6 Feb
2010
6 Feb
'10
4:11 p.m.
Thanks Dave for the suggestion. I will resist the "becketization"
label, as I would "becketation" or "becketoriation." I would favor a
subtitle something like (Variant from Becket position). All of which
begs the question of: Is this the same dance? Lots of folks might
argue that the starting figure is a key characteristic of a dance. I
would guess that the standard of recognizing a distinctive
sequence--without regard to the start or end point--as a single
author's work would relegate a number of dances to the category of
"variants" of dances written earlier with a different start
point. I'm sure there are examples of this.
Just a thought.
*********
At 12:02 AM 2/6/2010, Laur wrote:
Thanks Dave that cleared it up for us (at least Greg
and I). I
didn't want to change the name, or the author, but I wanted those
who cared to know that it wasn't in its original form.
Laurie
--- On Sat, 2/6/10, Dave Colestock <contradancerdave(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
From: Dave Colestock <contradancerdave(a)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [Callers] Name of a dance
To: "Caller's discussion list" <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
Date: Saturday, February 6, 2010, 2:42 AM
The sequence is still the same, no matter if it is becket or
improper. Where you start the dance within the sequence should not
matter, for credit or name purposes. Therefore the credit for the
dance still goes to the original author. When introduced you can
simply name the dance and say it is the "becket-ized" version of the
dance, and credit the original name and author. It is the same
dance, no matter where in the sequence you start it. Most all
improper dances can be turned into becket by starting at a different
part of the dance, and some becket dances can be turned
improper. Sometimes that will change the feel of the dance. One of
my dances, "Lizzie's Delight", was written as a becket dance, but I
have called it as an improper dance, too.
Dave Colestock
Harrisburg, PA
--- On Sat, 2/6/10, Laur <lcpgr(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
From: Laur <lcpgr(a)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [Callers] Name of a dance
To: "Caller's discussion list" <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
Date: Saturday, February 6, 2010, 2:02 AM
Hey Greg et al.
Agreed with you - I called it tonight, it seemed to go well with a
half and half crowd. I referred to it as Culver City Becket, a
variation of Culver City Contra by James Hutson (excuse me I don't
have the author's name in front of me).
Laurie
----
Looking at this dance I have to admit that I am more intrigued by the
Beckett version as suggested by David. I like having an easy dance
to introduce the idea of the Becket formation. I also like having an
easy dance that begins with "long lines forward and back."
How should I credit the dance if I call it as a Becket? Is there a
standard etiquette for this?
How about "Contra Culver City" for the Becket version with switched A
and B parts?
**************
At 01:49 PM 1/28/2010, you wrote:
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)sharedweight.net
http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)sharedweight.net
http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)sharedweight.net
http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers