> >[Oberdan:] > > If you are not covered with somebody else, > > somebody's phrasing is off, but from the misalignment alone it > > cannot be determined whether you or the other person is off (or both!). >[Blaine:] >Well said - but from the rest of the argument, to whose particular >(personal) dancing style are we to determine who is right and who is >wrong?
The question of who is right and who is wrong pops up whenever
"covering" is the objective.
>By this definition, there is only one "correct" person to whom >the entire floor is to be compared and held accountable. Is that to be >the person with the highest-held nose?
I don't know what definition that might be. I do not subscribe to
that view. However, if there is to be only one correct person, then I
very much like the idea that it be the person with the highest-held
>I believe the purpose should be to dance as one with your partner, set, >and other sets, and not a contest to see which individual will set the >standard for all others.
>Who really cares?
I derive a great deal of pleasure from a set that phrases a dance well. I care.
>Everyone must be willing to give a little so the phrasing is such >that covering is achieved.
Maybe I am reading this wrong, but it seems to say that the objective
of phrasing is to cover. Sounds like scraping fingernails on the
chalkboard! Phrasing well is an objective sufficient to itself that
should result in the dancers working together better than if they
were phrased poorly.
The difference between the concepts of phrasing and covering is
similar to the difference between full-motion video with a timing
track and a sequence of still pictures. You can get the stills from
the video, but not vice-versa.
Trans Vector Technologies, Inc, 184 Estaban Drive, Camarillo, CA 93010-1611
Phone: (805)484-2775, FAX: (805)484-2718, EMail: firstname.lastname@example.org