Oberdan Otto Nov. 6, 2001, 11:29 p.m. (Message 28064)
Re: Changing of hands.
>[Anselm:] As far as Dalkeith's Strathspey is concerned, personally I >don't think >crossing one's partner over with the right hand after leading down the >middle and up is enough of a bother as to imply leading down the middle >with a left hand instead, and I wouldn't suggest it to my class, but if >anybody desperately wanted to do it on these grounds I'd say feel free. >It's not as if it were a nuisance to the rest of the set. Although I am one to prefer the "natural hand" lead (opening away from the body centerline), I agree with Anselm on this one. >[Martin:] I don't remember anyone suggesting leading *down* LHJ. >There's no reason why one should not go down RHJ, change hands, then lead >up LHJ, This goes against a little personal rule of mine which says: "Don't change (hands or feet) until the change is needed. In this case there is no imperative that makes the left hand needed for the lead up. >[Martin:] or, alternatively, lead down RHJ, lead up RHJ (to respect the >Memory), and politely offer LH on bar 16 to help the lady over to face 2nd >man. This satisfies the my little personal rule, but then I think that a hand change at this point really isn't needed--probably OVERLY helpful! She knows where she is going, so a somewhat early release of hands allows both of you to get where you need to be. Oh! I see that Frans describes this very nicely: >[Frans:] At the end of lead down the middle and up, drop hands early >enough (end of bar 7) to have time to cross to your back to back >position. The lady goes in front and the man holds back a bit for >the crossing. Cheers, Oberdan. 184 Estaban Drive, Camarillo, CA 93010-1611 USA Voice: (805) 389-0063, FAX: (805) 484-2775, email: firstname.lastname@example.org