The first couple times I danced this I copied it down, so I know that this was a version of the original. I believe it was Carol Ormand who called the dance both times, but I'm not certain. Can anyone share their opinion on why the caller would have chosen to make the change in the dance? orientation or flow? Rocks & Dirt Erik Weberg Type: Contra Formation: Duple-Improper Level: Int A1 ----------- Neighbor allemande Left 1-1/2 (8) Women's Chain (8) A2 ----------- Long lines, forward and back (8) Ladies by the Right, Gents go round Women allemande Right 1-1/2 (8) while gents Orbit CCW to the other side B1 ----------- Partner balance and swing (16) B2 ----------- Circle Left 3/4 (6) Square thru to the new ( OR 3 place circular hey without hands ) Ngh Pull by Right - P Left - Ngh Right on to the next with your left OR Pass 1st Ngh by the Right, Partner Left, Neighbor Right face the next for an alm Left original dance on Erick's site - A1 N B/S A2 Ladies Chain; Orbit {Ladies Al'd R 1-1/2 while men orbit ccw 1/2 way around} ~ When I dance, I cannot judge, I cannot hate, I cannot separate myself from life. I can only be joyful and whole, that is why I dance. ~Hans Bos~ ~ _______________________________________________ Callers mailing list Callers(a)sharedweight.net http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers

________________________________ From: Alan Winston <winston(a)slac.stanford.edu> To: callers(a)sharedweight.net Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2013 6:39 PM Subject: Re: [Callers] rocks and dirt by Erik Weberg Distinctive figure totally stolen from an English dance called "Fenterlarick", incidentally.  (As Erik would be the first to acknowledge; I just like seeing old friends in these contexts, like the poussette -> hey in "Joyride".) As to the changes: maybe Carol had seen too many people go right , left, right , left (Oops, left-hand balance, which of course you can do but if you're not expecting it is awkward); maybe she thought swing-chain-allemande might be a little too dizzy-making (even though it nicely changes direction), maybe  she thought the dance needed a moment of poise (get yourself sorted out in long lines; don't reflexively chain back when you should be allemanding.) So it could be orientation or it could be flow.  I guess I'd be hesitant to make a change that removes the neighbor swing. -- Alan On 9/28/2013 2:27 PM, Laur wrote: _______________________________________________ Callers mailing list Callers(a)sharedweight.net http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers

________________________________ From: Yoyo Zhou <yozhov(a)gmail.comTo: Laur <lcpgr(a)yahoo.com>om>; Caller's discussion list <callers(a)sharedweight.net> Sent: Monday, September 30, 2013 9:51 PM Subject: Re: [Callers] rocks and dirt by Erik Weberg On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 2:27 PM, Laur <lcpgr(a)yahoo.com> wrote: Can anyone share their opinion on why the caller would have chosen to make the change in the dance?  orientation or flow? It's hard to know for sure without asking Carol (or whoever it was that changed it). Here are some reasons (and examples) I can think of for variations to be created: - Fix poor transitions (right and left thru->circle left, ladies chain->next neighbor balance). - Fix timing issues (swing ending in the middle of a phrase). - Add things that are missing (no partner swing, no neighbor swing). - Eliminate unwanted figures (a balance in a smooth dance, a circle right, too many circle lefts). - Make a dance easier to dance or to teach (use hands in the circular hey). - Other aesthetic reasons (substituting balance/gypsy/dosido before a swing). Those who feel strongly enough about choreography to change dances to fit their programs have some aesthetic by which they judge the new dance to be better than the original, but different callers prioritize different things. As Alan mentioned, some callers (myself included) put a high value on a neighbor swing because dancers seem to like it. Perhaps Carol (or whoever) values the transitions here more than the original, enough to outweigh the lack of a neighbor swing. What are the questionable transitions in the original? If the circular hey is done without hands, the balance is no problem. But swing to ladies chain is not the smoothest. And (I noticed when I coincidentally called this dance) there are ladies who will accidentally try to chain back instead of allemanding. But I think there's still that risk of confusion in the revised dance, as the ladies have the same cue twice - the other lady extending a right hand. (For the record, I think I called it with the variation A1 gypsy and swing. My reasons: it flows well, it feels like a good fit with that part of the dance, and I hadn't called any gypsy and swings yet in my program.) Yoyo Zhou