[finally enough time to respond]
On Wed, Jun 05, 2013, Linda Leslie wrote:
On Jun 5, 2013, at 9:01 PM, Aahz Maruch wrote:
On Wed, Jun 05, 2013, Linda Leslie wrote:
On Jun 5, 2013, at 5:51 PM, Aahz Maruch wrote:
Here's a Beckett with a circle that doesn't start with a circle:
Panix Dot Chat (aahz(a)pobox.com)
Beckett formation
Right-and-left thru on left diagonal (8)
(Yes, start with progression)
(Warn ends about not moving)
Right-and-left thru new couple (8)
Circle left 3/4 (8)
Swing neighbor (8)
Pass through (4)
California twirl (4)
Men left-hand turn once-and-half (8)
Balance and swing partner (16)
The dance is a double progression dance, so alerting dancers to the
fact that "you will quickly be back in the dance at the top" should
help. I also find that encouraging dancers to have an odd number of
couples (an extra couple at the bottom of the set) helps; this way,
they will get to dance with more of their neighbors.
Nope, not double-progression, I hate double-progression. ;-) However,
the way it's constructed, nobody is ever out at the top; you're only
out when you're on the bottom with an odd number of couples.
Hmmmmmm. I am going to respectfully disagree. It might seem like a
single progression, since you are doing 56 counts of the dance with
just one couple. But, you are actually dancing with two distinct
couples. You pass by the first couple in the R&L through on the left
diagonal, this is the only movement danced with them. You then dance
the remainder of the dance with a second couple.
Another hint that this is double progression is the fact that you
are not out at the top of the set (you indicate this in your notes,
when you mention that the top couple should not move; if it were
single progression, they would have to cross to other side of the
set, and wait out one cycle of the dance). This is quite distinctive
of double prog. dances.
Well, that's embarrassing. You're right! Thanks also to Chris Page and
Jim Saxe for their private corrections.
I think it's interesting that Becket formation lends iteself to this
mistake; I don't think I would/could have made it with duple improper.
Hey, Alan! How come you didn't point this out earlier? ;-)
After thinking, I don't think it's possible to rescue this dance without
completely rewriting it (given the other constraints I used in writing
it), so I guess I'll just have to live with it (I've called it two or
three times now and people like it).
--
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6
http://rule6.info/
<*> <*> <*>
Help a hearing-impaired person:
http://rule6.info/hearing.html