Indeed.
My original reply was merely speaking about relative difficulty of dances.
All of the subsequent posts have made good related points.
On Apr 20, 2015 6:13 PM, "Dugan Murphy via Callers" <
callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
Hi Maia,
I used to organize my dance cards by difficulty, but currently, I use
categories in my box that are largely based on dance-defining figures
(Petronella, star promenade) and types of progression (slide left,
circle-pass-through). I find that system of organization to be more useful
when writing out a program for an evening.
Dugan Murphy
dugan(a)duganmurphy.com
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2015 13:53:01 -0400
From: Maia McCormick via Callers
<callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net>
To: "callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net" <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net>
Subject: [Callers] Difficulty rankings?
Message-ID:
<CAHUcZGPHaCuWAZv+d+6EX1aJ7D25CDSvJUFD=
VLYV8g43Fyr6A(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
As I overhaul my contra deck and realize that my difficulty ranking system
is super incoherent, and most of my dance rankings are from way before I
had any idea what actually makes a dance easy or hard, I've been thinking
of scrapping this difficulty ranking system and just starting over. So I
was wondering: if you rank your dances by difficulty, what is your system,
what are your benchmarks for various difficulty levels, what sorts of
things do you consider when determining the difficulty of a dance? If you
DON'T
rank your dances, why not?
Cheers,
Maia
***************************************
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net