Oct. 5, 2001, 10:53 a.m. (Message 27759, in reply to message 27744)
In article <xxxxxxxx.xxxxxx.-xxxxxx.x.xxxxxxxxxxx@xxxx.xxx>, Miriam L. Mueller <xxxxxxxxxxx@xxxx.xxx> writes >Adam Hughes wrote: >. . . I mentioned Pilling as an example of the worst case since if people > >could understand that, surely they'd have no trouble at all with mere >words... > >Ah, no, Adam. Pillings are symbols, and my mind wraps around such symbols >differently from words. Many dancers are comfortable with one but not the >other. And then there's the eyeglass factor: I can distinguish pillings >without my glasses, but cannot read the printed words. > >Attended a beginners' class once where the teacher displayed a large >chart of the pillings for the dances she was teaching. As she taught a >figure, or walked through a dance, she would point to the pillings >representation. Classic teaching technique: visual as well as auditory >and kinetic presentation. Great class. > >Miriam Mueller, San Francisco Excellent. I find Pillings symbols generally to be clear and understandable and to date have not come across the many errors that are always raised by those who don't like Pillings. I do agree that there are instances where P. doesn't completely explain the transition from one figure to another but I am annotate my copy as I resolve such points. When I first went to classes I was rebuked by the teacher for reviewing the Pillings notes for each dance after we had danced it. I don't have any respect for a teacher with that attitude. As a musician I am accustomed to symbols and would never start to play the Dashing White Sergeant by referring to a text which went - longish D, repeat, short D, short E short Fsharp etc. Pillings actually contains the solution to a lot of dancers problems with the instructions for dances but teachers MUST try to teach them how to use the symbols. Bryan McAlister B Arch RIBA ARIAS Web page www.bryanmac.demon.co.uk Email xxxxx@xxxxxxxx.xxxxx.xx.xx Mobile phone 07801 793849 FAX number - 0870 052 7625