>I've recently read Simon Scott's article on one or two chords. I think
he >makes quite a good argument for the two chords at the beginning of GH >(i.e., to honour both your partner and your "opposite") (and >I think the same argument would justify two chords at the beginning of >some square formation dances, although I don't recall that >happening). What his argument does _not_ seem to justify is requiring >everyone to start and finish on "proper" sides - with the resulting >awkward scramble on the second chord, and difficult movement for
couples >coming to the top of the set (and also for some couples at the end of
the >dance). The justificatiion for that appears to be that the dance is a >classic. I think it would be a more popular classic if Simon's
argument >for _not_ having two chords in the modern dances where 3s and 4s start
on >opposite sides, was applied to GH, with couples forming up in lines of >couple facing couple. For what it's worth,
Yes, a classic indeed !
If, for the Glasgow Highlanders, you form sets with all ladies on
partner's right with 1C facing 2C and 3C facing 4C ready for all dancers
to begin on the first repetition then you can have one beginning chord.
I think, that because the dance is such a "classic" and who are we to
make such an alteration, that this change, if so desired, should only be
local for those who wish.