Step controversy. Was: John's dance for Roy?

sophie.rickebusch

Message 53845 · 17 Oct 2008 11:52:41 · Fixed-width font · Whole thread

Previous message: Step controversy. Was: John's dance for Roy? (Martin Campoveja)
Next message: Step controversy. Was: John's dance for Roy? (sophie.rickebusch)
Previous in thread: Step controversy. Was: John's dance for Roy? (Anselm Lingnau)
Next in thread: Step controversy. Was: John's dance for Roy? (john.m.sturrock)

A 4-bar turn, even from the sidelines, is perfectly manageable with pdb
(it requires much less "spring" than say the last 2 bars of double
triangles). You also get a few dances which start with "set and
(half-)turn BH" (eg. Portnacraig), where you could argue for doing the
pdb on the spot and then turning with skip-change, rather than setting
advancing and then a quick turn in pdb (but there is something nice
about starting the dance by approaching your partner slowly while
setting, then really getting into the dance with that quick turn).

It seems to me that using pdb, people look more at the person with whom
they're turning... perhaps because it's more difficult so you really
have to help each other or because with skip-change, you turn your
hips/legs more into the direction of travel, so there's a risk that the
upper body and head will follow.

Sophie

Anselm Lingnau wrote:
> Brian Charlton wrote:
>
>
>> Hence both methods were in use very early.
>>
>
> According to Book 39, the dance, The Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh, was
> published in 1948 (the namesakes of the dance tied the knot in 1947). This
> uses the two-handed skip-change turn but it is a turn for 4 bars across the
> set rather than a turn for 2 bars with corners, after setting.
>
> In this context it is interesting to note that Knit the Pocky from book 11
> explicitly (and sensibly) specifies skip-change for the 4-bar two-handed turn
> with the person diagonally opposite (1st woman/2nd man, 1st man/2nd woman).
>
> I don't think there is a lot of disagreement even from RSCDS hard-liners that
> two-handed turns starting and ending on own sides, let alone diagonally, are
> better done with skip-change of step (does anyone have an example to the
> contrary? I can't think of one just now). The point of contention is really
> 2-bar turns with corners, as in »set to and turn corners«, because either
> method works reasonably well. In the interest of standardisation there ought
> to be a general rule, and as it happens that rule, however it was arrived at,
> says »pas de basque«. The Edinburgh people may bitch and moan and it is up to
> everybody else to remember the »Edinburgh way« when dancing in that fair
> city, but I won't hold my breath waiting for the official edict to emanate
> from Coates Crescent that henceforth all two-bar two-handed turns are to be
> done in skip-change-of-step (which in any case would send the signal that
> Miss Milligan was misguided and Allie Anderson was right after all, and
> therefore presumably cannot be allowed to happen). In theory, dancers from
> all over the world could establish a popular movement of »civil disobedience«
> and adopt skip-change turns, but personally I don't think it's worth the
> inevitable confusion.
>
> Anselm
>

--
Sophie Rickebusch
Edinburgh, UK

Previous message: Step controversy. Was: John's dance for Roy? (Martin Campoveja)
Next message: Step controversy. Was: John's dance for Roy? (sophie.rickebusch)
Previous in thread: Step controversy. Was: John's dance for Roy? (Anselm Lingnau)
Next in thread: Step controversy. Was: John's dance for Roy? (john.m.sturrock)
A Django site.