Hard to say. I am not a caller these days but to me the 2 bar moves seem busy. I would not ask the dancers to do moves that come quickly. Also, remember even an experienced contra crowd can't manage anything that is not duple improper. Both Hull's Victory and Rory O'More take a long time to teach. Sylvia Miskoe, Concord NH On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 1:55 PM, Rich Sbardella richsbardella(a)gmail.com [trad-dance-callers] <trad-dance-callers(a)yahoogroups.com> wrote:

I was thinking a Fwd & Back to start the dance, and a longer partner swing, will take this from 32 bars to 40 bars. The Fwd and back and the swing both provide some recovery time for those who may need it. In theory the dance was exactly 64 steps, but my worry was about the rollaway, box gnat, pull by, allemande left sequence. Rich On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 4:31 PM, Colin Hume colin(a)colinhume.com [trad-dance-callers] <trad-dance-callers(a)yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Rich, This would be a real difficult dance for the dancers in my area. Maybe calling it during a workshop would be a good idea. I think a 64 beat sequence would be good for a group that can really square dance. But with a less skilled group you might consider padding it out in some places and use some old time music. You'll have a better chance of not loosing the floor. My personal preference would be to add a do si do with one's corner before the star right. In my area and others, box formations are confusing enough that I have to be real careful in teaching. In my area dancers who can do a right and left through in a contra with no trouble will mess it up doing from the box. The issue is the those facing in sometimes try to courtesy turn their opposite instead of their partner. And of course if they mess up on the right and left through, they'll never recover with the rest of the routine. Workshop.... T

Hi Rich, The new partner swing is unusually short for a contra dance crowd. I think that might tempt people to swing for longer, then start the swing late. Since the promenade is once and a quarter around instead of once around, that might cause people to be late for the next round of the dance. (The problem wouldn't exist with the 4-beat MWSD swing.) Jacob On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 1:55 PM, Rich Sbardella richsbardella(a)gmail.com [trad-dance-callers] <trad-dance-callers(a)yahoogroups.com> wrote: -- jandnbloom(a)gmail.com http://jacobbloom.net/ View my Arlington Food Pantry fundraiser at https://www.youcaring.com/arlington-food-pantry-621657

Rich, I think Tom has correctly identified a significant potential trouble spot in the dance you asked about, but I think it's not the only potential source of trouble. Here are some others, roughly order of decreasing severity, which also happens to be from near the end of the dance sequence to near the beginning. The sequence uses the idea of identifying someone you do a left allemande with as your new corner, which thereby makes the next person of opposite gender (to yourself) in forward grand right and left direction be your new partner. I'm not sure how common that idea is in MWSD these days, but there are certainly many "traditional" square and/or contra dancers to whom it isn't familiar. I could easily imagine some people allemanding all the way around and a little more, so that they end up trying to swing the wrong person. Tom wrote: Note that in the sequence The dancers who were on the outside at the start of the "pull by" actually *do* engage someone coming at them from the other half of the square for the allemande. I think there's much potential for confusion between this part of the dance and the "right and left through." For dancers who have a 100% clear understanding of "right and left through" vs. "pass through" or "pull by," there's no problem. But for those who don't focus on exact terminology and instead rely on sort of remembering how the pattern felt, it could be quite confusing, particularly as the lead switches between heads and sides and as women progress around the square. Another figure that some dancers don't precisely understand is "Box the Gnat". You and I know that it's done by facing dancers (who must be of opposite gender roles), that both dancers are supposed to use their right hands, that it results in the dancers exchanging places (with the "lady" backing under the joined hands), and that the dancers end up facing each other (thus facing their own original positions) and with right hands still joined. Dancers who lack that precise understanding might, for example, release hands and face in some direction other than back toward where they started. When dancers fall behind the calls, they might miss hearing a call because they're too focused on completing the previous call. Or, what often amounts to about the same thing, they might hear a call and start reacting to it without having completed the previous call. If some of the dancers are slow to figure out (perhaps with the help of other nearby dancers) that the "right and left through" needs to include a courtesy turn, they might then leave out the "roll away", or the "box the gnat", or the "pull by". When a contra dance includes a star with one set of neighbors followed by some figure (another star, an allemande, a swing, ...) with different neighbors, there are always two dancers (typically either the two gents or the two ladies, depending on whether it's a right-hand or left-hand star, on whether the transition is to new neighbors or to previous neighbors, etc.) who need to look away from the star a little early, lest they turn too far and end up turning their backs on the neighbors they're supposed to meet. Anybody who has paid careful attention to new contra dancers will have noticed this. The sequence has a similar issue, both for the transition into the star in the center and for the transition out of it (and in each case, it happens to be the gents who are more likely to overshoot their next appointment). Dancers who are quite able to cope with this issue in contras may not automatically transfer the same skill to squares. Also, in a contra, dancers who need five tries to get the transition right can then enjoy it for another ten or so repeats, but a square will usually be over before dancers get five chances at something that the didn't get right during the walk-through. Finally, lets look at the opening actions of the sequence: I presume the heads are supposed to do the do-si-do with their opposites, not with their partners. In MWSD, the call "dosado" (as they spell it) is defined to be done by facing dancers, so the call "Heads dosado" would be sufficient. For traditional dancers, you need to be more explicit. The choreography calls for the dancers to stay close together at the end of the do-si-do (switching to the spelling more among current contra callers) and to face the nearest side couple for the star. For dancers who understand what to do, it's dead simple. But dancers unused to this transition might finish the do-si-do by falling all the way back to home places. Then when the caller tells them, during the walk-through, to do something with "the nearest side couple", they might lead out, together with their *partners* to face whichever side couple they imagine the caller means by "nearest." From this point on, the dancers could complete the walk-through as directed, but find at the end of it that something fishy has happened with the progression--either that the gents are promenading out of order (if heads led to the side couple on the right) or that two of the ladies have progressed in reverse of the usual direction (if heads led to the left). Or suppose two dancers, say M1 and W3, stay close together at the end of the do-si-do and correctly face the nearest side couple (couple 4 in this case) but the other two (W1 and M3) fall back to home places. The dancers who fell back to place may be unsure what to do next, and might take a while to figure it out. Or one of them might start a three-person star with the side couple (couple 2) and the other might join in at the wrong spot. I consider this issue to be fairly minor, because if you can can get dancers to do the right thing during the walk-through, I think they're unlikely to have problems with this part once the music gets going. If you look carefully at the walk-through of "Chime Bells" here https://squaredancehistory.com/items/show/843 you can see at least a couple dancers who do-si-do with their opposites and then fall back to home. Since most of the surrounding dancers know the correct action, the errors are quickly corrected and the action goes quite smoothly once the music starts. You (Rich) wrote: I like this suggestion. I presume you mean a Fwd & Back just for the active couples: Hds Fwd & Back (8) Hds DSD opposite and face sides (8) ... I think the preliminary Fwd & Back (also found in "Chime Bells" cited above and in Ted Sannella's "Do-si-do and Face the Sides") might make the opening sequence more comfortable for some dancers. Also, it provides some catch-up time for any dancers who are slow to finish the promenade. By the way, I reckon the promenade to be once and an eighth around. This is very common in corner progression dances and should not be difficult to complete in sixteen beats if dancers keep the formation small. The lengthened swing would indeed be more satisfying for contra dancers. It probably wouldn't be so long that that many would stop swinging prematurely, but if necessary you might say "keep swinging" partway through before prompting the promenade. The change does little to address the more serious challenges of the dance. While lengthening the swing could let dancers catch up if they get a beat or two behind the intended pace, it won't really help if they get seriously out of position, as in the situation Tom warned about: Overall, I think the sequence would be risky to attempt unless the dancers have shown ability to cope comfortably with similar but slightly less difficult material. (Can they handle star-to-star transitions in a square without the other challenges? Can they do "right and left through" from a "box" formation correctly and without hesitation in a dance that doesn't also include "pull by and allemande left" from box formation? ...) --Jim