Indeed.
My original reply was merely speaking about relative difficulty of dances. All of the subsequent posts have made good related points.
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.Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2015 13:53:01 -0400
From: Maia McCormick via Callers <callers@lists.sharedweight.net>
To: "callers@lists.sharedweight.net" <callers@lists.sharedweight.net>
Subject: [Callers] Difficulty rankings?
Message-ID:
<CAHUcZGPHaCuWAZv+d+6EX1aJ7D25CDSvJUFD=VLYV8g43Fyr6A@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@lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net