Nobody reading this is actually going to care about this, but just because I so rarely get
a chance to correct John, I will.
See this:
https://www.kickery.com/2010/10/swing-corners-vs-turn-corners.html
"Turn corners" is two-hand turns, and it involves actives turning *only* their
corners, passing each other rather than turning.
The thing most like a contra-dance contra corners is actually "Swing corners" -
that's one-hand turns, partner right, corner left, partner right, corner left.
That's confusing talking about contra dances because "Swing" means something
altogether different in contra. (And confusing trying to map from contra back to
Regency-era country dances because 'allemande' means something altogether
different in contra and Regency, but I digress.)
Anyway, it seems to me clear that in contra dancing, the contra corners figure itself
doesn't include anything but those turns with partner and corner. It is very
typically followed by the actives balance and swing, but that is the next figure, rather
than part of contra corners.
John's point that Wilson's "Turn Corners"- again, I think he means
"Swing Corners" - doesn't include a swing at the end is correct, but I would
argue that this is irrelevant; modern contra "contra corners" doesn't
*include* a swing at the end either, it just is usually the setup for that. Chris and
Julian have done something unusual in modern contra context.
-- Alan
________________________________________
From: John Sweeney via Contra Callers <contracallers(a)lists.sharedweight.net>
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2023 8:23 AM
To: 'Shared Weight Contra Callers'
Subject: [Callers] Re: [External] Re: Choreo q - contra corners variations
Hi all,
“Kitch's skipping of the swing-in-center”. Hmmm…
I think lots of other people thought of that before Kitch! For example, Thomas Wilson in
1815 with his Turn Corners figure!
:-)
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