strathspey Archive: Ladies chain

Previous thread: Espie McNab
Next thread: The Magic Sounds of Jimmy Shand

Ladies chain

Message 29185 · RON TAYLOR · 21 Jan 2002 12:29:52 · Top

I have had a pivate exchange of emial with another person who tells me that the topic of Ladie Chain was discussed a few years ago - and opinion is divided.

If the dance is done excatly in accordance with the Manual if both men dance to the ladies place (exactly, not slightly) and both ladies cross diagonally the the turn with the left hand hand has to be tight and ugly.

If however the ladies on bar 2 dance towards the mens place then you get a nice wide sweeping turn with the left hand and the whole figure looks so much nicer.

Ron

Ladies chain

Message 29186 · Alan Paterson · 21 Jan 2002 12:47:08 · Top

RON TAYLOR wrote:
>
> I have had a pivate exchange of emial with another person who tells me
> that the topic of Ladie Chain was discussed a few years ago - and
> opinion is divided.

Sounds familiar.

>
> If the dance is done excatly in accordance with the Manual if both men
> dance to the ladies place (exactly, not slightly) and both ladies cross
> diagonally the the turn with the left hand hand has to be tight and
> ugly.

Does anyone really ever do this? Is it REALLY written so in the Manual?

>
> If however the ladies on bar 2 dance towards the mens place then you get
> a nice wide sweeping turn with the left hand and the whole figure looks
> so much nicer.

MY pet theory is that one should aim for a position which would result
in the axis of turn (the joined hands) be over the ladies' starting
positions. How you get there should not need to be spelt out :-)

So are there now three opinions?

Alan

Ladies chain

Message 29189 · Volleyballjerry · 21 Jan 2002 18:05:52 · Top

I suppose that I need to review exactly what the manual states (it's not
immediately at hand, and I'm too lazy to go to the car to get it), but it's a
reality of physics (at least my conventional lay-person's physics) that two
bodies cannot occupy the same space at the same time, so at the end of bar
two a man and a woman cannot both be in the woman's place, and if they are
both approximately so, it makes, as has just been stated, an ugly tight
figure. I have always taught ladies' chain such that the man makes a half
circle (or curve) to exactly the woman's initial position and the women,
after taking and releasing hands head exactly to men's initial positions;
then on bars 3-4 the non-partners turn to exactly exchange places, this all
repeated similarly on bars 5-8. (The man essentially makes two complete
circles, moving through his and his partner's position every two bars, each
half-circle.)

Robb Quint
Thousand Oaks, CA, USA

Ladies chain

Message 29190 · Andrew Buxton · 21 Jan 2002 18:16:47 · Top

Robb Quint wrote:
(The man essentially makes two complete circles, moving through
his and his partner's position every two bars, each
half-circle.)

"Rugby footballs" is how I've heard the man's track described.
I suppose one could alternatively say "ovals".

Andrew Buxton
Brighton

Ladies chain

Message 29192 · Leslie Henderson · 21 Jan 2002 19:49:54 · Top

> MY pet theory is that one should aim...

and MY pet theory is that the figure really seems to sort of just work
itself out. If you (as a lady) stick out the appropriate hand, and the
gentleman in question sort-of circles in place (vamp 'till ready), then
all will be ready to do what is required at the appropriate time.

I don't know what it says in the manual, but this works for me.

Of course I had Di for a teacher. What more is there?

Leslie

=====
Leslie Hastings
of Edinburgh UK

*NEW* personal web page address:
http://www.geocities.com/leslie_hastings
Skagit Scottish Country Dancers:
http://www.skagitscd.org

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/

Ladies chain

Message 29199 · Oberdan Otto · 22 Jan 2002 00:37:27 · Top

>MY pet theory is that one should aim for a position which would result
>in the axis of turn (the joined hands) be over the ladies' starting
>positions. How you get there should not need to be spelt out :-)
>
>So are there now three opinions?
>
>Alan

Of all the ones given so far, this description comes closest to what
the Manual says. If you think it says something else, I suggest you
cosey up with the Manual for a while. What the Manual says (as
distinguished from what one teaches or dances) is not a area of
personal preference. If you claim to be teaching RSCDS style, then it
is important know what that style is!

The other version being described (with men dancing into ladies
places and ladies dancing into men's places at the end of 2 bars) is
the way I originally learned the figure and is consistent with an
older version of "Won't you Join the Dance" which states that "men
dance INTO ladies positions". A later version changed that to "men
dance TOWARD ladies positions". Then there is the current Manual
which is similar to the latter.

As for my personal preference, I think the current version is an
unfortunate complication of what used to be a very clean and
symmetrical figure. The problem with the new form is that you cannot
use set lines as a teaching/phrasing aid. For a very long time I was
angry about the change because the Manual did not help me by
providing new phrasing markers. But, eventually I happened upon a
simple and effective phrasing method: at the end of bars 2 and 6 all
dancers should be making a diagonal between the original ladies
positions. Now that I feel I can teach it, it is no longer an
emotional issue for me.

Cheers, Oberdan.

184 Estaban Drive, Camarillo, CA 93010-1611 USA
Voice: (805) 389-0063, FAX: (805) 484-2775, email: ootto@ootto.com

Ladies chain

Message 29207 · Martin.Sheffield · 22 Jan 2002 10:09:34 · Top

Oberdan wrote:

>... a simple and effective phrasing method: at the end of bars 2 and 6 all
>dancers should be making a diagonal between the original ladies positions.

So after "men should dance INTO ladies' places" followed by "men should
dance TOWARD ladies' places" , are you now suggesting "men should dance way
beyond ladies' places?"

I hope the next edition of the Manual will also tell us how the men should
get back elegantly into their own places at the end of the phrase, and what
the ladies should do on the last two bars, since the above method brings
them home on bar 6.

Using the diagonal pattern is, of course, the easy way out for teachers,
who no longer have to insist on a nicely shaped pattern within the set and
avoid the difficulty of persuading ladies to turn on bars 1-2 instead of
simply passing each other by with a brief handshake.

Martin
in Grenoble, France
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/scots.in.france/index.htm

Ladies chain

Message 29212 · Bruce Gentles · 22 Jan 2002 11:01:03 · Top

>
> I hope the next edition of the Manual will also tell us how the men should
> get back elegantly into their own places at the end of the phrase, and
what
> the ladies should do on the last two bars, since the above method brings
> them home on bar 6.
>

No it doesn't. They are still in a diagonal line and need to do approx 3/4
LH turn to return to original positions.

> Using the diagonal pattern is, of course, the easy way out for teachers,
> who no longer have to insist on a nicely shaped pattern within the set and
> avoid the difficulty of persuading ladies to turn on bars 1-2 instead of
> simply passing each other by with a brief handshake.
>

Sorry, again I disagree. It is actually more difficult to teach the diagonal
pattern, because it is more difficult to dance. Having tried teaching it as
in the manual, I now ask the ladies to turn further (but state that I am
deviating from what the manual states) - although I will sometimes ask the
class to dance it as in the manual first, so they are aware of the
difference.

Kate
Cambridge, UK

Ladies chain

Message 29235 · Oberdan Otto · 23 Jan 2002 15:33:12 · Top

>Oberdan wrote:
>
>>... a simple and effective phrasing method: at the end of bars 2
>>and 6 all dancers should be making a diagonal between the original
>>ladies positions.
>
>So after "men should dance INTO ladies' places" followed by "men
>should dance TOWARD ladies' places" , are you now suggesting "men
>should dance way beyond ladies' places?"

Well, as much as I dislike advocating the "new" ladies' chain...

No, not "way beyond", but not "into" either. The men dance toward the
ladies' starting position so that they can comfortably join left
hands with the ladies to begin the turn. Making a momentary diagonal
through the ladies' starting positions (like a balance in line) is a
way of controlling the formation so it is not the vague mish-mash
that is described in the Manual.

>I hope the next edition of the Manual will also tell us how the men
>should get back elegantly into their own places at the end of the
>phrase, and what the ladies should do on the last two bars, since
>the above method brings them home on bar 6.

No, they have to turn the men before they arrive back in place. On
bar 6 they are close to but not at their ending positions. The last
half turn is not about a single position--it must drift toward the
mens' ending positions. Don't thank me for this weirdness, thank
Duncan MacLeod.

I don't remember exactly when the transition occurred--it was 15-20
years ago. I remember that period especially because while I was
visiting at the Asylomar weekend, a number of newly examined teachers
were commenting rather aggressively about how a lot of people (which
included me) were dancing the formation incorrectly. I distinctly
remember wondering why it was necessary to change the figure and who
was responsible. I speculated then that someone high up messed up in
public and covered up the mess-up by making it the new official
version. I was particularly incensed that I had to learn about this
change through newly examined teacher candidates who had been taught
it by the examiners. I was thoroughly unimpressed with the seemingly
random and capricious way in which RSCDS then operated and whether
this was an organization deserving of my continued support.
Fortunately, my love of the dance overcame my political misgivings. I
like to believe that the RSCDS is different now, but I don't see any
moves toward undoing some of the stupid mistakes of the past.

>Using the diagonal pattern is, of course, the easy way out for
>teachers, who no longer have to insist on a nicely shaped pattern
>within the set and avoid the difficulty of persuading ladies to turn
>on bars 1-2 instead of simply passing each other by with a brief
>handshake.

I would much rather train the ladies in how to do the old version of
the ladies' chain. However, my dancers do travel to other places,
including places where the dancers "tut, tut" at you down their noses
when you don't do things by the book. So I make sure they know how to
dance by the book. From time to time I take my dancers on a trip
through time and show them how figures like ladies' chain and
strathspey poussette were danced in times past. I am thinking of
making a point of rounding up some of Iain Boyd's dances (hi Iain!)
containing ladies' chain to have added rationale for showing the
lovely old method.

Cheers, Oberdan.

184 Estaban Drive, Camarillo, CA 93010-1611 USA
Voice: (805) 389-0063, FAX: (805) 484-2775, email: ootto@ootto.com

Ladies chain

Message 29208 · e.ferguson · 22 Jan 2002 10:37:38 · Top

On 21 Jan 2002 at 12:46, Alan Paterson wrote:

> MY pet theory is that one should aim for a position which would result
> in the axis of turn (the joined hands) be over the ladies' starting
> positions. How you get there should not need to be spelt out :-)
>
> So are there now three opinions?

I have often heard this statement ("the axis of the turn is a pole in
the Woman's place"), but I do not understand how it is meant to work.
Let us look at the turns in detail. [To avoid the irrelevant side-
issues of the start and of polite turns, I assume that the men start
and finish facing out.]

At the start of bar 1 and the end of bar 8, all should be in the
starting positions (2C opposite sides, both men facing out)

Both for beauty and ease of dancing, the figure should consist of two
identically shaped half ladies chains. Therefore all are in the same
four places (with the Women interchanged) at the start of bar 5.

How should one make the turns on bars 3-4 and 7-8?

- all start bar 3 & 7 with hands joined in a W place ("on the pole").

- all finish bars 4 & 8 by droppping hands, at that moment joined half
way between the M and W places. So the "centre point" has moved.

- The M makes a big loop on the sideline, from one arm's length beyond
the W place to the M place (diameter about 3 arm lengths).

- The W makes only a small loop, from one arm's length from the W
place to the W place (diameter one arm length).

I cannot see how this turn with "shifting centre", and with the M
taking far longer steps than the W, can ever be elegant.

Can someone explain how this version is meant to be danced?

In all other figures, we are always taught that in turns the joined
hands should NOT move.

My own preference is for the version described by Ian Boyd. But I
would gladly dance (the) other version(s) too, if asked, if only I
understood how.

Eric

--
Eric T. Ferguson, van Dormaalstraat 15, NL-5624 KH EINDHOVEN,
Netherlands
tel: (+31)(0)40-243 2878 fax:40-246 7036 e-mail: e.ferguson@antenna.nl

Ladies chain

Message 29237 · Oberdan Otto · 23 Jan 2002 15:33:18 · Top

>[Eric:]
>I cannot see how this turn with "shifting centre", and with the M
>taking far longer steps than the W, can ever be elegant.
>
>Can someone explain how this version is meant to be danced?
>
>In all other figures, we are always taught that in turns the joined
>hands should NOT move.

For several years, this was exactly how I felt.

The "make a diagonal" (at the end of bars 2 and 6, as in a balance in
line) method I described is NOT in the Manual. It was my answer for
removing the vagueness from the figure while still being consistent
with the Manual.

As for turns not drifting in all other formations, I am pretty sure
that is not correct. One example that pops to mind is the new version
of the strathspey poussette, in which the turns must drift to form
the diagonals. Interestingly, in the original version of strathspey
poussette, the turns did not drift.

I wonder if drifting turns come from people messing up what used to
be very nice, symmetrical figures? ;))

Cheers, Oberdan.

184 Estaban Drive, Camarillo, CA 93010-1611 USA
Voice: (805) 389-0063, FAX: (805) 484-2775, email: ootto@ootto.com

Drifting

Message 29240 · Alan Paterson · 23 Jan 2002 16:00:10 · Top

Oberdan Otto wrote:
>
> <snip>
> As for turns not drifting in all other formations, I am pretty sure
> that is not correct. One example that pops to mind is the new version
> of the strathspey poussette, in which the turns must drift to form
> the diagonals. Interestingly, in the original version of strathspey
> poussette, the turns did not drift.

Nor do they in my group when either my wife or I are teaching this
formation. I was sufficiently interested as this was discussed in this
forum last year to investigate myself and, in my opinion (not
necessarily humble), there is no question but that the Strathspey
Poussette should be a figure symmetrical for the most part. No tiddly
wee steps, no big huge steps, covering up and down - and no drifting.

I always tell them that this is not the RSCDS version and that the RSCDS
version is wrong.

(I wonder if I can still keep my teacher's certificate after that
statement. Alan? :-)

Alan

Ladies chain

Message 29316 · mgillespie · 26 Jan 2002 09:47:09 · Top

Ron Taylor wrote,

< If however the ladies on bar 2 dance towards the mens place then you get a
< nice wide sweeping turn with the left hand and the whole figure looks so
< much nicer.

Ladies chain is an 8 bar formation, divided equally into 4 x 2bar phrases.
Therefore the whole should be a smooth flowing sequence. The ladies cross RH on
the diagonal from place to place. If the men dance to slightly below or above
3rd and 1st ladies position, it is so much easier to give LH for the turn, which
is now only a half turn and is easily done in the 2 bars wihout any change in
speed.
If the ladies dance towards the men's position then the diagonal is lost
and you end up with a 1/2 R&L cross the dance. Assuming all the dancers travel
the same distance the men must end up beyond the ladies starting positions.

Malcolm Gillespie
Zimbabwe.

Ladies chain

Message 29329 · ron.mackey · 27 Jan 2002 02:01:26 · Top


> Ladies chain is an 8 bar formation, divided equally into 4 x 2bar phrases.
> Therefore the whole should be a smooth flowing sequence. The ladies cross RH on
> the diagonal from place to place. If the men dance to slightly below or above
> 3rd and 1st ladies position, it is so much easier to give LH for the turn, which
> is now only a half turn and is easily done in the 2 bars without any change in
> speed.
> If the ladies dance towards the men's position then the diagonal is lost
> and you end up with a 1/2 R&L cross the dance. Assuming all the dancers travel
> the same distance the men must end up beyond the ladies starting positions.
>
>
> Malcolm Gillespie

Hi, Malcolm
Do I take it that you are requiring all to dance the same distance
for each two bars? That each dance the whole eight bars without
any change of speed? What size of set do you propose?
If the standard set is still 4 + 1/2 paces across and the dancers
are one arm's distance apart on the sides something of what you
propose is not possible.
Why would you want to dance in such a regular fashion anyway.
Personally I enjoy a bit of 'phrasing' (I do apologise for using
that word) to add colour to my palette.
I have always danced this by moving up (or down) the side without
too much of a curve out of the set and then dancing in to greet the
lady and help her complete the turn on the same arc that I have used.
In a packed ballroom one cannot dance out of the set that much
anyway and it means that I dance two short and two long and it
reduces the effort for the lady - but still stay with the music, of
course. :)
Cheers, Ron :)

< 0 Ron Mackey,(Purveyor of Pat's Party Pieces)
'O> Mottingham,
/#\ London. UK.
l>
Ron.Mackey@btinternet.com

Ladies chain

Message 29330 · ron.mackey · 27 Jan 2002 11:19:29 · Top

Hi,
Just re-read this --- Of course I meant two and a half paxes
across the set. Just hit the wrong key - Well it was nearly 1
a.m.and we had just returned from a Burns Supper !
After the speeches they crammed in 20 dances !! They're mad !!

>
> Hi, Malcolm
> Do I take it that you are requiring all to dance the same distance
> for each two bars? That each dance the whole eight bars without
> any change of speed? What size of set do you propose?
> If the standard set is still 4 + 1/2 paces across and the dancers
> are one arm's distance apart on the sides something of what you
> propose is not possible.
Cheers, Ron :)

< 0 Ron Mackey,(Purveyor of Pat's Party Pieces)
'O> Mottingham,
/#\ London. UK.
l>
Ron.Mackey@btinternet.com

Re:Poussette & Technique

Message 29248 · ron.mackey · 24 Jan 2002 02:06:41 · Top

. One example that pops to mind is the new version
> of the strathspey poussette, in which the turns must drift to form
> the diagonals. Interestingly, in the original version of strathspey
> poussette, the turns did not drift.
>
> I wonder if drifting turns come from people messing up what used to
> be very nice, symmetrical figures? ;))
>
> Cheers, Oberdan.

Hi, Oberdan
I have long felt that it was a mistaken understanding by a top
instructor of the expression "on the diagonal". I feel it meant
"away from the vertical" but it was taken to mean a single line from
corner to corner.
One of my early teachers was an ex-army man and he would tell us to
"square up your lines" but, of course he didn't mean stand in a
square.
The words "on the diagonal" allows two couples to be side by side
but not on the square and, looking down the set from the top a
teacher would see two lines of bodies not four. One thing I do know;
when I started dancing we did the strathspey poussette as illustrated
in the back of full version of Book 20.
Incidentally, have a look at the diagram in the pocket version
of Book 20 for Miss Ogilvie's Fancy and even more so on Page 48.
It's the good old diamond poussette!! Not a single diagonal line in
sight although the teacher _would_ see three lines of bodies! :)

A propos technique, get a music player and music and a pier glass
(full length) and then stand in front of the glass to practise your
steps. I could dance four steps forward and four back in our hall
at home without upsetting the rest of the family too much.
There's nothing like seeing yourself in action to understand why
Teacher is frowning ! :)
Cheers, Ron :)

< 0 Ron Mackey,(Purveyor of Pat's Party Pieces)
'O> Mottingham,
/#\ London. UK.
l>
Ron.Mackey@btinternet.com

Technique

Message 29263 · Brian Charlton · 24 Jan 2002 22:14:55 · Top

G'Day, All,

Ron is quite right (I presume he means a cheval mirror or similar when he
says a pier glass - that had me for a moment) There is nothing like seeing
yourself in action.

I have used a video camera for this purpose (in special step and formation
clinic days). As teacher, I was able to review the video over the
intervening week and give each dancer a personal written critique with
suggestions for improvement. It was hard work!!

When the class is viewing the video, I can assure you that they are looking
at themselves and not the others!

Naturally, there is 'on-the-fly' coaching and repeat exercises so that the
dancers can see for themselves how they 'take direction' (that's what
theatre directors love - actors who can 'take direction', not the ones who
know it all).

Brian Charlton,
Sydney, Australia.

> A propos technique, get a music player and music and a pier glass
(full length) and then stand in front of the glass to practise your
steps. I could dance four steps forward and four back in our hall
at home without upsetting the rest of the family too much.
There's nothing like seeing yourself in action to understand why
Teacher is frowning ! :)
Cheers, Ron :)

< 0 Ron Mackey,(Purveyor of Pat's Party Pieces)
'O> Mottingham,
/#\ London. UK.
l>
Ron.Mackey@btinternet.com

Technique

Message 29271 · Steve Wyrick · 25 Jan 2002 02:01:45 · Top

Brian Charlton wrote:

> G'Day, All,
>
> Ron is quite right (I presume he means a cheval mirror or similar when he
> says a pier glass - that had me for a moment) There is nothing like seeing
> yourself in action.

I agree! Our performance group recently moved into a studio that has
mirrors along one wall and it was a rude awakening for me to see what I look
like dancing! It has been really helpful to have that feedback, though.
--
Steve Wyrick <sjwyrick@earthlink.net> -- Concord, California

Pier Glass

Message 29297 · ron.mackey · 25 Jan 2002 18:37:21 · Top

> At 22:10 24/01/02, you wrote:
> >I presume he means a cheval mirror or similar when he
> >says a pier glass -
>
> ???
> I used to think I understood English -- never heard either of those
> expressions. Which side of the Atlantic/which hemisphere do they inhabit?

Hi, Martin
We are referring to a full length mirror. I believe that 'Pier
Glass' is the name caused by the fact that on Victorian Piers ( you
know, the structures that were built out from the beaches so that one
could be over the sea without getting wet) there were always long
glasses so that one could check on one's clothing for wind & weather
disarrangement before going into the theatre or ballroom.
Don't know about Cheval Glass. Could they be similar, sited on the
exit from stables??
Echo's from a bygone age! :)
Nowadays they would probably be called 'a full length mirror'. How
dull !!

Cheers, Ron :)

< 0 Ron Mackey,(Purveyor of Pat's Party Pieces)
'O> Mottingham,
/#\ London. UK.
l>
Ron.Mackey@btinternet.com

Pier Glass

Message 29299 · Andrew Buxton · 25 Jan 2002 18:47:06 · Top

Ron Mackey wrote:

We are referring to a full length mirror. I
believe that 'Pier
Glass' is the name caused by the fact that on Victorian Piers (
you
know, the structures that were built out from the beaches so
that one
could be over the sea without getting wet) there were always
long
glasses so that one could check on one's clothing for wind &
weather
disarrangement before going into the theatre or ballroom.

I think there is some popular etymology here. They're older than
Victorian piers. In stately homes they were fixed to the bits of walls
between the windows, which are called piers! They were probably
intended more for making the room look grander than for straightening
one's sporran. But I've no idea whether cheval glasses were for
checking the grooming of horses (or their riders).

Andrew Buxton
Brighton

Pier Glass

Message 29373 · Brian Charlton · 29 Jan 2002 01:26:41 · Top

G'Day,

I am (originally) English, Martin. I had not heard of a 'pier glass', but
from my youth I was familiar with the term 'cheval mirror'.

The 'New Oxford Dictionary of English' defines a pier glass as 'a large
mirror, used originally to fill a wall space between windows'. It defines a
cheval mirror as 'a tall mirror fitted at its middle to an upright frame so
that it can be tilted'. The cheval mirror is given as originating in the
19th century, cheval from the french in the sense 'frame'.

I always thought a cheval mirror was narrow and on castors so that it could
be moved around and is used by dressmakers. We have one in our house (in
Australia) and I am sure we had one in our 'small' house in England when I
was a lad. I also know that we often referred to it as a 'shovel' mirror,
i.e you could 'shove' it around. I guess you could even practice a reel-time
poussette with it!!

Brian Charlton,
Sydney, Australia.

-----Original Message-----
From: ron.mackey@mail.btinternet.com
[mailto:ron.mackey@mail.btinternet.com]
Sent: Saturday, 26 January 2002 4:36 AM
To: strathspey@strathspey.org
Subject: Pier Glass

> At 22:10 24/01/02, you wrote:
> >I presume he means a cheval mirror or similar when he
> >says a pier glass -
>
> ???
> I used to think I understood English -- never heard either of those
> expressions. Which side of the Atlantic/which hemisphere do they inhabit?

Hi, Martin
We are referring to a full length mirror. I believe that 'Pier
Glass' is the name caused by the fact that on Victorian Piers ( you
know, the structures that were built out from the beaches so that one
could be over the sea without getting wet) there were always long
glasses so that one could check on one's clothing for wind & weather
disarrangement before going into the theatre or ballroom.
Don't know about Cheval Glass. Could they be similar, sited on the
exit from stables??
Echo's from a bygone age! :)
Nowadays they would probably be called 'a full length mirror'. How
dull !!

Cheers, Ron :)

< 0 Ron Mackey,(Purveyor of Pat's Party Pieces)
'O> Mottingham,
/#\ London. UK.
l>
Ron.Mackey@btinternet.com

mystified

Message 29277 · Martin.Sheffield · 25 Jan 2002 09:38:13 · Top

At 22:10 24/01/02, you wrote:
>I presume he means a cheval mirror or similar when he
>says a pier glass -

???
I used to think I understood Englsih -- never heard either of those
expressions. Which side of the Atlantic/which hemisphere do they inhabit?

mystified

Message 29283 · Pia Walker · 25 Jan 2002 12:13:35 · Top

I would interpret is as a mirror where you can see your feet :>) a make-up
mirror is not very good :>) :>) :>)

Have a nice weekend all

Pia
----- Original Message -----
From: Martin S <martin.sheffield@wanadoo.fr>
To: <strathspey@strathspey.org>
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2002 7:53 AM
Subject: mystified (was: Technique)

> At 22:10 24/01/02, you wrote:
> >I presume he means a cheval mirror or similar when he
> >says a pier glass -
>
> ???
> I used to think I understood Englsih -- never heard either of those
> expressions. Which side of the Atlantic/which hemisphere do they inhabit?
>

mystified

Message 29286 · Andrew Buxton · 25 Jan 2002 13:27:02 · Top

Martin,

According to the Concise Oxford Dictionary, a cheval glass is swung on a
frame whereas a pier glass is any large mirror. I have heard pier
glasses referred to when visiting stately homes. Most of us don't have
room for either in our (UK) houses!

Andrew Buxton,
Brighton

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin S [SMTP:martin.sheffield@wanadoo.fr]
> Sent: 25 January 2002 07:54
> To: strathspey@strathspey.org
> Subject: mystified (was: Technique)
>
> At 22:10 24/01/02, you wrote:
> >I presume he means a cheval mirror or similar when he
> >says a pier glass -
>
> ???
> I used to think I understood Englsih -- never heard either of those
> expressions. Which side of the Atlantic/which hemisphere do they
> inhabit?
>

mystified

Message 29290 · SallenNic · 25 Jan 2002 14:22:41 · Top

The eastern side of the Atlantic, Martin! Visit many 'Stately Homes' in
Britain, and somewhere in the guide book the chances are you'll find
reference to a cheval mirror or a pier glass. I believe a cheval mirror is a
mirror on a tiltable stand which shews the whole body, whereas a pier glass
is a tall narrow mirror mounted on the wall above a side table or mantlepiece
(often in pairs at either side of the item they top).

Nicolas B., Lanark, Scotland.

Mirror, mirror

Message 29303 · Dianna Shipman · 25 Jan 2002 22:48:44 · Top

When I first started dancing the office building where I worked had floor to
ceiling mirrors at the end of each hallway - anytime no one was around and
sometimes when they were I'd practice my steps up and down the hallways - I
even picked up a couple of new dancer prospects that way :-)

Dianna
Houston, TX, USA

----- Original Message -----
From: <SallenNic@aol.com>
To: <strathspey@strathspey.org>
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2002 7:22 AM
Subject: Re: mystified (was: Technique)

| The eastern side of the Atlantic, Martin! Visit many 'Stately Homes' in
| Britain, and somewhere in the guide book the chances are you'll find
| reference to a cheval mirror or a pier glass. I believe a cheval mirror is
a
| mirror on a tiltable stand which shews the whole body, whereas a pier
glass
| is a tall narrow mirror mounted on the wall above a side table or
mantlepiece
| (often in pairs at either side of the item they top).
|
| Nicolas B., Lanark, Scotland.
|

Pier Glass

Message 29306 · ron.mackey · 26 Jan 2002 00:30:32 · Top

Apologies for disseminating erroneous information. I see that a
small boy's stream of questions occasionally outstreched the
knowledge of his kindly senior friend. :~)

Cheers, Ron :)

< 0 Ron Mackey,(Purveyor of Pat's Party Pieces)
'O> Mottingham,
/#\ London. UK.
l>
Ron.Mackey@btinternet.com

Ladies chain

Message 29193 · Martin.Sheffield · 21 Jan 2002 20:18:03 · Top

Ron wrote:

>If however the ladies on bar 2 dance towards the mens place then you get a
>nice wide sweeping turn with the left hand and the whole figure looks so
>much nicer.

Hear, hear !
(Forgive me this once)
That's the way I like to see it done.

Martin
in Grenoble, France
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/scots.in.france/index.htm

Ladies chain

Message 29194 · Fyreladdie · 21 Jan 2002 20:26:19 · Top

In a message dated 1/21/02 11:19:00 AM, martin.sheffield@wanadoo.fr writes:

<<
Hear, hear !
(Forgive me this once)
That's the way I like to see it done.
>>

Here, Here! And I'll raise you an Amen!
Not to be flip, but I do enjoy watching the flow of a dance and I feel that
some things are more interpretive, than hard fast rules. I believe it was
Miss Millgan, herself, who said that she would prefer the dancing to be less
ridged and rule bound. It is supposed to be fun and look good too.

Bob Mc Murtry
Felton, Calif

Ladies chain

Message 29198 · SMiskoe · 21 Jan 2002 23:17:46 · Top

i can't remember the exact timing of the confrontation but the East Coast
Americans did the ladies' chain with wide sweeping turns and the man did a
loopy move into the ladies' place so that the figure looked like a
collections of ovals. The examiners arrived and were horrified and quickly
retaught the figure to look like a 'Z' with the men dancing tightly up to the
ladies' place and the ladies dancing diagonally across to meet the men, they
turned very tightly and repeated back to place. The figure tended to look as
though the dance floor was crowded.
Happy discussing.
Sylvia Miskoe, Concord, NH USA

Ladies chain

Message 29206 · RON TAYLOR · 22 Jan 2002 09:51:51 · Top

Well the consensus of opinion appears to be that the Manual description of
Ladies Chain is not the way people prefer it or have indded learnt it. H
owever it is Bobs response which I really teake to heart - Miss Milligan's
comment that
the interpretation of dances be less rigid; as previously commented we do
dances by tradition or by custom and these may in fact vary fro place to
place.
I continue to believe that the RSCDS examiners should not be rigid in theire
interpretation of movements, one think I most dislike is going to a dance
and hearing people "tut tutting" because one dance has just happened to do
something slightly differant. So let's all learn to dance, read the manual
for guidance and then put it on the bottom shelf and restore SCD to it's
social nature
Ron
----- Original Message -----
From: <Fyreladdie@aol.com>
To: <strathspey@strathspey.org>
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2002 7:25 PM
Subject: Re: Ladies chain

>
> In a message dated 1/21/02 11:19:00 AM, martin.sheffield@wanadoo.fr
writes:
>
> <<
> Hear, hear !
> (Forgive me this once)
> That's the way I like to see it done.
> >>
>
> Here, Here! And I'll raise you an Amen!
> Not to be flip, but I do enjoy watching the flow of a dance and I feel
that
> some things are more interpretive, than hard fast rules. I believe it was
> Miss Millgan, herself, who said that she would prefer the dancing to be
less
> ridged and rule bound. It is supposed to be fun and look good too.
>
> Bob Mc Murtry
> Felton, Calif
>

Previous thread: Espie McNab
Next thread: The Magic Sounds of Jimmy Shand
A Django site.