User talk:Insouciance

Welcome!

Hello, Insouciance, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! ...Although it's a little late :)Lectonar 11:44, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Beauchamp

Hi, I have added Pierre Beauchamp to Portal:Dance/New articles --Roland2 22:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rigaudon

Thanks for improving that stub. Here's a mystery. Google has a cached page of a site claiming to have copied a full earlier version of a english entry Rigaudon Horatioaitch 17:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)horatioaitch[reply]

The earlier article was plagarised from Groves Dictionary of Music and Musicians -- see User_talk:Primetime#Comments -- and hence removed as a copyright violation.

My rigaudon stub is still rather stubby, and I'm pretty sure it is also a folk dance, but since I don't know anything about that I didn't want to add any false information. -Insouciance 21:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Priest

Thanks for adding to the Josiah Priest page. I don't know about dance, I just wrote about him because of his connection with Purcell, so it's really nice to have someone who does know a bit about dance to add to it! Thanks! If you have any questions or administrator-type requests, feel free to ask on my talk page. Cheers, Mak (talk) 14:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hello

thanks for the very nice detailed info you added to the paragraph I put into the Académie Royale de Musique article. I forgot all about Pierre Beauchamp!!!

--Mrlopez2681 03:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ECD edit

Why'd you change the link from my John Weaver website to point only at the LOC editions of a subset of the books in question? Greg 19:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Greg,

(Not sure if I'm expected to reply here, or on your discussion page. Replying here, will move if necessary.)

My reading of the article was that the links refer to the 1706 ECD collection by Feuillet and its translation by Essex. Your site contains six books and links:

Orchesography 1st ed. Not mentioned in the article. Describes B-F notation, not directly relevant to ECD.

Broken link to: Orchesography 2nd ed. Not mentioned in the article. I checked to see if there were any additions from the 1st ed - the whole thing had been re-done, but the only substantial change in content seemed to be the addition of three notated duets. So not relevant to ECD.

A Small Treatise of Time and Cadence... Not mentioned in the article. Describes step timing, not directly relevant to ECD.

Broken link to: A collection of ball-dances performed at court (1706). Not mentioned in the article. A collection of (exquisite) dances by Isaac in B-F notation. Not ECD.

Broken link to: For the further improvement of dancing (1710). Mentioned in the article, ECD choreographies.

Broken link to: Recueil de contredanses (Feuillet, 1706). Mentioned in the article, ECD choreographies.

Your links to the Library of Congress copies don't seem to work for my browser/firewall combination, but assuming that either this is something weird at my end, or that you fix the links, then it still seems better to link directly to the facsimiles. The actual content hosted at your site (two books) is only relevant to what is conventionally known as "Baroque dance", not to ECD. Of the four external links on your site, only two are to ECD content, and ISTM to be better to link to those works directly rather than to force the user to locate them on your page.

I hope you don't take it personally that I changed the link (in HTML it's hard to tell if your question was asked in a tone of indignation, or just mild curiosity). Your site has great content and is correctly linked to from the John Weaver article. However as far as I can see it only adds extra clicks to the ECD article.

(Incidentally another possible broken link on your site: on page http://www.pbm.com/~lindahl/weaver/time_and_cadence/ clicking on the facsimile of the cover leads to a 404 error.)

-Insouciance 12:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added later: Looks like those four links on your site are working again - they redirect, so possibly the final destination is more stable than the URLS you are linking to. -Insouciance 15:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weaver also translated Feuillet, he just isn't given equal billing (yet) for having done so in the ECD article. BTW, I don't know how you can say anything is "not relevant to ECD", given that we don't know what steps were used for ECD in that era. I always thought the academic consensus was that it was probably done with Baroque-style steps. Greg 01:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are two works by Feuillet being discussed here: his Choregraphie (1700) and his Receuil de Contredances (1706). It is the latter that is mentioned in the ECD article and was translated by Essex. I have a copy or Richard Ralph's The Life and Works of John Weaver in front of me and I can only find mentions of two translations by Weaver of works by Feuillet: the two works on your site, neither of which is a translation of Feuillet's collection of ECD. It does, however, specifically mention Essex's translation (p108 and footnote 38, p155). So as far as I can see Weaver did not translate the work mentioned in the ECD article, and if he did there isn't a copy of it on your site.

I have edited the article on Feuillet so that its information about translations is correct as far as my knowledge goes.

Also, I did write "not directly relevant to ECD" in a couple of places because, as you say, we have clear evidence (Lorin, Feuillet, Essex) that Baroque-style steps were used in ECD at least some of the time. I'm not sure there is an "academic consensus" as to what was most common during this period. As I'm sure you know, early Playford dances use simples and doubles, Renaissance-style steps that become close approximations of Baroque-style steps if done with turn-out. English Regency period country dances seem to have used lively hopping and skipping steps, including pas de rigaudon (we're getting out of my period here). Hogarth's The Country Dance from The Happy Marriage (c1745) and its reworking as Plate II in The Analysis of Beauty (1753) seem to suggest a variety of movement styles (how much of this is illustrative and how much satirical is open to debate). The current ECD article contains only one sentence about the Baroque period steps, this could be expanded and then Feuillet's Choregraphie could be mentioned as one of several primary sources used in reconstructing the baroque-style steps. However, at that point it seems to me that more relevant links would be to detailed written descriptions in works such as Rameau, Essex or Tomlinson (who even includes a final chapter on country dance, perhaps somewhat grudgingly), and we should not neglect mentioning Taubert, or works by modern reconstructors such as Hilton and Lancelot.

-Insouciance 14:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you're still exceeding the evidence available: Playford mentions singles and doubles, but we have no idea if they are "Renaissance-style steps that become close approximations of Baroque-style steps if done with turn-out". You are correct that later Regency ECD use those skippy steps, which are documented in a manual somewhere. But most modern people dancing those dances use walking steps. All of this is worth mentioning in the article. Greg 02:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Music print publishers

Hello I thought I'd better inform you that this category has been proposed to be merged into Category:Publishers of sheet music- the discussion is here Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_May_7#Category:Music_print_publishers. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 16:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]