Thread
Index
Moving out of the way. Was: Strathspey Setting
Patricia Ruggiero
Jan. 25, 2002, 5:03 a.m. (Message 29273)
Priscilla wrote, in response to Marjorie's remarks about English dancers moving out of the way: "You ae describing the ways I was taught to dance in squares, contras, English, --- and Scottish (by Miss M herself)" May I offer the opposite view? I learned ECD in the mid-80s, from an Englishman, in Washington, D.C., and he did not teach such movement. My husband learned ECD in the 70s from Barbara Harding (still teaching, in northern Virginia), who herself had learned from May Gadd, and Barbara does not teach that. More recently, the noted British caller Colin Hume admonishes against such pronounced movement. We observe that practice becoming ever more common, including at Pinewoods; we refrain from doing it ourselves, seeing it as drawing attention away from the active dancers and as cluttering the clean line of the set. If it is absolutely necessary to move, then we make the minimum, most discreet movement. One situation that seems to require some movement from the supporting dancers is when the two men, starting from their own side, cross through the two women and cast back to each other's place, and then the two women do as much. There usually isn't room for the casting dancers to fit between the standing dancers of adjacent minor sets. See "Juice of Barley" for an example of this. As supporting dancers we take a small step to the side to allow the active dancers to pass by, and then take a small sidestep back to place. Pat Charlottesville, Virginia USA
Patricia Ruggiero <xxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> writes:
> We observe that practice becoming ever more common, including at Pinewoods;
> we refrain from doing it ourselves, seeing it as drawing attention away from
> the active dancers and as cluttering the clean line of the set.
>
> If it is absolutely necessary to move, then we make the minimum, most
> discreet movement.
I also think that the standing dancers shouldn't shift around all the
time as a matter of course, however »helpful« it may appear. If there
isn't enough room, moving around a bit is naturally preferable by far
(and more sociable) to the active dancers having to squeeze through all
sorts of tight places.
However in a normal-sized set I don't believe it is really necessary
for, say, a corner to step inside the set and out again during a »half
figure of eight« to shorten an active dancer's path except in very
unusual circumstances. After all we teach dancers how to phrase their
movements to take into account the »lines« of the set (along the sides
and across), and it would be rather more difficult if these were
constantly moving about due to people stepping back and forth and right
and left.
Anselm
--
Anselm Lingnau .......................................... xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx
Any girl can be glamourous. All you have to do is stand still and look stupid.
-- Hedy Lamarr
In a message dated 1/25/2002 3:40:10 AM Eastern Standard Time, xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx writes: > I also think that the standing dancers shouldn't shift around all the > time as a matter of course, however »helpful« it may appear. If there > isn't enough room, moving around a bit is naturally preferable by far > (and more sociable) to the active dancers having to squeeze through all > sorts of tight places. I agree with Anselm. In certain 'crowded hall' situations it is necessary to adjust slightly.... but if you're not careful, there are people stepping in and out and up and down and the dance looses it's shape, and becomes confusing to the dancing couple. Especially in strathspey setting on the side line, (which is how I think this thread began), just take a smaller setting step. Be aware of the standing dancers, try not to dance into them, behind them or especially in front of them. (something I find very rude ;-)) In normal circumstances , phrasing and teamwork should make it unnecessary for adjustment and movement from the 'standing' couples. Happy Friday!..... I'm off to work. Elaine, N. Virginia, USA
In a message dated 25/1/02 8:40:16 am, xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx writes: >I also think that the standing dancers shouldn't shift around all the > >time as a matter of course, however »helpful« it may appear. If there > >isn't enough room, moving around a bit is naturally preferable by far > >(and more sociable) to the active dancers having to squeeze through all > >sorts of tight places. > > > >However in a normal-sized set I don't believe it is really necessary > >for, say, a corner to step inside the set and out again during a »half > >figure of eight« to shorten an active dancer's path except in very > >unusual circumstances. After all we teach dancers how to phrase their > >movements to take into account the »lines« of the set (along the sides > >and across), and it would be rather more difficult if these were > >constantly moving about due to people stepping back and forth and right > >and left. YES!!! Nicolas B., Lanark, Scotland.
> May I offer the opposite view? > > I learned ECD in the mid-80s, from an Englishman, in Washington, D.C., and > he did not teach such movement. My husband learned ECD in the 70s from > Barbara Harding (still teaching, in northern Virginia), who herself had > learned from May Gadd, and Barbara does not teach that. More recently, the > noted British caller Colin Hume admonishes against such pronounced movement. > We observe that practice becoming ever more common, including at Pinewoods; > we refrain from doing it ourselves, seeing it as drawing attention away from > the active dancers and as cluttering the clean line of the set. > Pat Hi, Pat If one is dancing in a demonstration then fine guidelines need to be set but the big lesson is that in social dancing (as in any art) it is up to the person involved. Surely there can be no rules for an individuals feeling for social behaviour? Once again, if you ask for a rule, you will get one. Even if it is not strictly necessary. Cheers, Ron :) < 0 Ron Mackey,(Purveyor of Pat's Party Pieces) 'O> Mottingham, /#\ London. UK. l> xxx.xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx
Thank you, Patricia and Nicholas for giving me another view of this practice from ECD experience much more extensive than mine. I am not sure I was ever "taught" to move in this manner, rather I picked up the habit from observation and it was never corrected. But I will say that most of the time I found it to be done with minimal fuss and certainly not as a distraction from the dancing couple. The practice appeared to be a "freer" and less rigid way of accommodating the movement of couples around one another. This seems analogous to the method of stepping up or down in ECD which is commonly done with the couple taking hands and moving together, or when couples stay closer to the center of the set after a back to back and before beginning changes of a circular hey. I may be running afoul of approved practice but I confess that the freer movement appealed to me after many years of "this is the only way thus-and-such can be done" classes in SCD. I'm not advocating uncontrolled abandon as I enjoy the well-executed dance and figure, but my overriding motivation is always the joy of the music and the joy of the social interaction and if that means freer movement, I plead guilty. Marjorie McLaughlin San Diego, CA > If it is absolutely necessary to move, then we make the minimum, most > discreet movement. One situation that seems to require some movement from > the supporting dancers is when the two men, starting from their own side, > cross through the two women and cast back to each other's place, and then > the two women do as much. There usually isn't room for the casting dancers > to fit between the standing dancers of adjacent minor sets. See "Juice of > Barley" for an example of this. As supporting dancers we take a small step