> To Jan Rudge, Sheperd´s Crook is not just mainly seen as a demo, > it is a demo, in that it lacks the elements necessary to make it a > community social dance since the focus is outside the set.
And yet it does appear (if only rarely) on social dance programmes.
On those occasions, in my experience, the placing of the many sets within the dancing space is different to when a single set is performing it for an audience. That is the issue I've been addressing, as it's what I understood Andrew to be asking about.
> It is interesting that a fairly typical example of passive-aggressive > expression has slipped into this post. I am referring to the use of > the word surely in the quotation, I wouldn´t say there´s a top > and a bottom to it either top and bottom would refer to the hall, > <<surely>>?. The writer is making the assumption that all right thinking > orthodox membess of the faith would agree with her, when evidence > suggests that this is not the case. Has no one ever heard of MissM´s > famous, dance to the bottom and fall apart. Top and bottom are, > or at least were in my day, pretty standard terms for positions within > the set, not just the room.
I hope it was clear that my comment was specifically about The Shepherd's Crook rather than about standard terms for positions within sets in general. Would you consider there to be top and bottom positions within a Shepherd's Crook set, and if so, please could you explain further?