Hi Austin,
I’ve always found balances in lines to be fun. Yes, it is a different feeling from a Wave Balance, but so is a standard Petronella Balance. The whole line spinning together is great as well.
I can’t agree that the “ideal” Wave Balance is Right/Left. That is only true when the next move is something like Allemande Right. If the next move is Allemande Left then you end up too close together for a satisfying Allemande; in that situation Balance Left/Right is much more satisfying. And if the next move is to move forwards to a new Wave (i.e. Extend) then a Balance Forward/Back gives a much more satisfying help to your forward momentum.
I wish more callers would specify which way to balance! When they don’t and the dancers are balancing the wrong way, then I tend to do it Forward/Back; Forward/Back works well whichever direction you are going in next.
Regarding terminology, Balance and Set are synonymous. See Ralph A Piper’s article “50 Variations of the Balance”: “the term balance superseded the term “setting” to partners or corners”. In my experience when people do a Petronella Balance, some go Step-Stamp and some go 1-2-3. They are both included in Ralph’s document. My understanding is that Contra Dancers in the 1950s liked to do a different balance each time they did a Balance & Swing down the line, showing off how clever their footwork was. The older term was Foot-It, which I generally assume to mean, “Fill the rest of the music with fancy footwork to impress your partner”.
As Larry Jennings says in “Zesty Contras”:
“Balance: Dance most any appropriate way for four counts; use your freedom and fit your mood. ... It is left to the dancers, perhaps with advice from the caller, to move forward and back, or to move from side to side.”
In this figure I would advise the dancers to move side to side, going to the right first. When they get used to it I am sure dancers will make something of the move.
So when I use the term “Set” in my notes I could equally well have said “Balance”. :-)
Happy dancing,
John
John Sweeney, Dancer, England john(a)modernjive.com 01233 625 362 & 07802 940 574
http://www.modernjive.com for Modern Jive Events & DVDs
http://www.contrafusion.co.uk for Dancing in Kent
From: Callers <callers-bounces(a)lists.sharedweight.net> On Behalf Of Austin Paul via Callers
Sent: 18 October 2018 19:53
To: callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
Subject: Re: [Callers] Oval Petronella critique
Regarding the Oval Petronella figure:
Admittedly, I haven't tried dancing it, but it doesn't seem that appealing.
Most of the satisfaction I get from a balance comes when two dancers are both moving towards or away from a shared handhold and can share weight accordingly.
Think of your ideal balance in ocean waves of 4: step right, step left. Now contrast that with a wave balance where your neighbor steps the wrong way first, meaning the two of you move in the same direction: that shared handhold loses all its energy. It's very underwhelming.
If the balance is done in long lines with everyone moving the same way, then the hand hold lacks energy. (As an aside: LLFB doesn't even tend to get the good handhold energy it deserves). I did notice John Sweeney called it "Long Lines Set Right & Left" on his website, and not in fact a Balance, which seems much more accurate. Not wanting to get into the issue(s) of wanting contra dancers to appreciate "setting" and other figures from ECD, I see it devolving into a hokey 4-beat 'shuffle' on the floor.
Granted, that's one opinion. I'm sure others disagree.
Best,
Austin
Regarding the Oval Petronella figure:
Admittedly, I haven't tried dancing it, but it doesn't seem that appealing.
Most of the satisfaction I get from a balance comes when two dancers are
both moving towards or away from a shared handhold and can share weight
accordingly.
Think of your ideal balance in ocean waves of 4: step right, step left. Now
contrast that with a wave balance where your neighbor steps the wrong way
first, meaning the two of you move in the same direction: that shared
handhold loses all its energy. It's very underwhelming.
If the balance is done in long lines with everyone moving the same way,
then the hand hold lacks energy. (As an aside: LLFB doesn't even tend to
get the good handhold energy it deserves). I did notice John Sweeney called
it "Long Lines Set Right & Left" on his website, and not in fact a Balance,
which seems much more accurate. Not wanting to get into the issue(s) of
wanting contra dancers to appreciate "setting" and other figures from ECD,
I see it devolving into a hokey 4-beat 'shuffle' on the floor.
Granted, that's one opinion. I'm sure others disagree.
Best,
Austin
Hi All,
Two Petronella balance and spins can be done around the whole set and are
equivalent
to a double slice right (but different timing).
Anyone know if this has been used before in contra dance?
Here are two simple dances I wrote with this. I've not tried them out yet,
but the oval petronella that was in the grid dance I did at our last dance went
over well.
What do you think? I'd appreciate your thoughts.
Oval Petronella DP Becket CCW DP
best with odd number of couples
A1: Oval Balance & Petronella 2x
A2: G AL 1 1/2; N SW
B1: CL 3/4, P SW
B2: Prom Across; LLFB
Oval Petronella SP Becket CCW SP
A1: Oval Balance & Petronella 1x; G AL 1 1/2
A2: N Bal & SW
B1: CL 3/4, P SW
B2: Prom Across; LLFB
I searched the callers box database for dances with double slice (always left)
and with a bit a adjustment most can be tweaked to use oval petronella.
Oval Petronella at Pinewoods Becket CW
derived from A Slice of Pinewoods by Bob Isaacs, Ann Cowan, Tina Fields,
Jillian Hovey, Mark Lattanzi, and Chris Weiler
A1: Oval Balance & Pet 2x
A2: N2 CL 3/4, Pass R along set to; N1 SW
B1: LC; 1/2 Hey
B2: Pass R across set, P SW
Another Oval Petronella at Pinewoods Becket CW
derived from Another Slice of Pinewoods by Bob Isaacs and Chris Weiler
A1: N Bal & SW
A2: Oval Balance & pet x2
B1: (w/2nd Shadow) LH* 3/4, Pass 1st Shadow R to; P SW
B2: CL 3/4; Bal ring, California Twirl
Thanks
Cheers, Bill
PS Don't confuse this with Oval Petronella by Rembrant :-)
Thanks!
-Grant Goodyear-
On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 11:52 AM Yoyo Zhou <yozhov(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> This looks like a variation (perhaps accidental?) on Dogleaf Reel by Lisa
> Greenleaf, itself a variation on Dog Branch Reel by Bob Dalsemer.
>
> The original Dogleaf Reel starts proper (rather than improper) and B2 has
> the 1s half figure 8 through the 2s instead of long lines forward and back.
> This works better for the transition from circle left into 1s swing; the 1s
> have the usual hands for the circle into swing transition (gents left -
> ladies right).
>
> If you'd rather stay in improper formation, I would change the A1 to N do
> si do, 1s swing (the A1 from Dog Branch Reel).
>
> Yoyo Zhou
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 9:07 AM Grant Goodyear via Callers <
> callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
>> Hi, folks.
>>
>> I threw the following dance in a medley on Saturday night, and I have no
>> idea who wrote it or what the name of the dance is. Anybody recognize it?
>> Thanks, Grant.
>>
>> ?? (learned from Lisa Greenleaf)
>>
>> Improper
>> A1. ( 8) Cir lf
>>
>> ( 8) 1s sw, end facing dn
>> A2. (16) Down hall 4-in-line, turn alone, ret, face N
>> B1. (16) N bal & sw
>> B2. ( 8) Long lines fwd & bk
>>
>> ( 8) 2s sw, end facing up
>>
>> --
>> Grant Goodyear
>> web: http://www.grantgoodyear.org
>> e-mail: grant(a)grantgoodyear.org
>> _______________________________________________
>> List Name: Callers mailing list
>> List Address: Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
>> Archives: https://www.mail-archive.com/callers@lists.sharedweight.net/
>>
>
--
Grant Goodyear
web: http://www.grantgoodyear.org
e-mail: grant(a)grantgoodyear.org
This looks like a variation (perhaps accidental?) on Dogleaf Reel by Lisa
Greenleaf, itself a variation on Dog Branch Reel by Bob Dalsemer.
The original Dogleaf Reel starts proper (rather than improper) and B2 has
the 1s half figure 8 through the 2s instead of long lines forward and back.
This works better for the transition from circle left into 1s swing; the 1s
have the usual hands for the circle into swing transition (gents left -
ladies right).
If you'd rather stay in improper formation, I would change the A1 to N do
si do, 1s swing (the A1 from Dog Branch Reel).
Yoyo Zhou
On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 9:07 AM Grant Goodyear via Callers <
callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
> Hi, folks.
>
> I threw the following dance in a medley on Saturday night, and I have no
> idea who wrote it or what the name of the dance is. Anybody recognize it?
> Thanks, Grant.
>
> ?? (learned from Lisa Greenleaf)
>
> Improper
> A1. ( 8) Cir lf
>
> ( 8) 1s sw, end facing dn
> A2. (16) Down hall 4-in-line, turn alone, ret, face N
> B1. (16) N bal & sw
> B2. ( 8) Long lines fwd & bk
>
> ( 8) 2s sw, end facing up
>
> --
> Grant Goodyear
> web: http://www.grantgoodyear.org
> e-mail: grant(a)grantgoodyear.org
> _______________________________________________
> List Name: Callers mailing list
> List Address: Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
> Archives: https://www.mail-archive.com/callers@lists.sharedweight.net/
>
Hi, folks.
I threw the following dance in a medley on Saturday night, and I have no
idea who wrote it or what the name of the dance is. Anybody recognize it?
Thanks, Grant.
?? (learned from Lisa Greenleaf)
Improper
A1. ( 8) Cir lf
( 8) 1s sw, end facing dn
A2. (16) Down hall 4-in-line, turn alone, ret, face N
B1. (16) N bal & sw
B2. ( 8) Long lines fwd & bk
( 8) 2s sw, end facing up
--
Grant Goodyear
web: http://www.grantgoodyear.org
e-mail: grant(a)grantgoodyear.org
Hi Seth and Luke,
This discussion has inspired me to revisit grid contras.
We danced a grid contra yesterday at our monthly dance in Christchurch.
The majority of the dancers (24) were experienced but 8 were less so.
Even so it went well and all found it fun.
Here is a video of the setting up, teaching, walk throughs and the dance.
With a bit of computer animation thrown in.
https://youtu.be/gLKBm4j7gbQ
There were a few hiccups with the filming as my camera suffered tripod
droop! I had a great birds eye view from the stage, but the
camera less so :-(
I called a variation of Petronella Fancy which I wrote in 2012.
It was inspired by Kim's Game by Colin Hume. Petronella Fancy
was originally a type of 4 face 4, but easily extended to
an arbitrary regular grid.
The variation I used last night changed the order (to suit the
music better) and used both a double progression and
double transgression.
We danced on a grid of 4 adjacent contra lines of length 4 couples.
Total of 32 dancers. The dance has a period of 10 during which
each dancer will swing 5 different neighbors (each twice).
The 2s in the left line, 1s in the right line, 2s in front hands-four
and 1s in back hands-four all travel around the perimeter of the grid.
The 6 remaining couples form 3 pairs that vibrate back and forth.
This is the version we danced.
Petronella Fancy DP
A1 (4) [Entire oval along the set] Balance ring (4) Petronella turn
(4) [Entire oval along the set] Balance ring (4) Petronella turn
A2 (4) Pass through along (NR)
(4) Pass through along (N2R)
(8) N2 neighbor swing; face partner
B1 (8) Men allemande left 1 & 1/2
(8) Partner swing
B2 (8) [Groups of four] Circle left 3/4 [with N2]; face along
(8) Lines across the set forward and back
In general this dance is interesting if the grid does not have many
interior hands-four rings, as those couples vibrate and see very
few neighbors.
Here is the original
http://www.ibiblio.org/contradance/thecallersbox/dance.php?id=12042
It had a single progression and this means that couples traveling around the
perimeter are out very frequently which is not much fun.
I can easily generate animations for other size grids if anyone is interested.
Cheers, Bill
On 10/10/2018 9:05 a.m., Tepfer, Seth via Callers wrote:
> When a couple moves up and down the lines, we call that 'progression'.
> When a couple moves ACROSS the lines, I call that 'transgression'. Not
> counting four face fours (aka mescolanzas, double countras) I know of three
> dances that 'transgress' in some form or another:
Hi Don,
I think that the default definition now is that the pivot point is at the joined hands, but diverse choreography means that it can be anywhere in order to achieve the desired effect.
For example in Bob Isaacs’ March of the Triplets, the second pair of Gates have to move sideways while rotating, to make room for another couple to fit in line between the two Gates.
It is often worth clarifying who is doing the Gating and what the destination is.
I agree that choreography interpretation can be a challenge. I have never understood dances like Devil’s Dream and Beaux/Boys of Oakhill where the dance finishes with a Right & Left Through, so that the couples are in line, but starts with a completely different configuration. All the dancers have to move from lines into a new position in zero time.
I strongly suspect that dances like this were originally Two Changes of Rights & Lefts; the dancers could use the final Pull By Left to get to their new position. The addition of the Courtesy Turn really messes the choreography up. Or maybe it was just lousy choreography :-)
Happy dancing,
John
John Sweeney, Dancer, England john(a)modernjive.com 01233 625 362 & 07802 940 574
http://www.modernjive.com for Modern Jive Events & DVDs
http://www.contrafusion.co.uk for Dancing in Kent
From: Callers <callers-bounces(a)lists.sharedweight.net> On Behalf Of Don Veino via Callers
Sent: 13 October 2018 22:53
To: Caller's discussion list <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
Subject: Re: [Callers] Gate vs Hand Cast
Thanks for all the replies and details! I only have one of Larry's books, mine (G&T if I recall correctly) has just a supplemental glossary.
I was stuck on the idea of a gate having a person serving as a post, now I understand the definition has gone to a shared/equal move. Gate it is.
I don't have any examples at hand, but such a change in meaning/practice (around a person - > around a pair's center) could impact the feeling of prior choreography. I think I read something recently where an argument was being made that modern folks approaching traditional material with current move interpretation may be causing them to not flow as well as they did with contemporary interpretation, negatively coloring dancer reception of the material.
-Don
Thanks for all the replies and details! I only have one of Larry's books,
mine (G&T if I recall correctly) has just a supplemental glossary.
I was stuck on the idea of a gate having a person serving as a post, now I
understand the definition has gone to a shared/equal move. Gate it is.
I don't have any examples at hand, but such a change in meaning/practice
(around a person - > around a pair's center) could impact the feeling of
prior choreography. I think I read something recently where an argument was
being made that modern folks approaching traditional material with current
move interpretation may be causing them to not flow as well as they did
with contemporary interpretation, negatively coloring dancer reception of
the material.
-Don
On Mon, Oct 8, 2018, 1:20 AM Don Veino <sharedweight_net(a)veino.com> wrote:
> You may have seen my "Feeling Gravity's Pull" which I posted at the end of
> the recent Mad Robin teaching thread.
>
> In that dance, there's a move where partners are facing in side by side on
> the outside of the set (where the Gents have forward momentum and the
> Ladies neutral to backward momentum) and my intent was for them to rotate
> around their inside hand connection with the Gents going forward and Ladies
> backing up once around. (As opposed to the Gent walks a circle around the
> Lady.) So the net effect would be like a courtesy turn, in going around a
> central point between the dancers, just a little "wider."
>
> I believe the correct term for this would be "Hand Cast" but I had a
> dancer who was adamant about it being a "Gate" in ECD so when I posted the
> dance that's the term I used. I've again done some googling and found no
> ready reference to a "Hand Cast" in ECD and only the slightest in a contra
> context, yet the term sticks in my mind.
>
> What say ye? Is "Hand Cast" a thing and correct in this context?
>
> Thanks,
> Don
>
