westdance: Thoughts on 15c Italian for KWDS?

Matthew Larsen matt1.larsen at gmail.com
Wed May 9 17:19:14 PDT 2007

> To put it into equations, you were arguing:
> Estampies < 15c improvised << 16c (in fact you said estampies == 15c improvised)
> I was arguing:
> Estampies << 15c improvised < 16c
> And now we've gone twice around the same circle.

Ah!  Now we're getting somewhere.  I might be willing to consider a
"<<" relation between Estampies and 15th c. improvised.  I'd still say
it's a "<", but I guess it depends on the value you place on the
information we do have (we can argue more about that if you like :-)

But I think that "<<" is unquestionably the relationship between 15th
c. and 16th c.  The volume of information is just so much larger for
16th c.  At the least, there's _some_ information about 3 or more
different kinds of dance (galliards, bransles, pavans at least,
courants and Almans if you consider the info worth looking at),
crossing sources from multiple nationalities.  For 15th c., it's much
more limited, and only in the Italian sources (well, the Burgundian
sources mention the pas de brabant, but give no information...).

In addition, as I understand your argument, you're looking at piva and
salterello patterns in choreographies, and using that as a model for
how you might improvise.  If that's so -- well, in the 16th c.
sources, there's more information of a similar type, simply because
there are more available choreographies - many more choreographies.
In addition, there's all the information about step variations outside
if choreographies.  To me, the volume of data is just so much greater
that I have to feel that "<<" is the right relationship between 15th
c. and 16th c. improvised.

Eagerly awaiting your response! :-)


More information about the westdance mailing list