-1650 is sort of a "gray zone" in my mind, and we should be mindful of the next stage of that argument -- "well, if it's written down in 1670 then it's probably good enough for 1650", which leads before too long into the 18th century.
I don't have 1670 Playford to hand. Years ago I went through both it and 1651 and found a lot of stylistic change, but it's been too long now for me to recall details. (And I have to run now, so my silence over the next couple days is not because I'm ignoring you.)
(no subject)
(no subject)