Getting to the bottom of the set (again)

Ken McFarland

Message 15173 · 15 Dec 1998 21:24:06 · Variable-width font · Whole thread

Previous message: perfect dances (Ken McFarland)
Next message: Washington DC Branch Jan 2 Dance (Jim McCullough)
Previous in thread: Getting to the bottom of the set (again) (Ken McFarland)
Next in thread: Getting to the bottom of the set (again) (Ron.Mackey)

Simon wrote:
>I know that we used to finish by 1st couple crossing to 4th place rather
>than 3rd on the last two bars while 4th couple dance up to 3rd place>

>This can apply to a number of other dances. I have always felt that any
>simple way of arriving in 4th place during ones own 32, 40, 48 bars is
>preferable to a subsequent movement during what is the next couples time.

I agree with Simon. If there is a simple way of ending that does not
extensively modify the figures of the dance, and has the happy result of a
smooth ending for the dancing couple, why not do so? But I can see now that
the thread would argue about the definition of "extensively modify"! To me,
the modification/ending would preferably be 2 bars, or very rarely 4 bars,
but anything more than 4 bars should be carefully considered. Personal
choice.....

Ken McFarland

Previous message: perfect dances (Ken McFarland)
Next message: Washington DC Branch Jan 2 Dance (Jim McCullough)
Previous in thread: Getting to the bottom of the set (again) (Ken McFarland)
Next in thread: Getting to the bottom of the set (again) (Ron.Mackey)
A Django site.