<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"></head><body>I have called Starring Loretta as well as many ECD with half stars and concur that it is a harder move for dancers than one would expect. This may be a muscle memory issue. It feels more like a four hand pull by than a star because there's no sense of rotation. The move is more linear than circular. <div><br></div><div style="font-size:100%;color:#000000"><!-- originalMessage --><div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Bob Green via Callers <callers@lists.sharedweight.net> </div><div>Date: 4/22/18 11:12 AM (GMT-05:00) </div><div>To: Chris Page <chriscpage@gmail.com> </div><div>Cc: "Callers@Lists.Sharedweight.net" <callers@lists.sharedweight.net> </div><div>Subject: Re: [Callers] Star 1/2 -> Star 1/2? </div><div><br></div></div><div dir="ltr"><div><div><div>I have an English dance that has a similar sequence, with one half star, then a full star with new neighbors and another full star back with original neighbors. As Chris suggests, I find that part a bit trickier to teach than I expected. The difficulty is in the orientation (particularly on the ends), not the timing. I set the dance to a half-length version of Larry Unger's <i>Two Rivers </i>which is in waltz time, so the timing could be different in contra. I think the hands-across style star used in most English dances facilitates that kind of transition. I think it creates the nice flow pattern you envision, looking forward to trying it. Nice idea, Luke!<br><br></div>Here is the similar sequence in waltz time: <a href="http://dancevideos.childgrove.org/ecd/ecd-modern/308-starring-loretta" target="_blank">http://dancevideos.childgrove.<wbr>org/ecd/ecd-modern/308-<wbr>starring-loretta</a><br><br></div>Bob Green<br></div>St. Louis<br><div><div><div><br><br><div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div></div></div></div></div></div>
</body></html>