3 Oct
2017
3 Oct
'17
4:44 p.m.
Hi Angela,
“Hole in the Wall” isn’t a move. It is a dance from 1695.
The “Hole in the Wall Crossing” is not a new move. It is a stylised version of a normal
Cross Over.
You can see it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=25&v=TUxbcJIOHNY
There are countless contra dances already with moves like: Balance the Ring; Ladies
Cross.
You just do the crossing in that style and you are doing a “Hole in the Wall Crossing”.
You don’t need to write new dances, just give the dancers that stylistic option.
Notes:
They almost certainly didn’t cross over like that in 1695. That style was added by
someone, probably in the middle of the 20th century, and it became so popular in that
dance that when people wanted that style in other dances they started referring to it as
the “Hole in the Wall Crossing”.
While the video of them dancing The Hole in the Wall is very nice, it was extremely
unlikely to have been danced in Jane Austen’s time. It was over 100 years old, and they
didn’t dance old dances in the way that we do today.
I hope that helps to clarify things! 😊
Happy dancing,
John
John Sweeney, Dancer, England john(a)modernjive.com 01233 625 362
http://www.contrafusion.co.uk for Dancing in Kent
11 Oct
11 Oct
4:40 p.m.
Sorry for the delayed response, I've been on something of an internet fast.
Regarding:
On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 4:44 PM, John Sweeney via Callers <
callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
Hi Angela,
[snip]
The “Hole in the Wall Crossing” is not a new move. It is a
stylised version of a normal Cross Over.
[snip]
There are countless contra dances already with moves like: Balance
the Ring; Ladies Cross.
You just do the crossing in that style and you are doing a “Hole
in the Wall Crossing”. You don’t need to write new dances, just give the
dancers that stylistic option.
I agree with John in a geographic destination sense.
However, unless I'm misunderstanding his point, I apparently differ in
opinion as regards timing and flow. I believe you definitely need to
address the "styling" of the cross within the rest of the dance's
choreography - meaning the composition must be fit to a HitW-style cross or
risk the dance not being satisfying.
A "conventional" [persons identifier] cross by [shoulder] (or alternatively
[persons identifier] swap) can range from 2 (rushed) to 4 (typical) beats.
A HitW-styled cross would typically run 6-8 beats. As a result, the
proximate moves (or "styling" of them) must address that timing for the
overall dance to be satisfying.
By way of example, consider this one of mine:
The Whole Slice – Becket – Don Veino 20170401
A1
(4,4) Slice Forward on left diagonal, Fall Straight Back
(8!) Hole in the Wall* (with N straight across – “Go Forward, Neighbor
Swap, Fall Back”), look away from Partner
A2
(6) Circle Left 3/4 (w/same N & your shadow)
(10) Neighbor Swing
B1
(8) Left Diagonal Ladies Chain (to P)
(8) Half Hey Ladies Pass Right (straight across)
B2
(4,12) Partner Balance & Swing
(*Choreographic shorthand - I don't call with this term - see full
details at http://veino.com/blog/?p=1541)
If the caller decided to do a "conventionally styled" swap instead of
"HitW
styled" to end the A1, there's ~4 beats difference that'd need to be dealt
with. Dancers might hold their place smiling or (more likely) do something
unintended instead - possibly disrupting the rest of the dance. Bottom
line, one can't just "style" that single bit without addressing the other
parts.
FWIW, this is why the A1 and A2 above are crafted as they are... the slice
demonstrates similar cadence to the HitW cross timing. It'd take all 4
dancers shaking that off and then rushing the HitW cross for the circle to
start early (vs. a 2 dancer move, with proportionately greater risk of
mis-timing) - this was intended as a "point of control" to smooth things
out and help dancers settle into the relaxed (for contra) cadence.
-Don
2382
days inactive
2390
days old
import1@lists2.sharedweight.net
1 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
Don Veino -
John Sweeney