pennsicdance:sheet music interp

susan at susan at
Thu Sep 15 19:06:52 PDT 2005

For efficiency for those who want to skip the annoying-the-pig argument
below, I'm looking for a typical range of BPM to which bassadanze are 
danced.  I honestly don't know this and would be delighted if someone
who knows what they're talking about - musicians? - could tell me, since
it appears Alex either doesn't know or refuses to say out of pique at
anyone daring to question his unsupported assertions.

On to the detailed version....

On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 07:56:51PM -0400, Alex Clark wrote:
> At 03:26 PM 9/15/2005 -0400, susan at wrote:
> >On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 02:51:03PM -0400, Alex Clark wrote:
> >> At 02:11 PM 9/15/2005 -0400, susan at wrote:
> >> On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 02:04:46PM -0400, Alex Clark wrote:
> >> >> As for what works well for dancing, I think that the bassadanza 
> >section
> >> >of
> >> >> the dance goes well at a tempo similar to a not-too-fast Viennese 
> >waltz,
> >> >
> >> >I was under the impression that fast was part of the definition of a
> >> >Viennese waltz, which leaves this statement basically nonsensical.
> >>
> >> Fast is not the same as too fast.
> >
> >That would be why I find your suggestion of doing a dance at the "not
> >too fast" tempo of a fast-by-definition dance to be more than slightly
> >useless.  Can you provide BPM (beats per minute) or do you not actually
> >know?
> Aren't you the one who is being nonsensical? Since it is fast by 
> definition, excluding any too-fast tempo should tend to leave a rather 
> narrow range. Unless you think that all Viennese waltzes are too fast, or 
> that (despite facts of anatomy and laws of physics) there is no such thing 
> as too fast.

You need to read for comprehension.  Viennese waltzes are defined as
done to fast music.  Nowhere did I say "too fast"; those were your
words.  You are the one who is suggesting the existence - if I read
your rather viscous prose correctly - of a Viennese waltz tempo which
is "not too fast" and is suitable for bassadanza.  I'm still waiting
for some actual BPM and perhaps a definition of what part of the range
of Viennese tempi is defined as "not too fast" to support this
assertion so we can discuss it intelligently.  I am also beginning to
suspect you either don't actually have any idea of suitable BPM for
either Viennese or bassadanza or you have researched it and discovered
that their respective tempi are in fact not remotely close, and thus
you keep avoiding answering rather than admitting your mistake.

> >> Please save up such harsh criticisms for
> >> circumstances in which they are valid.
> >
> >If you don't want to be called on vague and potentially invalid
> >comparisons, you should not make them in front of people who might
> >actually know what you're talking about.
> You do not seem to be a person who knew what I was talking about. You would 
> have been quite welcome to call me on something that I really had said or 
> done. But you criticized me based on your own *fallacious* misunderstanding 
> of what I had said.

Well, no.  I'm pointing out that no one can understand what you are
saying because you aren't making sense and are refusing to give any
actual information to back up your rather vague assertion.  This does
rather lead one to the assumption that you actually don't *know* what
you're talking about, but you could refute that by simply offering
some supportive facts, like a comparison of beats per minute for
Viennese waltz and bassadanza.  I'm criticizing the fact that you
aren't saying anything useful, and what you do say suggests that you
don't have a clue.  You could easily refute this by offering solid
information instead of dodging around and making excuses.  (Let's see
how many times I can say that and how many times you can evade giving
any sort of actual information.)

> >But feel free to cite
> >comparative BPM so we can judge whether your comparison is valid
> >or not.  Or are you just going to snip that request again and hope
> >I'll forget I made it?
> I might address that question elsewhere in the thread, but I will not 
> respond to you in a cooperative manner. By now you ought to have learned 
> what to expect when you write that way. You were seeking an adversarial 
> relationship; deal with it.

Wow, your telepathy isn't so hot either.  You're making things up
again.  That's a bad habit.  I was seeking an intelligent discussion
of a historic dance issue supported by actual knowledge and cited
facts.  That involves, y'know, questions and answers, preferably ones
supported by solid data.  If you define intelligent discussion as
adversarial, that says rather more about your deranged approach to
scholarly debate than it does about what I'm seeking.  That you can't
seem to provide intelligent discussion perhaps shouldn't come as a
surprise to me after watching your regularly displayed ignorance of
dance periods and styles you clearly don't know much about, but hey, I
live in hope that you might actually decide to act like a scholar
instead of an ignoramous one of these days.  Hint: good scholars back
up their unsupported assertions instead of expecting people to take it
on faith just because they've said it and blowing random smoke to
evade actually giving an answer to a reasonable question.

Still waiting for some actual information here, but expecting more
twisting and dodging so you can avoid providing it.  Why does this
suggest that you don't actually know it and were just blowing smoke?
You might be right, you know - I don't know the range of bassadanza
tempi, and it's possible they're easily danced to Viennese tempi.

While Alex evades the question, anyone else happen to know a typical
range of BPM for bassadanza music?  Musicians?


More information about the pennsicdance mailing list