1 Sep
2012
1 Sep
'12
7:14 p.m.
Your suggestion is exactly what I do!
Linda
On Sep 1, 2012, at 2:53 PM, Don Veino wrote:
Thanks for the inputs! I noticed one other
complication with the
re-arrangement - the original top #2 couple would be ejected from the
walk-through right at the start. I like Linda's suggestion re: Lt.
Diag.
Cir. 3/4 and Swing. So to fix the walk-through for the top #2s, I
would
make an adjustment to have the Cir. be straight across the first
time only
(and note this to the dancers) then transition to the Lt. Diag.
subsequently.
Thanks,
Don
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 9:57 PM, Linda Leslie
<laleslierjg(a)comcast.net>wrote;wrote:
I, too, change dances around if I think the
change will be
advantageous. I
can see why you want to change the As and Bs. Some thoughts about
this:
Keeping the original dance means that the As have the balances, and
the Bs
are smooth. This may be an advantage for the band/tune choice. And
the
signature move is right at the top.
If you change the dance to end with the P B&S, then the A1 can
certainly
be "With the couple on the left diag, circle left 3/4, swing this
neighbor". I universally change to this default, since I find that
the
circle left 3/4, pass through, and swing, usually means that the
neighbor
swing is shortened. But I still make sure to credit the original
choreographer, stating "this is a slight variation of the
dance........by......"
Have fun calling in Concord!
warmly, Linda
On Aug 31, 2012, at 8:24 PM, Richard Mckeever wrote:
If I were calling this dance I would not hesitate to reverse the A&B
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)sharedweight.net
http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers parts. I would announce the original name and
author and mention
it is
slightly modified.
I actually do this quite often. There are some things I
especially like
(or don't like) and I have no issues tweaking a dance to add or
remove
those items as long as it doesn't interfere with the overall flow
or intent
of the dance.
Ending a Becket dance in a partner swing is one I consider an
improvement. The flow of the dance also seems to make more sense
with your
suggested change.
I would only show the band the version you plan to use - so they
pick the
tune they feels works best with that sequence.
Go for it looks like a fun dance.
Mac McKeever
______________________________**__
From: Don Veino <sharedweight_net(a)veino.com>
To: Callers(a)sharedweight.net
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 7:11 PM
Subject: [Callers] Shifting dance sequences
I'm still gaining basic experience calling and have been noodling
for a
few
minutes on this - thought I'd seek others' expertise and
experience...
I'm looking at my program candidates for an upcoming dance and in
reviewing
the dance *Seagull* by Erik Weberg (which can be found at
http://www.kluberg.com/**eriksdances.html#Seagull<http://www.kluberg.com…
______________________________**_________________
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)sharedweight.net
http://www.sharedweight.net/**mailman/listinfo/callers<http://www.shared…
)
I started thinking it
would be easier to start the teaching at some other point than the
A1, due
to having to set up the initial short waves (which otherwise
naturally
form
out of the B2). And noticing that the dance ends with a G Allem. Lt.
1+1/2,
I started thinking it might be best to start with the B1, which is
a very
conventional Cir. Lt. 3/4 and Pass Thru..., which would leave the
dance
ending at the existing A2, finishing with a more satisfying P Swing.
Ok, so this has two implications I see right away:
1. the band's music selection may change
2. the progression moves from the B1 original to the A1 as
reshuffled.
Are there any untoward consequences I'm missing? Why would this
not be the
default sequence?
Thanks,
Don