Folsk have been weighing in on how to teach a balance. Let's keep in mind that
there are plenty of ways to balance. Perhaps the most thorough study of this topic
appeared in Ralph Page's "Northern Junket," Volume 5, #1, March 1955.
Dr. Ralph A. Piper contributed an article, "50 Variations of the Balance." Piper
was writing in the mid-1950s, a time when I suspect more regional variations could
be found than on today's contra dance floors.
If you're interested, it's online here:
http://www.izaak.unh.edu/dlp/NorthernJunket/pages/NJv05/NJv05-01/NJv.05.01.…
David Millstone
I would never want to talk about a balance as a lurch, because it is one of
my favourite moves in contra dancing. It is one of the only steps which
cannot be done as a walk. I always demonstrate it in a variety of styles,
from one very close to the floor to one with much higher steps and kicks,
just to give people the idea that they can have fun with it and make it
their own. I appreciate Read's explanation of the function of it, but I
never think about any function of the balance other than the pleasure of
the balance in itself. What I don't appreciate in a partner doing a balance
is a lazy leaning in and out. I think the 1-2-3 footwork is essential to a
good balance, as is the weight in the arms.
Maura
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2012 12:04:07 -0400
> From: Read Weaver <rweaver(a)igc.org>
> To: Caller's discussion list <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
> Subject: Re: [Callers] American with Style
> Message-ID: <1CD4A97E-4B5B-4ABA-8557-E539C9E9345F(a)igc.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes;
> format=flowed
>
> I assumed the lurch he was talking about was the pulling into the
> swing. I'm not sure what the pedagogical (or Terpsichorean) advantage
> is in describing it as something willfully inelegant, but I do think
> that's what he's referring to.
>
> When I teach beginners, I describe the point of the balance as moving
> you away from (while connected to) your partner so that you can pull
> in to your partner as you begin the swing (California twirl, etc.).
> With experienced dancers, it can be worth reminding them that fancy
> balances that end without that tension in the arms lose the pulling-
> in aspect.
>
> --Read Weaver
> Jamaica Plain, MA
> http://lcfd.org
>
> On Mar 17, 2012, at 7:07 AM, John Sweeney wrote:
>
> > In his article Colin Hume says that the balance before a swing is
> > "more
> > of a lurch". But I would disagree.
> >
> > My experience is that most dancers do some sort of footwork - they
> > step
> > forward with a 1-2-3 and back with a 1-2-3 or do a step and kick
> > across
> > or anything else they fancy in the way of footwork.
> >
> > What is the general view? What do you teach when you teach a balance
> > before a swing? What do people actually do on the dance-floor?
>
>
>
A big thanks to Bob Green for posting "Sharon of the Green" Eng Dance.
I had the opportunity to be calling last night for Huntsville, AL St.
Patrick's dance.
I took his dance and made it /slightly/ more contra friendly.
During cleanup last night I had 2 unsolicited comments made from
experienced dancers
regarding the flow of the dance and how they enjoyed it.
Thanks again Bob
*Sharon of the Green Contra*
Duple Improper
A1 With New Neighbor Mad Robin (walking the path of a DSD with N)
Circle Left
A2 Ladies Almd Left 1 1/2
Partner Swing
B1 Ladies Chain (Option-Ladies 1/2 hey while Gents ricochet)
Long Lines Forward & Back
B2 Star Left
With Present Neighbor Mad Robin (walking path of a See-Saw with N)
/Jane Ewing/
Grant, AL
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2012 13:43:28 -0400
> From: tavi merrill <melodiouswoodchuck(a)gmail.com>
> To: callers(a)sharedweight.net
> Subject: Re: [Callers] What is a becket?
> Message-ID:
> <CA+hGDsX+DQgktzGPjgPVXi3KM1bSbXtbDDgv5UR-5WKVyQWJmg(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> To pick up on John's point from this side of the pond, there are plenty of
> duple improper dances that end with a partner swing for the active couples.
>
> There are quite a few dances which could be started in either becket
> formation or duple improper, allowing further scope in the pairing of dance
> and music: i recently had the challenge of trying to pair a dance with
> "Staten Island Hornpipe", which has very assertive balances in measures 3
> and 4 of the b-part. One of the few satisfying moves there would be "walk
> in to wavy lines", but off the cuff i couldn't think of any dances with
> those "trip to" wavy lines in the B part (I'm sure they're out there,
> though....). Becket variations of existing dances provided some options.
>
> I guess what i'm [being overly abstract about] here is the idea that saying
> a dance requires certain moves to be a "becket dance" - or that a certain
> formation precludes certain moves - unnecessarily confines the form.
> Associating a dance with the composer's intended "starting formation"
> allows us to not only focus on the choreographic flow that starting
> formation provides, but to create variations when it's advantageous.
>
My favorite progression is circle four - slide left - circle four with new neighbors - which can only be done in Becket formation unless it is done in the middle of the sequence.
To pick up on John's point from this side of the pond, there are plenty of
duple improper dances that end with a partner swing for the active couples.
There are quite a few dances which could be started in either becket
formation or duple improper, allowing further scope in the pairing of dance
and music: i recently had the challenge of trying to pair a dance with
"Staten Island Hornpipe", which has very assertive balances in measures 3
and 4 of the b-part. One of the few satisfying moves there would be "walk
in to wavy lines", but off the cuff i couldn't think of any dances with
those "trip to" wavy lines in the B part (I'm sure they're out there,
though....). Becket variations of existing dances provided some options.
I guess what i'm [being overly abstract about] here is the idea that saying
a dance requires certain moves to be a "becket dance" - or that a certain
formation precludes certain moves - unnecessarily confines the form.
Associating a dance with the composer's intended "starting formation"
allows us to not only focus on the choreographic flow that starting
formation provides, but to create variations when it's advantageous.
Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 17:05:20 -0000
> From: "John Sweeney" <info(a)contrafusion.co.uk>
> To: <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
> Subject: Re: [Callers] What is a Becket
> Message-ID: <6E7516378A0B4D8CADD73426CE5E3BD1@study>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Becky Nankivell said:
> "A duple improper can't have a partner swing as the last move."
>
> Lots of old duple improper dances do - the swing is just across the set
> instead of along the side. And some modern dances do the same, perhaps
> more on this side of the Atlantic.
>
> Of course you have to careful calling one like that if the hall is too
> crowded lengthwise.
>
> Happy dancing,
> John
>
> John Sweeney, Dancer, England john(a)modernjive.com 01233 625 362 &
> 07802 940 574
> http://www.modernjive.com for Modern Jive Events & DVDs
> http://www.contrafusion.co.uk for Dancing in Kent
>
>
>
>
In his article Colin Hume says that the balance before a swing is "more
of a lurch". But I would disagree.
My experience is that most dancers do some sort of footwork - they step
forward with a 1-2-3 and back with a 1-2-3 or do a step and kick across
or anything else they fancy in the way of footwork.
What is the general view? What do you teach when you teach a balance
before a swing? What do people actually do on the dance-floor?
Happy dancing,
John
John Sweeney, Dancer, England john(a)modernjive.com 01233 625 362 &
07802 940 574
http://www.contrafusion.co.uk for Dancing in Kent
Becky Nankivell said:
"A duple improper can't have a partner swing as the last move."
Lots of old duple improper dances do - the swing is just across the set
instead of along the side. And some modern dances do the same, perhaps
more on this side of the Atlantic.
Of course you have to careful calling one like that if the hall is too
crowded lengthwise.
Happy dancing,
John
John Sweeney, Dancer, England john(a)modernjive.com 01233 625 362 &
07802 940 574
http://www.modernjive.com for Modern Jive Events & DVDs
http://www.contrafusion.co.uk for Dancing in Kent
That brings up the question of what is a Becket? In my mind defining
element, besides the starting position, is the couples progressing
along the side of the set, and around the end without having to switch
places while waiting out.
This one appears to be a conventional duple improper dance, except
with the A and B parts switched so couples happen to be on the same
side as starting position. That is, progression happens at start of B
with partners on opposite sides of the set.
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Michael Barraclough
<michael(a)michaelbarraclough.com> wrote:
> Does anyone have this dance already?
>
> Becket
>
> A1 Partner balance and box the gnat, ending in a long wavy line
> Partner balance right and left, Rory O'More spin right
>
> A2 Balance the ring and petronella spin right one place
> Balance the ring and partner California Twirl
>
> B1 New neighbor balance and swing
>
> B2 Give and take (ladies take, partner swing)
>
>
> Michael Barraclough
> www.michaelbarraclough.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Callers mailing list
> Callers(a)sharedweight.net
> http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
Don Perley (Thu, 15 Mar 2012 09:48) wrote:
> That brings up the question of what is a Becket? In my mind defining
> element, besides the starting position, is the couples progressing
> along the side of the set, and around the end without having to switch
> places while waiting out.
The number one reason for calling any dance a Becket is the starting
position. Having a name for it tells the dancers how to form the set.
> This one appears to be a conventional duple improper dance, except
> with the A and B parts switched so couples happen to be on the same
> side as starting position. That is, progression happens at start of B
> with partners on opposite sides of the set.
No matter how or when the progression is done (Herbie Gaudreau's
"Becket Reel", which was the first, used a diagonal right and left
through in the B1), the *result* of the progression is that each time
the dance starts, they have progressed along the side of the set. From
early on the progression has been achieved in a variety of ways and in
a variety of sections in the dance.
It is useful (to dance composers and in programming an evening) to
understand that what's often the reason for writing a dance as a
Becket is *so that there's a partner swing as the last move*. A duple
improper can't have a partner swing as the last move.
This is not always the case, of course. Becket Reel ended with star
left and right. The novelty in the Becket Reel, I believe was using
the diagonal move for progression. It has also been published under
the name "Bucksaw Reel".
~ Becky Nankivell
Tucson, Ariz. & Long Beach, Calif.
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Michael Barraclough
<michael(a)michaelbarraclough.com> wrote:
> Does anyone have this dance already?
>
> Becket
>
> A1 ?Partner balance and box the gnat, ending in a long wavy line
> ? ? ? ?Partner balance right and left, Rory O'More spin right
>
> A2 ?Balance the ring and petronella spin right one place
> ? ? ? ?Balance the ring and partner California Twirl
>
> B1 ?New neighbor balance and swing
>
> B2 ?Give and take (ladies take, partner swing)
>
>
> Michael Barraclough
> www.michaelbarraclough.com
>
