> Re changes: it might be a good idea, if changing a dance, to change
the > name. We get enough "variations" via the folk process, without making > them deliberately.
That's what I've done in general (except with dances on my web site
which are still under development). However, it's sometimes worth
accepting "folk process" changes - how many people dance both promenades
in Ian Powrie's Farewell to Auchterarder in the same direction (as
> I've liked The One O'clock Canon, too; will be interested to see a
"mark > 2", if it appears.
It's not a mark two. It's just presenting the same instructions in a
different format. In Dunedin Dances 4 it's published as a 160-bar
dance, which I feel misses the point. See http://www.scottishdance.net/dances/TheOneOClockCanon.html to see my
preferred publication format - a 64-bar dance, marking the point on bar
33 where 2nd couple start from bar 1. Of course, when I call it I tend
to call it very much how Dunedin published it, but that's a different
BTW - to all those who want to mail me directly - please always send
mail to my scottishdance.net address. I can read this at work, but I
don't read work mail at home. Thanks!
Ian Brockbank C.Eng. MBCS
Applications Software Engineer
e: firstname.lastname@example.org / email@example.com
t: +44 131 272 7145
f: +44 131 272 7001
== I'm on the road. Please send all email to both
== and firstname.lastname@example.org. Thanks! ==